FOT Forum

FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: John Junk 2.0 on August 26, 2008, 08:07:08 PM

Title: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 26, 2008, 08:07:08 PM
If you glance at "Obama-Biden" it reads "Osama Bin Laden" in your brain.

Just sayin'. 

And no, I'm not a Fox News shill.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Spoony on August 26, 2008, 08:10:01 PM
That sounds like counter-revolutionary propaganda, comrade.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: derkins on August 26, 2008, 08:41:20 PM
weird, my brain doesn't do that.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on August 26, 2008, 09:44:51 PM
I think they might lose because the sheriff is a .....
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 26, 2008, 10:49:29 PM
I suspect it more likely that he'd lose because he's not an old white man.

(Not being a smart ass, just, you know... real talk and all that.)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 26, 2008, 10:54:49 PM
weird, my brain doesn't do that.

You're not reading fast enough.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on August 27, 2008, 12:12:58 AM
That sounds like counter-revolutionary propaganda, comrade.

PURGE!! PURGE!! PURGE!!!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 27, 2008, 12:14:25 AM
I have to admit the whole thing is a vaguely surreal turn of events, though.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: gravy boat on August 27, 2008, 05:56:25 AM
I think they might lose because the sheriff is a .....

I know. People have been telling me the "Bradley Effect" has not been a factor in some of the last major elections,like Virginia's goobernatorial, but I'm afraid.

I do hope to see lots of Obama ads tying McCain to Bush.  To my unsophisticated eyes/brain, that = success.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on August 27, 2008, 10:13:15 AM
When I read the title of this thread really fast, I just see "Diebold Voting Machines"

Funny how the mind plays tricks on you.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on August 27, 2008, 12:12:33 PM
chances are no matter what company makes the voting machines, the owner of the company will be a republican.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on August 27, 2008, 12:37:16 PM
Oh I don't care who made them as much as I care that they're built on what is basically a hackable access database, and they're fucked up... there are repairs that have to be made (because the machines drop votes, etc.) but Diebold is saying that it will take 2 years to get the changes approved by the elections committee or something.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/08/26/diebold-admits-flaw-in-voting-machine-for-a-decade/1

And why would you build a voting machine that includes a function that gives a coder (or admin) the ability to delete or change a vote. That should never even be an option!

I just think between that, and voters in poorer communities not being able to get to the polls (4 hours in line to vote in Ohio?), a close election like this can't be won by the dems.

This too: http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=18097
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on August 27, 2008, 12:42:32 PM
I want all my voting machines to be old 486s running Windows 98.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Spoony on August 27, 2008, 01:00:31 PM
democrats will lose because they are losers.  period, end of story.

But none of them could be assassinated with a cheeseburger. That matters down the line.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on August 27, 2008, 01:53:10 PM
Quote
I just think between that, and voters in poorer communities not being able to get to the polls

Every lower-middle/lower-class citizen I've ever spoken with about politics absolutely loves characters like Reagan and Bush. Does it seem contradictory? Sure. But there shouldn't be an assumption that 'disenfranchised' voters are going to vote Democratic.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on August 27, 2008, 02:01:41 PM
I'm sorry. I should have said poorer urban communities. I can guarantee that many of them will vote democratic. At least in the northeast and western parts of the country.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on August 27, 2008, 02:38:03 PM
Understood. But their voting habits are also countered by the massive 'heartland'. What's the Matter with Kansas? addresses all this with fairly depressing conclusions -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on August 27, 2008, 02:40:50 PM
True, but the states with the big electoral pull (FL, OH) have all had some major major problems allowing people to get to the polls...

The last two elections have scarred me. I honestly hope that Obama wins, but I don't think he will. It's just too much of a mess.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on August 27, 2008, 03:11:21 PM
That would definitely suck if the third election in a row came down to 51%/49% electoral margins and weird recounts. Ugh, let's hope not.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on August 27, 2008, 03:31:51 PM
It all depends on if the poor, urban communities go vote. I don't know if Obama has promised enough to those communities to get high participation. I hope I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on August 27, 2008, 07:17:00 PM
2008 Democratic National Convention > 2008 Olympics
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on August 27, 2008, 07:21:41 PM
I just don't get how Clinton supporters can't get behind Obama and will vote McCain. Could it be that they are so selfish that they'll take four years of McCain to give Hilary another shot in 2012? It's too bad Bloomberg didn't run because at least a lot of those lost votes wouldn't have gone to McCain.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on August 27, 2008, 07:36:11 PM
I think it's because when Clinton supports read "McCain" really fast they see "Clinton".



(And Bloomberg would never win b/c people always misread his name as Boogieman)

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 27, 2008, 07:37:37 PM
I think it's because when Clinton supports read "McCain" really fast they see "Clinton".



Totally.  Plus, even a Clinton supporter doesn't want to vote for Osama Bin Laden.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on August 27, 2008, 07:52:55 PM
David Duke would never win because a lot of people hate Duke basketball.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on August 27, 2008, 07:54:49 PM
No, no, that's way too obvious. Give the people a little credit here!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on August 27, 2008, 08:18:47 PM
Wait, does this mean since my name is Gilly Hitler, I have no chance to ever gain political office?  >:(
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on August 27, 2008, 09:38:26 PM
No, since Hitler can be misread as Hilton, you have a pretty good shot.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 27, 2008, 09:40:09 PM
Wait, does this mean since my name is Gilly Hitler

There's no such thing as bad publici...  ah, okay maybe there is.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on August 27, 2008, 09:40:43 PM
No, since Hitler can be misread as Hilton, you have a pretty good shot.

Only if the John McClane political ad backfires!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 27, 2008, 10:15:55 PM
Paris Hitler is pretty hot.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Spoony on August 28, 2008, 02:07:51 AM
As a registered member of The Anti-Masonic Party, I think this whole debate is bullshit.

"Take Back Our Pyramids!*"








*Registered Trademark of the Anti-Masonic Party
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 28, 2008, 06:32:39 PM
It's a Know Nothing Whig conspiracy!!


Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on August 28, 2008, 07:03:18 PM
2008 Democratic National Convention > 2008 Olympics

After being subjected to Melissa Etheridge's horrendous medly blasting at top volume while I was sitting in a rest stop eating a terrible fast-food meal, I might have to disagree with that.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on August 29, 2008, 12:09:19 AM
I'm not really a fan of Melissa Etheridge's music, I'm sure she's a delightful person, but anything on TV would be unappealing while eating horrible fast food at a interstate rest stop.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on August 29, 2008, 12:32:41 AM
Oh, yeah, I'm not denouncing her personality in any way. But that medley was terrible. The fast food just added to the torture.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on August 29, 2008, 09:01:09 AM
Sarah Palin?

Who's that?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on August 29, 2008, 09:54:44 AM
Stevie Wonder sounded perkier than usual.


I can't wait to see the NOOJ with special guest Tom Selleck, singing "Proud to be an American" at the Republican convention.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 29, 2008, 10:21:46 AM
Sarah Palin?

Who's that?

You have to forgive her, she's from Alaska.  News that a second political party exists hasn't even reached that state yet.

Either way, it leaves her suitably out of touch for the Republican ticket.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 29, 2008, 10:27:06 AM
Sarah Palin?

Who's that?

Also, when I read the name I see "Paris Stalin" who is just as hot as Paris Hitler.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on August 29, 2008, 10:55:58 AM
Sarah Palin?

Who's that?

Also, when I read the name I see "Paris Stalin" who is just as hot as Paris Hitler.


I just assumed she was the sister of Michael and they were courting the Python vote.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: gravy boat on August 29, 2008, 11:05:44 AM
Sarah Palin?

Who's that?

Also, when I read the name I see "Paris Stalin" who is just as hot as Paris Hitler.


I'm googling her Miss Alaska contestant pics.  Oohh, I like this Republican Party.  All is forgiven for the past eight years.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on August 29, 2008, 11:09:45 AM
This is a really gutsy pick, although it seems a little cynical to select a woman to court the angry female voters, Sarah Palin is a person of impeccable integrity, has a son in Iraq and can speak to energy issues.  Though I have a feeling that the contrast between the elderly McCain and the youthful (and not to mention really attractive) Palin might pose a problem.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on August 29, 2008, 11:11:44 AM
This is a really gutsy pick, although it seems a little cynical to select a woman to court the angry female voters, Sarah Palin is a person of impeccable integrity, has a son in Iraq and can speak to energy issues.  Though I have a feeling that the contrast between the elderly McCain and the youthful (and not to mention really attractive) Palin might pose a problem.

McCain picked Michael Palin as his running mate? He's wrested the geek vote away from Obama!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on August 29, 2008, 11:15:50 AM
This picture is really not helping so I'm not even gonna post it aw fuck it

(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/stills/obamajeep.gif)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on August 29, 2008, 11:17:26 AM
I hope the rest of the country idiotic women/men who vote according to gender misread "Palin" as "plain" and "Obama" as "woman".
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Chris L on August 29, 2008, 11:28:11 AM
Sarah Palin is a person of impeccable integrity,

Is that why one of the first things I read about her was "ethics investigation?"

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 29, 2008, 11:36:35 AM
Not sure what this would do for the angry female voter. 

Republican

Vice President

Settling for second best sort of defeats the point, don't ya think?

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on August 29, 2008, 11:41:10 AM
Not sure what this would do for the angry female voter. 

Republican

Vice President

Settling for second best sort of defeats the point, don't ya think?



Yeah, plus the fact that Palin is outspokenly against abortion rights. PLUS, according to some blogger from Alaska I just read in my superficial web-trawling for info (yeah - I know - not exactly hard evidence), there are tapes that have emerged that support these ethics charges against her.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on August 29, 2008, 11:41:56 AM
Sarah Palin is a person of impeccable integrity,

Is that why one of the first things I read about her was "ethics investigation?"



If I'm not mistaken she's done a lot to advance ethics in the otherwise notoriously corrupt Alaska, pushing through ethics bills, eliminating wasteful spending, as well as resigning from the oil commission because of her fellow party members' 'lack of ethics'.

The only thing I've read about her that smacks of impropriety is her pressuring for the firing a state trooper that was going through a divorce with her sister.

I'm sure we'll hear everything and thensome in the coming days.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on August 29, 2008, 11:43:21 AM
I've had just about enough of big salmon.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on August 29, 2008, 12:02:38 PM
Sarah Palin IS A PAWN!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on August 29, 2008, 12:09:38 PM
I've never heard of Sarah Palin until I looked at this thread this morning. Holy shit, now I'm getting my news from the FOT message board. This is bad. I need to start watching the Daily Show again.

This is a very perplexing pick. Philly Boy Roy told me that Alaska ain't even part of the United States. And it's 10 miles away from Russia! John McClane is secretly working for 'nem Russians! It's sick. I don't like it.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 29, 2008, 12:11:20 PM
It's easy to be pro-life in Alaska.  Half the women in the state do not reasonably have access to the procedure in the first place and probably married the guy the first or second guy they met.

Alaskan values and realities do NOT translate to the lower 48. 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: AllisonLeGnome on August 29, 2008, 12:14:59 PM
I've never heard of Sarah Palin until I looked at this thread this morning. Holy shit, now I'm getting my news from the FOT message board. This is bad. I need to start watching the Daily Show again.


I had the same reaction.  :-[ In my defense, things have been more than a bit chaotic.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on August 29, 2008, 12:20:19 PM
Not sure what this would do for the angry female voter. 

Republican

Vice President

Settling for second best sort of defeats the point, don't ya think?



You might have a point there... this kind of gambit didn't exactly work for even a Democrat like Walter Mondale in 1984.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 29, 2008, 12:42:31 PM
Certainly makes you think McCain didn't buy into his own "lack of experience" rhetoric.

Oh crap, a flip flop!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on August 29, 2008, 12:43:27 PM
you guys crack me up.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on August 29, 2008, 01:12:21 PM
I've never heard of Sarah Palin until I looked at this thread this morning. Holy shit, now I'm getting my news from the FOT message board. This is bad. I need to start watching the Daily Show again.

This is a very perplexing pick. Philly Boy Roy told me that Alaska ain't even part of the United States. And it's 10 miles away from Russia! John McClane is secretly working for 'nem Russians! It's sick. I don't like it.



If you depend on the Daily Show, you would not hear about this until Tuesday. Depend on the FOT message board, it is our only hope!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trotskie on August 29, 2008, 01:35:34 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dwzk3g-lB0[/youtube]

to be fair, I'm not exactly sure myself.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Jennifer on August 29, 2008, 01:51:28 PM
I've never heard of Sarah Palin until I looked at this thread this morning. Holy shit, now I'm getting my news from the FOT message board. This is bad. I need to start watching the Daily Show again.


I had the same reaction.  :-[ In my defense, things have been more than a bit chaotic.

Me too! I know who she is, but didn't know she was running until I came in here. There was an article about her a few months ago in Vogue or Vanity Fair or one of those magazines and the only thing I remember is that the author said she could be "Tina Fey's older, sexier sister."

Not happy about this.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on August 29, 2008, 02:19:03 PM
Me too! I know who she is, but didn't know she was running until I came in here. There was an article about her a few months ago in Vogue or Vanity Fair or one of those magazines and the only thing I remember is that the author said she could be "Tina Fey's older, sexier sister."
Not happy about this.
I totally thought of Tina Fey when I looked up pics of Sarah Palin. Wouldn't be surprised if Tina does a guest spot portraying her on SNL this fall. Not sure why Vanity Fair had to dis Tina Fey with the "sexier" description of Palin. INTO THE HATE PIT, Vanity Fair! (You buncha snobs ...)

Quote from: Sarah Palin (via YouTube)
"What is it exactly that the VP does?"

Currently he runs the whole fuckin' country from an underground bunker. But hopefuly that won't be allowed to happen again ...

I've never heard of Sarah Palin until I looked at this thread this morning. Holy shit, now I'm getting my news from the FOT message board. This is bad. I need to start watching the Daily Show again.

If you depend on the Daily Show, you would not hear about this until Tuesday. Depend on the FOT message board, it is our only hope!

Thank you DFK ... I can always depend on you to put things in perspective.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on August 29, 2008, 02:39:30 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing the hotness.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 29, 2008, 02:40:41 PM
I'm with you, Beth.

Also, I think McCain's ready to teach me about the Power of Intention.
(http://www.insidesuccessradio.com/images/people/Dyer-Wayne%20Dyer.jpg)

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on August 29, 2008, 02:42:55 PM
I have been addicted to reading the comments on this blog for the past few days:

http://blog.pumapac.org/
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on August 29, 2008, 02:46:31 PM
FOTchan schooled me on how lousy women are at judging hotness, Beth.  

If some Hillary supporters vote for McCain simply because of his running mate, they should be shot.  On the bright side, women-hating Republicans may be disgusted by the choice; after all, it's a hell of a lot more possible that Palin could ascend to the throne than Biden.  Barring assassination, of course.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on August 29, 2008, 02:49:35 PM
Quote
[url]http://blog.pumapac.org/[/url]


^That site is pants-on-head stupid and every comment thread starts with grown women actually saying, "First!".
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on August 29, 2008, 03:02:15 PM
FOTchan schooled me on how lousy women are at judging hotness, Beth.  

If some Hillary supporters vote for McCain simply because of his running mate, they should be shot.  On the bright side, women-hating Republicans may be disgusted by the choice; after all, it's a hell of a lot more possible that Palin could ascend to the throne than Biden.  Barring assassination, of course.

Wow, there was quite a lot of violent imagery in that post.

And yes, a few women I've talked to today also have said they don't see how men find Gov. Palin 'hot'.  There's something about drawn up hair and glasses on a woman with a brilliant smile that strikes me as beautiful... but then again, I'm also a geek.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 29, 2008, 03:49:07 PM
Quote
[url]http://blog.pumapac.org/[/url]


^That site is pants-on-head stupid and every comment thread starts with grown women actually saying, "First!".

(http://blog.pumapac.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/obamatoga.jpeg)
Nice, um, coloration on the hand there.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on August 29, 2008, 04:10:51 PM
Now, not only are the Republican's feeding Fox with their news, they're pitching reality shows by picking America's Hottest Governor!

I'll be here all night.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: AllisonLeGnome on August 29, 2008, 04:20:15 PM
I thought I had broken my Rapture Ready (http://rr-bb.com) habit, but I just had to see what they had to say about this:

Quote
Just remember, God places people for a reason. And wouldn't it be an awesome testimony for God if the rapture happened during this time and she, as a known christian--whether she becomes vp or not...is raptured away?
Makes me wonder what God is up to! This is incredible that she has been given this opportunity....a real opportunity for witness.


Quote
Im so pumped up about this election now I could go beat up some Nephilim.


Quote
She cant be too much of a feminist, she has a husband.
The ones who aggravate me are the ones who hate men.


In other words, we're screwed. If Rapture Ready can't find a fanatical Jesus misinterpretation to justify hating someone, the less insane conservatives are sure to follow.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 29, 2008, 05:55:30 PM
Clearly McCain is aiming for the David Duchovny vote here.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: ericluxury on August 29, 2008, 06:01:46 PM
I've been scouring the internet for responses to the news and in most of the places I've seen, the response from women has been 'lets wait and see' or 'this is insulting'. Now most of the internet that I know of (honestly someone has to make an internet guide thats better than google, i want to find intelligent republican and/or moderate message boards and places to blog and google is no good at that), is pretty pro-Obama or Democrat leaning.
What are the chances that the women that McCain is trying to lure are turned off and/or insulted by the desperation of this move?

As for the hotness thing, I don't exactly get it. She is nice-looking, sure, but not that pretty. Far less pretty than Obama is handsome.  She looks a bit like Tina Fey I guess, but the way normal people look like celebrities. The difference in attractiveness between her and Hillary is not very big, not noteworthy. I guess people are making a big deal about it because of the beauty queen thing, but thats an Alaskan beauty contest. Alaska has by far the highest male-female ratio and thats not including the thousands of mostly men who go there to work. To say that Alaska is not a state of lookers would be an understatement.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 29, 2008, 06:04:48 PM
Quote
She cant be too much of a feminist, she has a husband.
The ones who aggravate me are the ones who hate men.

Wow!  Even Spike likes this lady!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 29, 2008, 06:18:47 PM
I think the decision is much more multi-faceted than simply to mooch Hillary supporters (which is an ill attempt at best). 

As far as hotness, meh...  there are a lot of attractive women out there.  Beautiful politically powerful women aren't as new as people are acting.   

 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on August 29, 2008, 06:25:55 PM
Someone posted this on Digg... don't know if it came from another source or if it's their own, but it makes 10 pretty convincing arguments why Palin is a good pick. When you think about it, McCain really had nobody to choose from other than Romney that could have gone toe to toe with Biden. It seems like he chose somebody that's going to attract the people that don't give a crap about debates.

1) Unlike the extremely uninspiring choice of Joe Biden by Barack Obama, the choice of Sarah Palin is absolutely electrifying the Republican base. In the minds of many Republicans this is a game changing choice, and the Republicans have not had something like this to get excited about in ages.

2) Sarah Palin is a mother of five, and this will help the Republicans to do much better with "soccer moms" which is always a key demographic.

3) Sarah Palin could also draw in some of the Hillary Clinton supporters who felt incredibly snubbed and disrespected by Barack Obama.

4) Sarah Palin's husband is a union member, and that will help McCain's campaign with blue collar workers who will be so key in states like Michigan and Ohio.

5) On September 11, 2007, the Sarah Palin's eldest son Track joined the Army. He serves in an infantry brigade and will be deployed to Iraq in September 2008. This will help McCain among the military and among military families.

6) On April 18, 2008, Sarah Palin gave birth to her second son, Trig Paxson Van Palin, who has Down syndrome. This will help McCain's campaign with groups that advocate for the disabled. Plus there is the sympathy factor.

7) McCain now has a chance to get social conservatives excited. Many social conservatives have been very suspicious of McCain, but Palin is strongly pro-life, a supporter of capital punishment, and belongs to Feminists for Life, and this will give social conservatives much more of a reason to come into McCain's camp.

8) In 1984, Palin was the runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, and as much as that shouldn't count, Americans are more shallow than ever. Americans prefer good looking people, and as sad as it is, the fact that she is attractive will win votes.

9) A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%. She has had consistently high approval ratings in Alaska, and that is a huge difference from the Republicans in Washington.

10) Speaking of the Republicans in Washington, this choice signals even more of a move away form the Bush administration, and this can only help McCain.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 29, 2008, 06:47:35 PM
I'm going to have as many children as possible so that each one of them will have one quality that I can usurp as a signifying quality of my own, which will then make me an attractive vice president choice when I decide to become a politician.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on August 29, 2008, 07:34:39 PM
Her children are named Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.  Discuss.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Jason on August 29, 2008, 07:58:20 PM
Buzzwords for 8/29/08

News Media - Experience, Pro-Choice, Soccer Mom.
Internet - Tina Fey, Tard Daughter, MILF.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on August 29, 2008, 08:07:01 PM
Her children are named Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.  Discuss.

Wow. Rock stars and movie stars are notorious for naming their kids after things that evoke astrology, mysticism and "exotic" cultures.

This is like the UltraCaucasian UltraChristian bizarro opposite of that naming trend.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 29, 2008, 08:13:45 PM
Yeah, can we stop with the drooling over Tina Fey already?  She's not all that sexy and we all know it.  It's like nobody can handle a woman being smart, funny, and better-than-Roseanne in the looks category.  Get over it!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 29, 2008, 08:26:13 PM
The biggest thing this nomination has succeeded in is stealing the media/gossip thunder of what by all accounts was a masterful speech by Obama and turned the discourse into lockerroom boy talk.

"Big election about little things", the Republicans are freaking masters of this as demonstrated again.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on August 29, 2008, 09:37:13 PM
Yeah, can we stop with the drooling over Tina Fey already?  She's not all that sexy and we all know it.  It's like nobody can handle a woman being smart, funny, and better-than-Roseanne in the looks category.  Get over it!

She's not all that funny either.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Raad_Man on August 29, 2008, 10:55:04 PM
yeah, but lots of guys find nerdy girls in glasses sexy.  i got on a big glasses porn kick once.  i found a dvd series called 'specs appeal.'  it was pretty good.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on August 29, 2008, 11:39:50 PM
Yeah, can we stop with the drooling over Tina Fey already?  She's not all that sexy and we all know it.  It's like nobody can handle a woman being smart, funny, and better-than-Roseanne in the looks category.  Get over it!

Respectfully, Tina Fey has been my go-to hottie for going on 6 years. You can have your Meg Whites, your Amy Winehouse's, I will take an attractive woman who shaves her pits.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Denim Gremlin on August 30, 2008, 12:26:29 AM
Yeah, can we stop with the drooling over Tina Fey already?  She's not all that sexy and we all know it.  It's like nobody can handle a woman being smart, funny, and better-than-Roseanne in the looks category.  Get over it!

I don't care about Tina Fey, I just want Liz Lemon
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on August 30, 2008, 12:38:06 AM
-- Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,700? Really? She'd be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

-- "Hot" if you'd like some "discipline" from a schoolmarmish woman. And even if you felt that way, are looks any basis from which to elect a Vice President? (I'm probably making this argument in vain; I think I already know the answer.)  Also, you know what they say about Anchorage: "The odds are good, but the goods are odd." That's supposed to refer to the surplus of men there and yet, paradoxically, their relative ineligibility.

-- Another Christian conservative in the White House?

We'd all be advised to think carefully.



Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 30, 2008, 01:00:31 AM
You can have your Meg Whites, your Amy Winehouse's, I will take an attractive woman who shaves her pits.

I'd rather not have these either, thanks.  That's why I'm trying to give them to you.  Come on, please?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 30, 2008, 01:03:15 AM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/29/us/30palin3.large.jpg)

This woman's office looks like one of those "What's Wrong With This Picture?" games on the video poker machines at bars.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on August 30, 2008, 06:36:41 AM
Her couch is part bear?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on August 30, 2008, 11:34:18 AM
Last night I had a dream that I was taking a walk in a strange city I didn't live in, and I walked by a Catholic nursery school where, in my dream reality, I was friends with one of the nuns that ran the school.  All the sudden this guy comes up in a cheap, tacky turquoise and leopard print track suit, and then I realize it's George W. Bush.  He tells me that if I wanna help him out anytime with some projects, well, he can't say exactly but it could work out well for me in the long run.  I start considering this, but figure being complicit in the schemes of the W is too low even for me.  But anyway, in order to give me an idea of what he's talking about he tells me how he used to have a car with a sun roof and there was a period of time where he'd be sleeping in his car because he was on the outs with his wife, and I guess the car would be parked in George H.W. Bush's garage or something, and his dad didn't like to see him drunk or something, so he said that he got someone to build a two-tiered system of platforms and mirrors so that if you looked down through the sun-roof from above (like from H.W.'s bedroom window) it looked like the car was completely empty. ( "meanwhile I'd be sleeping in there in my underwear!" -the W.)  So that was the kind of project he'd put me on if I wanted to help him out.  He said something like "Stay in school" to one of the kids, and then walked off, looking more like a drifter than one of the most powerful people on Earth.  I whispered to the kid "Hey!  Can you keep a secret?  That was the president of the United States, and he's out of his mind!"

I think this vision of the W. in my dream represents the future of the Republican party.  Which is not to say they're not going to keep winning elections.

Just thought I'd share!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on August 30, 2008, 12:11:42 PM
hmm Kurt Vonnegut-y.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: wwwes on August 30, 2008, 01:22:51 PM
Quote
Her children are named Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.  Discuss.
What gets me is that Track is now 19 years old, which means she named her kid that back when stupid names were something that weren't all the rage.

I like Sarah Palin, I just think she doesn't have any sort of national experience. Say what you want about Obama, he knows his shit. If William Kristol started talking at him about the rationale for the war in Iraq, he'd more than hold his own. Palin doesn't have any sort of understanding of foreign affairs, macroeconomics, inner city crime, farming, manufacturing, etc (though I'm sure she's getting a crash course as we speak). In four years time, she'd be an excellent candidate. As it is now, it is way too early, and the idea that John McCain has had melanomas and is two years older than his dad was when he died scares me. As Andrew Sullivan put it, picking Palin (after meeting her exactly once) tells us more about how serious John McCain is about the war than anything else.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Julie on August 30, 2008, 01:56:31 PM
I don't want to vote for Obama for personal reasons. He's about the same as every other politician and he went after one of my favorite people to get attention for himself. Obama really disappointed me and I hate talking to people who talk about him like he's Jesus Christ. He seems so wonderful only because he's handsome, his wife is pretty, and he's not a republican. I feel like it's my duty to vote for him and I'd rather not vote than vote for McCain, but it's hard to be excited. Clinton would have done a better job than either McCain or Obama.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on August 30, 2008, 02:06:00 PM
I hate talking to people who talk about him like he's Jesus Christ.

I don't agree with you about Hillary but I agree with you on this one. You don't need to be religious to know that if you place high amounts of faith in human beings you're going to be let down. I see all these people hanging on his every word and seeing him as America's savior. I think it's kind of sad, mostly because people are so unhappy with the country right now that they believe one man can save us.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on August 30, 2008, 02:25:04 PM
I don't want to vote for Obama for personal reasons. He's about the same as every other politician and he went after one of my favorite people to get attention for himself. Obama really disappointed me and I hate talking to people who talk about him like he's Jesus Christ. He seems so wonderful only because he's handsome, his wife is pretty, and he's not a republican. I feel like it's my duty to vote for him and I'd rather not vote than vote for McCain, but it's hard to be excited. Clinton would have done a better job than either McCain or Obama.

Who did he go after?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gibby on August 30, 2008, 02:40:22 PM
As an outsider, it really seems entirely obvious to vote for Obama. I really hope y'all do.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Julie on August 30, 2008, 02:48:17 PM
I hate talking to people who talk about him like he's Jesus Christ.

I don't agree with you about Hillary but I agree with you on this one. You don't need to be religious to know that if you place high amounts of faith in human beings you're going to be let down. I see all these people hanging on his every word and seeing him as America's savior. I think it's kind of sad, mostly because people are so unhappy with the country right now that they believe one man can save us.

How can we be good americans if we can't criticize the government? It's our duty as citizens. I remember saying something about the patriot act taking away our freedom when I was in school, and the entire class attacked me! I think Obama's supporters are just as childish. He's a person, so naturally there are negative things to say about him. And besides that, he's not going to fix all of the problems in our country. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't. Jimmy Carter is a great man, and he didn't fix everything. Everyone should watch Being There if they want to see the perfect president.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on August 30, 2008, 02:50:50 PM
I hate talking to people who talk about him like he's Jesus Christ.

I don't agree with you about Hillary but I agree with you on this one. You don't need to be religious to know that if you place high amounts of faith in human beings you're going to be let down. I see all these people hanging on his every word and seeing him as America's savior. I think it's kind of sad, mostly because people are so unhappy with the country right now that they believe one man can save us.


It's not what Obama can do for you, it's what Obama inspires you to do for your country.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Julie on August 30, 2008, 03:19:33 PM

Who did he go after?

The details aren't important. There was an investigation and people were cleared of responsibility before he got involved. He was wasting the time of people who really do have important things to do and really do care about people because he wanted publicity. I'm sure no one can blame him for that. That's what politicians do and he's only a politician. I don't care how he's being marketed to us, he is nothing but what we usually get. Still, I don't think he's going to lose and if people have to be blind to vote for him, then I hope people stay blind.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: masterofsparks on August 30, 2008, 04:29:12 PM
If he wins, I'm thinking Obama's going to have a really tough time in about 2 years when things haven't changed and it's seen as not fulfilling his campaign promises.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on August 30, 2008, 04:39:49 PM
The whole "HE'S JESUS CHRIST" thing is a republican talking point. Even the most ardent Obama supporters I know will preface their praise with "For a politician, he's..."

The people making the "Obama isn't Jesus!" argument remind me of indie kids distancing themselves from a band the second they get popular - it has nothing to do with his message, his politics, or even his marketing strategy, it's an argument against his perception among a group of people that do not exist.

If you've got something you actually don't like about him, that's fine - I do too. But please stop with this "HE'S OVERRATED" bullshit, because it's as empty as any other smear.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: buffcoat on August 30, 2008, 04:43:41 PM
The details aren't important.

I'll be the judge of that.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on August 30, 2008, 05:22:47 PM
                             
                    (http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t55/davebucket68/tomTomorrow.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Josh on August 30, 2008, 05:45:07 PM
I just wanted to thank everyone so far for eight pages of insightful, original, and often hilarious comments on this year's election. Some of you may want to take Tom's recent advice to East Village Cynthia to heart and add "allegedly" to the edgy, lidblowing statements you've made.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Matt on August 30, 2008, 07:02:47 PM
How can we be good americans if we can't criticize the government? It's our duty as citizens. I remember saying something about the patriot act taking away our freedom when I was in school, and the entire class attacked me! I think Obama's supporters are just as childish. He's a person, so naturally there are negative things to say about him. And besides that, he's not going to fix all of the problems in our country. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't. Jimmy Carter is a great man, and he didn't fix everything. Everyone should watch Being There if they want to see the perfect president.

So when's the trip to Oklahoma, young patriot?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on August 30, 2008, 07:50:59 PM
Commander-in-Chief didn't even last a full season so clearly America isn't ready for a lady VP to ascend to the Presidency.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Petey on August 30, 2008, 07:58:19 PM
I don't want to vote for Obama for personal reasons. He's about the same as every other politician and he went after one of my favorite people to get attention for himself. Obama really disappointed me and I hate talking to people who talk about him like he's Jesus Christ. He seems so wonderful only because he's handsome, his wife is pretty, and he's not a republican. I feel like it's my duty to vote for him and I'd rather not vote than vote for McCain, but it's hard to be excited. Clinton would have done a better job than either McCain or Obama.

Peter Sellers is cute.

your dogs mouth isnt that cute though.

=[
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on August 30, 2008, 11:37:42 PM
I don't want to vote for Obama for personal reasons. He's about the same as every other politician and he went after one of my favorite people to get attention for himself. Obama really disappointed me and I hate talking to people who talk about him like he's Jesus Christ. He seems so wonderful only because he's handsome, his wife is pretty, and he's not a republican. I feel like it's my duty to vote for him and I'd rather not vote than vote for McCain, but it's hard to be excited. Clinton would have done a better job than either McCain or Obama.

Peter Sellers is cute.

your dogs mouth isnt that cute though.

=[

That is NOT muh doug
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: AllisonLeGnome on August 31, 2008, 01:57:38 AM
The whole "HE'S JESUS CHRIST" thing is a republican talking point. Even the most ardent Obama supporters I know will preface their praise with "For a politician, he's..."

The people making the "Obama isn't Jesus!" argument remind me of indie kids distancing themselves from a band the second they get popular - it has nothing to do with his message, his politics, or even his marketing strategy, it's an argument against his perception among a group of people that do not exist.

If you've got something you actually don't like about him, that's fine - I do too. But please stop with this "HE'S OVERRATED" bullshit, because it's as empty as any other smear.

I totally agree. There are admittedly some people who had blind faith in him and were easily disappointed, but certainly the majority are in the "for a politician..." camp.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on August 31, 2008, 03:58:21 AM
I totally disagree. You guys are obviously not on Facebook to read your friends status updates.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Julie on August 31, 2008, 08:07:19 AM

Peter Sellers is cute.

your dogs mouth isnt that cute though.

=[

Peter Sellers is dead.

my dog's snout is cute.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Julie on August 31, 2008, 08:24:51 AM
How can we be good americans if we can't criticize the government? It's our duty as citizens. I remember saying something about the patriot act taking away our freedom when I was in school, and the entire class attacked me! I think Obama's supporters are just as childish. He's a person, so naturally there are negative things to say about him. And besides that, he's not going to fix all of the problems in our country. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't. Jimmy Carter is a great man, and he didn't fix everything. Everyone should watch Being There if they want to see the perfect president.

So when's the trip to Oklahoma, young patriot?

The stuff about being a good citizen was for everyone else. But why would I go to Oklahoma, anyway? I've been to Kansas and to Texas, and I probably won't go back to either of those places unless I have to. I don't have anything against them or against Oklahoma, but they're like Hawaii or Alabama and only exist for me when someone reminds me that they exist.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on August 31, 2008, 10:30:58 AM
I totally disagree. You guys are obviously not on Facebook to read your friends status updates.

All of the following comments are based solely on my interactions with friends and while they obviously can't be applied to everyone in their late teens/early 20s, I'm sure there are many others in similar situations.

This is the thing that worries me most about people my age voting for Obama (probably the way that I will also be voting).  For many of them, this will be their first time voting.  Most of them couldn't care less about politics but they've decided to vote this year and it has everything to do with the wave of Obama support coming from young voters.  It doesn't really matter what his positions are, they'll vote for him anyways, if for no other reason than fear of being left out of the group.  I saw this firsthand last summer when I saw Obama speak in Iowa City.  It was very apparent that a lot of people were just there because it was the cool place to be. Granted, this was before even the most informed people knew very much about the detailed positions of his campaign.  Obviously he's an electric speaker and a very charismatic man and I have no doubt that he would do a great job running the country.  It just worries me a little when people are so trusting of politicians, especially with everything that has gone on the last few years (Spitzer seems like the prime example).
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on August 31, 2008, 11:35:58 AM
Hate to say it, but I vote based on party just about every time. All I really care about is more government involvement in schools and healthcare (It's needed, no matter what libertarians will try to tell you... something needs to even both those playing fields or the social-economic gaps will just continue to grow. They are the basis of a strong country.) so I vote Dem every time. At least for presidential elections and senators.

So basically, cookie monster could be running against McCain and I'd still vote for him.

That said, I do believe Obama could do a good job. I think no matter who gets into office is going to be seen as a fuckup though, for not fixing these unfixable problems in the next two years. The country is just too fucked at this point for anything to happen quickly enough to appease the media and republican dirtbags if/once we have a Dem in office.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on August 31, 2008, 12:17:59 PM
Hate to say it, but I vote based on party just about every time. All I really care about is more government involvement in schools and healthcare (It's needed, no matter what libertarians will try to tell you... something needs to even both those playing fields or the social-economic gaps will just continue to grow. They are the basis of a strong country.) so I vote Dem every time. At least for presidential elections and senators.

So basically, cookie monster could be running against McCain and I'd still vote for him.


Amazing!  And all this time, EfB, I thought I had you pegged as a religious conservative Republican. How wrong I was!




yukyukyuk
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on August 31, 2008, 12:25:00 PM
It's easy to be pro-life in Alaska.  Half the women in the state 

Which is like, 4 people, including the governor.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on August 31, 2008, 12:32:22 PM
yeah, but lots of guys find nerdy girls in glasses sexy.  i got on a big glasses porn kick once.  i found a dvd series called 'specs appeal.'  it was pretty good.

What was it about?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on August 31, 2008, 02:44:17 PM
"With all due respect, again, to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years. He's been able, but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th-largest city in America. And, again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California, Aurora, Colorado, Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona, North Las Vegas, or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town. If he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice, where he's said, 'You know what? I'm really not first and foremost concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"


Karl Rove on Face the Nation, August 11
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on August 31, 2008, 04:57:25 PM
A blogger is speculating that Sarah Palin's child is actually her grandchild -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223


Is it me or are we seeing signs of partisanship creeping into the DailyKos website?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on August 31, 2008, 07:02:39 PM
Is it me or are we seeing signs of partisanship creeping into the DailyKos website?

Dunno, but the video of Juneau was an interesting watch (not for the Governor, for the city).
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 01, 2008, 12:49:00 PM
HOLD UP!

Palin's 17 year-old-daughter is pregnant?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/?hp (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/?hp)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: emma on September 01, 2008, 12:51:15 PM
HOLD UP!

Palin's 17 year-old-daughter is pregnant?

[url]http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/?hp[/url] ([url]http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/?hp[/url])


I was just about to post this!

I love US elections. They're so much more Days Of Our Lives than ours.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on September 01, 2008, 01:09:03 PM
Daily Kos? I misread it as Daily Hos

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/hippocatgeek/dilyhos.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 01, 2008, 02:39:19 PM
Juneau/Juno
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on September 01, 2008, 06:20:10 PM
I wonder if the Daily Kos crowd will remember that Barack Obama's mother was unwed and not much older than Bristol Palin when she was pregnant with him.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Come on, Jason on September 01, 2008, 06:22:45 PM
Poor girl. 

For her sake (and for every other reason I can think of), I hope her mom loses the election.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on September 01, 2008, 06:30:08 PM
I wonder if the Daily Kos crowd will remember that Barack Obama's mother was unwed and not much older than Bristol Palin when she was pregnant with him.

I hope the republican crowd will remember their idiotic abstinence-only programs they want in every school. Being this is America it's only idiotic, when they ship those programs overseas to areas where the people have no means then it becomes criminally immoral.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 01, 2008, 06:47:54 PM
I wonder if the Daily Kos crowd will remember that Barack Obama's mother was unwed and not much older than Bristol Palin when she was pregnant with him.

Yes, but Barack Obama's  grandmother wasn't running for vice-president of a party whose conservative members currently frown on teen sexual intercourse.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on September 01, 2008, 07:20:56 PM
I wonder if the Daily Kos crowd will remember that Barack Obama's mother was unwed and not much older than Bristol Palin when she was pregnant with him.

Yes, but Barack Obama's  grandmother wasn't running for vice-president of a party whose conservative members currently frown on teen sexual intercourse.

I totally agree that the fact that she's socially conservative and her daughter's circumstances makes this ironic and somewhat newsworthy, but I just find the kind of gleeful twittering about candidate's family matters in general distasteful.  And I'm sure Republicans would be reacting in a similar political way if a Democrat candidate's child made scandalous news contrary to liberal orthodoxy.  I guess what I was trying to point out is that these kind of things aren't necessarily anything new, and effect families on both sides of the aisle.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 01, 2008, 07:28:00 PM
I don't think Palin or McCain's view on abstinence has changed any, so I don't get why this is a big deal. Teaching abstinence only in schools is dumb but it's the daughter who made the "mistake" not Sarah Palin. It can be used to attack what's taught to teens but I don't think it should be used against Palin. I'd say it's a non-issue.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 01, 2008, 07:35:08 PM
I wonder if the Daily Kos crowd will remember that Barack Obama's mother was unwed and not much older than Bristol Palin when she was pregnant with him.

Yes, but Barack Obama's  grandmother wasn't running for vice-president of a party whose conservative members currently frown on teen sexual intercourse.

I totally agree that the fact that she's socially conservative and her daughter's circumstances makes this ironic and somewhat newsworthy, but I just find the kind of gleeful twittering about candidate's family matters in general distasteful.  And I'm sure Republicans would be reacting in a similar political way if a Democrat candidate's child made scandalous news contrary to liberal orthodoxy.  I guess what I was trying to point out is that these kind of things aren't necessarily anything new, and effect families on both sides of the aisle.

Not me! Nothing makes me happier than watching conservatives take a bite of the shit-sandwich they made for themselves.

I'm still a little baffled by all of this. It's been less than a week and Palin is already being torn to shreds - what the hell was McCain's campaign thinking? Once the VP debate rolls around, Palin is going to be calling up Harriet Myers to get the number for her therapist.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 01, 2008, 07:55:02 PM
I wonder if the Daily Kos crowd will remember that Barack Obama's mother was unwed and not much older than Bristol Palin when she was pregnant with him.

Yes, but Barack Obama's  grandmother wasn't running for vice-president of a party whose conservative members currently frown on teen sexual intercourse.




I totally agree that the fact that she's socially conservative and her daughter's circumstances makes this ironic and somewhat newsworthy, but I just find the kind of gleeful twittering about candidate's family matters in general distasteful.  And I'm sure Republicans would be reacting in a similar political way if a Democrat candidate's child made scandalous news contrary to liberal orthodoxy.  I guess what I was trying to point out is that these kind of things aren't necessarily anything new, and effect families on both sides of the aisle.

Not me! Nothing makes me happier than watching conservatives take a bite of the shit-sandwich they made for themselves.

I'm still a little baffled by all of this. It's been less than a week and Palin is already being torn to shreds - what the hell was McCain's campaign thinking? Once the VP debate rolls around, Palin is going to be calling up Harriet Myers to get the number for her therapist.

It reminds me of when Cheney's daughter was discovered to be a lesbian, years after rumors had circulated about it in the gay community. It didn't seem to have much impact on him, and this probably won't either. Hypocritical and anti-gay, yes, but consequential? It didn't seem like it, and sure didn't cause any soul-searching in the Republican ranks as far as I could see. Lynn Cheney seemed to dig in her heels and tried to play victim over how "tastelessly and hurtfully" the Democrats were trying to use it.  Fair game, I thought, for a homophobic VP and party platform. In fact, Kerry got some s-hit for bringing it up during a debate.

The disclosure about the Palin girl does raise some questions about the kind of vetting that the McCain campaign did, but then I haven't read the articles about this yet. So maybe I should shut up and read.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: AllisonLeGnome on September 01, 2008, 08:20:21 PM
I don't think Palin or McCain's view on abstinence has changed any, so I don't get why this is a big deal. Teaching abstinence only in schools is dumb but it's the daughter who made the "mistake" not Sarah Palin. It can be used to attack what's taught to teens but I don't think it should be used against Palin. I'd say it's a non-issue.

Because she's the one promoting what's taught to teens. It disproves her own policy.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 01, 2008, 08:40:44 PM
I read that McCain allegedly already knew the daughter was pregnant.  Don't know if I believe that though.  But if I did, there's a conspiracy theorist in me that thinks it's all part of some grand design, a weird baiting of Democrats and the left wing to jump on her and then to yell "For Shame" from the right wing when they do.  That seemed to be the tone of the article I read on CNN this morning.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on September 01, 2008, 08:45:06 PM
I don't think Palin or McCain's view on abstinence has changed any, so I don't get why this is a big deal. Teaching abstinence only in schools is dumb but it's the daughter who made the "mistake" not Sarah Palin. It can be used to attack what's taught to teens but I don't think it should be used against Palin. I'd say it's a non-issue.

Because she's the one promoting what's taught to teens. It disproves her own policy.

Not to be too academic here, but one case of anecdotal evidence, even in the politician's own family, doesn't disprove an entire policy.  Sound research saying abstinence only education is ineffective however...
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 01, 2008, 08:46:28 PM
That doesn't really matter though. Voters can decide if they agree with abstinence only teaching and vote accordingly- Palin isn't going to change her stance on it because her daughter is pregnant. What people are trying to do is try to sway people who think like Palin and try to convince them that she isn't who she says. But, that's not true at all, just because her daughter is having a baby doesn't mean she's not going to stand firm on her policies. If anything this is going to boost McCain's cred with pro-lifers.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 01, 2008, 08:52:37 PM
this is another perfect example of how BOTH SIDES use diversionary tactics to keep us from noticing what a shitty job they're all doing running our country.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on September 01, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
I wonder if the Daily Kos crowd will remember that Barack Obama's mother was unwed and not much older than Bristol Palin when she was pregnant with him.

Yes, but Barack Obama's  grandmother wasn't running for vice-president of a party whose conservative members currently frown on teen sexual intercourse.

OK, but how do you KNOW that?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on September 01, 2008, 09:30:03 PM
Juneau/Juno

Make with the Photoshoppery there, sonny boy!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 01, 2008, 09:47:53 PM
I read that McCain allegedly already knew the daughter was pregnant.  Don't know if I believe that though.  But if I did, there's a conspiracy theorist in me that thinks it's all part of some grand design, a weird baiting of Democrats and the left wing to jump on her and then to yell "For Shame" from the right wing when they do.  That seemed to be the tone of the article I read on CNN this morning.

That's exactly what I thought. And maybe a handful of sympathy votes could be marshaled from the whole thing?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on September 01, 2008, 10:07:01 PM
That's why I can't talk politics anyone, trying to draw a parallel between abstinence-only programs and legitimate sexual education I can't politely tell you to piss-off I can only tell you to piss ALL the way off down the road.

Abstinence-only in the class room and creationism aren't legitimate points of disagreement where we can just agree to disagree and nobody is wrong or right. That a giant man in the sky made the universe 6000 years ago or that people feel sexual urges because lack of morals isn't a legitimate debate and it's so beneath me to even pretend it is.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: AllisonLeGnome on September 01, 2008, 10:31:02 PM
I don't think Palin or McCain's view on abstinence has changed any, so I don't get why this is a big deal. Teaching abstinence only in schools is dumb but it's the daughter who made the "mistake" not Sarah Palin. It can be used to attack what's taught to teens but I don't think it should be used against Palin. I'd say it's a non-issue.

Because she's the one promoting what's taught to teens. It disproves her own policy.

Not to be too academic here, but one case of anecdotal evidence, even in the politician's own family, doesn't disprove an entire policy.  Sound research saying abstinence only education is ineffective however...

I guess what I mean is "contradict" more than "disprove." Bad word choice on my part.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Stan on September 01, 2008, 10:33:52 PM
Juneau/Juno


Make with the Photoshoppery there, sonny boy!


 Haven't seen this yet? It's not mine:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/alembic14/1220319894439.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 01, 2008, 10:39:29 PM
That's why I can't talk politics anyone, trying to draw a parallel between abstinence-only programs and legitimate sexual education I can't politely tell you to piss-off I can only tell you to piss ALL the way off down the road.

Abstinence-only in the class room and creationism aren't legitimate points of disagreement where we can just agree to disagree and nobody is wrong or right. That a giant man in the sky made the universe 6000 years ago or that people feel sexual urges because lack of morals isn't a legitimate debate and it's so beneath me to even pretend it is.



How many people are you talking to that actually believes that creationism should be taught in the classroom? I don't know many Christian's who believe that....

I have a question that I never considered until now... Is the religious right against all forms of birth control? I always thought that was a Catholic thing but the religious right is not known to be Catholic. I grew up Baptist and I was never taught that in church or youth group events and my parents never said anything against condoms or pills either. But, I thought I read that Palin was against all forms of birth control. I might be mistaken.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 01, 2008, 10:45:12 PM
Best I could do -

(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2592/junozl2.jpg)

I'm trying to think of a good text bubble/caption for what Juno would be saying. Something about the wiggedty wackedness of the situation.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on September 01, 2008, 10:59:19 PM
That's why I can't talk politics anyone, trying to draw a parallel between abstinence-only programs and legitimate sexual education I can't politely tell you to piss-off I can only tell you to piss ALL the way off down the road.

Abstinence-only in the class room and creationism aren't legitimate points of disagreement where we can just agree to disagree and nobody is wrong or right. That a giant man in the sky made the universe 6000 years ago or that people feel sexual urges because lack of morals isn't a legitimate debate and it's so beneath me to even pretend it is.



How many people are you talking to that actually believes that creationism should be taught in the classroom? I don't know many Christian's who believe that....

I have a question that I never considered until now... Is the religious right against all forms of birth control? I always thought that was a Catholic thing but the religious right is not known to be Catholic. I grew up Baptist and I was never taught that in church or youth group events and my parents never said anything against condoms or pills either. But, I thought I read that Palin was against all forms of birth control. I might be mistaken.

Palin's come out and said she wants creationism taught alongside evolution in schools. I don't care what people believe in their homes but when it comes to teaching kids facts or anybody really I don't want the guys designing my airplanes thinking it's fairy dust that keeps shit afloat. Way too much equivocation to republicans and their nutso base is why the country is in the condition it is now.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 01, 2008, 11:21:59 PM
How many people are you talking to that actually believes that creationism should be taught in the classroom? I don't know many Christian's who believe that....

Gilly, you and I may not know many Christians who believe creationism should be taught in the classroom, but there are legions and legions of Christians who do believe it. I am Christian and I am certainly not one of them. However, many school districts have fought over this, and in fact a major Supreme Court decision regarding the teaching of creationism in classrooms in a small Pennsylvania town considered and rejected that proposition sometime in the last year. This is a pitched battle in some parts of the country, perhaps not in New York City or more enlightened enclaves in the Upper Midwest or on the west coast.

Further, support for the teaching of creationism in public schools (even the removal of evolution in favor of creationism only in classrooms) has broad support in recent polls. This from Wikipedia (and I don't wanna hear any cracks from any of you wisenheimers about how lazy I am, going straight to Wikipedia):

* * *

In 2000, a poll by People For the American Way[71] estimated that:
20% of Americans believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% of Americans believe that only evolution should be taught in science classes—religious explanations should be taught in another class;
29% of Americans believe that Creationism should be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory;
13% of Americans believe that Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class;
16% of Americans believe that only Creationism should be taught;
According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).[74] (See the chart)
Less-direct anecdotal evidence of the popularity of creationism is reflected in the response of IMAX theaters to the availability of Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, an IMAX film which makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes. The film's distributor reported that the only U.S. states with theaters which chose not to show the film were Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina:
"We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said the director of an IMAX theater in Charleston that is not showing the movie. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution."

* * *

I don't mean to come off as preachy in any way, just to show some stats that indicate how widespread this phenomenon is. I was amazed, since I don't exactly talk about this issue around the water cooler at work or rub elbows, as far as I know, with many of creationism's proponents on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 01, 2008, 11:47:48 PM
That's why I can't talk politics anyone, trying to draw a parallel between abstinence-only programs and legitimate sexual education I can't politely tell you to piss-off I can only tell you to piss ALL the way off down the road.

Abstinence-only in the class room and creationism aren't legitimate points of disagreement where we can just agree to disagree and nobody is wrong or right. That a giant man in the sky made the universe 6000 years ago or that people feel sexual urges because lack of morals isn't a legitimate debate and it's so beneath me to even pretend it is.



How many people are you talking to that actually believes that creationism should be taught in the classroom? I don't know many Christian's who believe that....

Are you kiddin' me? There are tons and tons and tons of people who believe that.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 02, 2008, 12:29:26 AM

How many people are you talking to that actually believes that creationism should be taught in the classroom? I don't know many Christian's who believe that....


Are you kiddin' me? There are tons and tons and tons of people who believe that.


Definitely. There's lot of them , Gilly. If there weren't a substantial bloc of people who felt this way, we wouldn't have a president who felt confident enough to say things like this in public:

"Well, the jury is still out on evolution, you know..." GW Bush, September 2005.

"I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html)

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 02, 2008, 03:03:09 AM
How many people are you talking to that actually believes that creationism should be taught in the classroom? I don't know many Christian's who believe that....

Are you kiddin' me? There are tons and tons and tons of people who believe that.

What's to teach??  It's like one chapter in the Old Testament and then all further inquiry is shrugged with some aloof form of "wisdom".

"Because that's just the way it is." 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 02, 2008, 03:20:06 AM
I think the people who are fighting for creationism to be taught in public schools have their kids in private schools or are living in small towns where everyone agrees with them and are teaching it anyway. On a national level, they're fighting a losing battle because everybody else thinks they're insane. Sure, there are a lot of people who think the Bible belongs in the school, but they don't outnumber rational thinkers and I don't think we'll ever see the day where it's standard in the public school system.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 02, 2008, 03:47:35 AM

What's to teach??  It's like one chapter in the Old Testament and then all further inquiry is shrugged with some aloof form of "wisdom".

"Because that's just the way it is." 


Yeah, but they go a lot further than that. They've spent the last few decades inventing a bullshit "science" out of whole cloth. And they're pretty savvy about marketing it. There's a market out there ... all the people buying those "Left Behind" books,  for example. They've got a pretty sweet Creation Museum  (http://www.creationmuseum.org/) in the Cincinnati/Kentucky area. Looks like a nice day out for the family.

My stepdad recently retired from the engineering department at Virginia Tech, which is pretty well-respected for engineering. He had a couple of colleagues he complained about because they were advocates of the whole creationist thing. Granted, engineering isn't the same thing as the biological sciences ... but still, these guys are supposed to have some respect for the basic tenets of scientific inquiry, right? Right?? ?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 02, 2008, 04:03:41 AM
The Left Behind books/Christian marketing and teaching creation in the classroom are two entirely different things. Christians can read and buy whatever they want, it just shouldn't be taught as fact. I have no problem with the book of Genesis or the Left Behind books being read in a literature class. Not that Lahaye/Jenkins would ever be taught in American Lit 101.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 02, 2008, 05:26:04 AM
The Left Behind books/Christian marketing and teaching creation in the classroom are two entirely different things. Christians can read and buy whatever they want, it just shouldn't be taught as fact. I have no problem with the book of Genesis or the Left Behind books being read in a literature class. Not that Lahaye/Jenkins would ever be taught in American Lit 101.

I'm just saying that if the people who want creationism in the schools want to recruit soldiers to their cause ... they'll find them and put them to work.  And they can do it very effectively. The "Left Behind" demographic is just one of many places they can go. These folks are NOT stupid when it comes to outreach. As Fido and Trembling Eagle pointed out, they've already made a lot of progress in pushing this agenda.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on September 02, 2008, 09:00:38 AM
They've got a pretty sweet Creation Museum  ([url]http://www.creationmuseum.org/[/url]) in the Cincinnati/Kentucky area. Looks like a nice day out for the family.

My girlfriend's family actually moved a few minutes away from the Creation Museum, so it's only a matter of time before I go there out of curiosity.  Last time I was in the area, if I had gone, I could have been their 500,000 visitor.  It looks like they have some pretty sweet animatronic dinos and I'm curious about the Noah's Ark musical. The saddest part is, it's probably 100x better than the Cincinnati Natural History Museum, which might be the saddest museum I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on September 02, 2008, 10:11:15 AM
As an additional resource, please see the film "A Flock of Dodos".
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 02, 2008, 10:28:19 AM
They've got a pretty sweet Creation Museum  ([url]http://www.creationmuseum.org/[/url]) in the Cincinnati/Kentucky area. Looks like a nice day out for the family.



I'd go just for the gift shop, which is available online for anyone who wants to have a peek. Scary scary.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on September 02, 2008, 10:36:10 AM
I read that McCain allegedly already knew the daughter was pregnant.  Don't know if I believe that though.  But if I did, there's a conspiracy theorist in me that thinks it's all part of some grand design, a weird baiting of Democrats and the left wing to jump on her and then to yell "For Shame" from the right wing when they do.  That seemed to be the tone of the article I read on CNN this morning.

I can't believe McCain's people knew about this. If you're going to pick someone that no one's heard of before, with little appropriate experience, specifically to appeal to the family values crowd, you'll want to pick someone who can play the role PERFECTLY. It just makes them look better to say they knew. I think it's just hilariously bad timing.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 02, 2008, 11:47:39 AM
They've spent the last few decades inventing a bullshit "science" out of whole cloth.

Or gold out of lead.  Whole thing sounds like institutionalized alchemy to me.  Maybe they'll teach the kids how to find the Elixir of Life too.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Jonathan Steven on September 02, 2008, 12:00:14 PM
They've spent the last few decades inventing a bullshit "science" out of whole cloth.
Maybe they'll teach the kids how to find the Elixir of Life too.


I think it may be at the top of 'nem escuhlator.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 02, 2008, 02:00:16 PM
Maybe they'll teach the kids how to find the Elixir of Life too.



Dude, I've already found it!


   (http://boozeteam.co.uk/shop/images/goldschlager.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: buffcoat on September 02, 2008, 02:27:14 PM
I enjoyed Jerry Jenkins' work on "Gil Thorp."
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 02, 2008, 04:08:09 PM
That stuff is soooo much better than Leadschläger!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Julie on September 02, 2008, 07:53:57 PM
Maybe they'll teach the kids how to find the Elixir of Life too.



Dude, I've already found it!


   ([url]http://boozeteam.co.uk/shop/images/goldschlager.jpg[/url])


Who don't know that?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Stan on September 02, 2008, 11:18:31 PM
Maybe they'll teach the kids how to find the Elixir of Life too.



Dude, I've already found it!


   ([url]http://boozeteam.co.uk/shop/images/goldschlager.jpg[/url])


Who don't know that?


 But will it make my poop sparkle?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 02, 2008, 11:58:46 PM
Maybe they'll teach the kids how to find the Elixir of Life too.



Dude, I've already found it!


   ([url]http://boozeteam.co.uk/shop/images/goldschlager.jpg[/url])


Who don't know that?


 But will it make my poop sparkle?



Yes! It can serve as a guiding beacon if you're lost in the forest!



Man, I sure do love talking about politics!!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 03, 2008, 12:19:10 AM
glittering turds always make me think of politics.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Spoony on September 03, 2008, 01:37:17 PM
I will gild an elephant in them.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on September 03, 2008, 02:23:59 PM
Apparently an Obama supporter was inspired by Tom suggesting McCain use a theremin.

(http://www.democraticstuff.com/v/vspfiles/photos/BT23707-2T.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Wes on September 03, 2008, 02:32:19 PM
Apparently an Obama supporter was inspired by Tom suggesting McCain use a theremin.

([url]http://www.democraticstuff.com/v/vspfiles/photos/BT23707-2T.jpg[/url])


I can't believe they found a photo from Obama's brief stint in Fishbone.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: masterofsparks on September 03, 2008, 03:02:23 PM
Apparently an Obama supporter was inspired by Tom suggesting McCain use a theremin.

([url]http://www.democraticstuff.com/v/vspfiles/photos/BT23707-2T.jpg[/url])


I can't believe they found a photo from Obama's brief stint in Fishbone.


I think you mean Lothar and the Hand People.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Jonathan Steven on September 03, 2008, 03:15:31 PM
Apparently an Obama supporter was inspired by Tom suggesting McCain use a theremin.

([url]http://www.democraticstuff.com/v/vspfiles/photos/BT23707-2T.jpg[/url])


I can't believe they found a photo from Obama's brief stint in Fishbone.


I think you mean Lothar and the Hand People.


Dr. James Page would be proud!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 03, 2008, 03:42:34 PM
Quote
Dr. James Page would be proud!


If you caught Jimmy Page + Leona Lewis at the Olympic ceremony, you'll know that pride and dignity are no longer a distraction.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00677/jimmy-page192_677310e.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 03, 2008, 10:38:50 PM
Someone in New York slap Guiliani when he gets back in town.  What an ass.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2478038099_f7e5ca003c.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Stan on September 03, 2008, 11:54:42 PM
Apparently an Obama supporter was inspired by Tom suggesting McCain use a theremin.

([url]http://www.democraticstuff.com/v/vspfiles/photos/BT23707-2T.jpg[/url])


I can't believe they found a photo from Obama's brief stint in Fishbone.


 Party at Ground Zero!

[youtube]MJCaFe1yamg[/youtube]

 T-40 related content, Bobo.

 Warning: This video is 9000 minutes in length.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Come on, Jason on September 03, 2008, 11:58:55 PM
Someone in New York slap Guiliani when he gets back in town.  What an ass.

([url]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2478038099_f7e5ca003c.jpg[/url])
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on September 05, 2008, 12:57:30 AM
Just remember, a vote for Obama is a vote for Philly D:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b64vYxdLceQ[/youtube]
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 05, 2008, 03:28:28 AM
Apparently an Obama supporter was inspired by Tom suggesting McCain use a theremin.



I can't believe they found a photo from Obama's brief stint in Fishbone.

 Party at Ground Zero!

[youtube]MJCaFe1yamg[/youtube]

 T-40 related content, Bobo.

 Warning: This video is 9000 minutes in length.



Fishbone were an astounding live band back in the day.

But you'd never know from this video, which looks like Mummenshanz. Fishenshanz.

Okay, I really liked Mummenshanz also, when I saw them live. But I was like 12 years old at the time.

Man. I LOVE talking about politics!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: masterofsparks on September 05, 2008, 02:22:15 PM
Because of stories like this:

http://theotherpaper.com/articles/2008/09/04/front/doc48bef91589826866922098.txt

Do me proud, Columbus!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Come on, Jason on September 05, 2008, 04:05:18 PM
Projection Behind McCain not Walter Reed Army Medical Center but Walter Reed Junior High School in North Hollywood. (http://dcist.com/2008/09/05/was_mccains_speech_backdrop_the_wro.php)

 :D :D :D >:(
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: wwwes on September 05, 2008, 04:14:55 PM
Lost in all the political coverage was the best thing to happen in the history of political conventions:
Andrea Mitchell being attacked by dozens of balloons. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26553254#26553594)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 05, 2008, 05:25:45 PM
Projection Behind McCain not Walter Reed Army Medical Center but Walter Reed Junior High School in North Hollywood. ([url]http://dcist.com/2008/09/05/was_mccains_speech_backdrop_the_wro.php[/url])

 :D :D :D >:(


Nice to know Washington is just pulling shit off Google too, huh?   :D

Or maybe not.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 05, 2008, 09:58:03 PM
 Looks like the ladies of Heart weren't too thrilled with "Barracuda" being Sarah Palin's theme song. (http://wonkette.com/402578/heart-did-not-give-rnc-permission-to-use-barracuda) I'll always love Nancy and Ann Wilson. Always.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 05, 2008, 10:12:10 PM
Nice zinger at the end:

eventually be reduced to playing the entire Chuck Berry catalog again and again. Ha ha just kidding, Chuck Berry is still alive, so he will also be calling John McCain soon.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Regular Joe on September 06, 2008, 10:43:00 PM
I've been out of the loop for a bit, but I thought this thread was going to be about that crazy barn-themed podium at the DNC (and I'm not searching all 13 pages to realize it isn't). I hate to call out my own party over such a small issue, but it's an elephant in the room!

I still haven't heard mention of it in any news sources, even after Palin openly mocked the styrofoam pillars the Dem's used. From where I'm standing, the columns were actually quite subtle in comparison to a podium that could easily be a leftover prop from James and the Giant Peach. What is the theme here? He is descending from the American Mt. Olympus to speak to the people living out behind a cartoon woodshed? Did they hire Beetlejuice as a set designer? It made so little sense in conjunction with such an amazing, historic event, I still can't stop thinking about it (obviously).
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 09, 2008, 02:22:33 PM
KILL ME NOW

(http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/6595/capt8c9acf68d5f849218d6zc1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: buffcoat on September 09, 2008, 02:43:26 PM
Oh, no.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Turf Out on September 09, 2008, 02:49:55 PM
KILL ME NOW

([url]http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/6595/capt8c9acf68d5f849218d6zc1.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://imageshack.us[/url])



http://www.zazzle.com/pd/find/qs-palin (http://www.zazzle.com/pd/find/qs-palin)
me too plz.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on September 09, 2008, 03:08:33 PM
Look at it this way:  it might alienate some traditionalists because it makes her look so butch.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 09, 2008, 03:33:20 PM
I love how in politics, there are only two categories that every woman must fall into:

1) Just one of 'da boyz!
2) Shrill cunt

Women being boiled down to two bullshit stereotypes is almost as sexist as them never being nominated at all...
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on September 09, 2008, 03:34:41 PM
The joys of being a woman, 2008.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 09, 2008, 03:41:27 PM
That kind of dichotomy/stereotyping happens with male politicians:

a) Tough, straight-talking man's man

vs.

b) Wishy-washy, effete weenie

It's the nature of public figures. Everyone looks at them through the lens of their own political beliefs, and it usually only boils down to 2-3 stereotypes.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 09, 2008, 04:04:18 PM
No, there are more stereotypes for men. Obama is viewed as a weenie by some, but I'd say the general perception is that he's a stoic leader, Kennedy-style. Biden isn't a straight-talking mans man either, he's considered more of a backroom wheeler-and-dealer.

There are stereotypes, but men are given more options. Which isn't really a surprise, I just think it's kind of pathetic.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 09, 2008, 04:11:38 PM
Women Demand Equal Amounts of Stereotypes Now!

What's up with this?:
http://www.zazzle.com/sarah_palin_joke_shirt-235451500103542361
I can't figure out who the joke is on.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Turf Out on September 09, 2008, 04:33:44 PM
http://www.zazzle.com/mccain_palin_2008_shirt-235656454046454299 (http://www.zazzle.com/mccain_palin_2008_shirt-235656454046454299)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Come on, Jason on September 09, 2008, 04:58:03 PM
Palin Billed State for 312 Days Spent at Home (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html?hpid=topnews)

That's it, I wanna be a Governor.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Stan on September 09, 2008, 05:03:38 PM
Palin Billed State for 312 Days Spent at Home ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html?hpid=topnews[/url])

That's it, I wanna be a Governor.


 Just imagine, you would be the dungeon master of an entire state.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Omar on September 09, 2008, 07:33:51 PM
I'm supporting a Bill Haverchuck/Carlos the Dwarf ticket this year.

[youtube]hJAGxAeV7YU[/youtube]
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 09, 2008, 10:45:12 PM
Quote
Obama is viewed as a weenie by some, but I'd say the general perception is that he's a stoic leader, Kennedy-style.


There doesn't seem to be any 'general' perception, or else there wouldn't be a 50/50 split between McCain and Obama currently. Among Democrats, Obama may be seen as Kennedy-like. Among conservatives, he's a classic elitist type, which they have stated (http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+%2Belitist&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-37,GGGL:en) loudly this past year, putting him squarely in column B.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 10, 2008, 11:53:11 AM
(http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1892/facest4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 10, 2008, 01:07:12 PM
There doesn't seem to be any 'general' perception, or else there wouldn't be a 50/50 split between McCain and Obama currently.

It's simply incomprehensible to me that we have sat at a clean 50/50% split of public opinion between two parties for a decade.  Not to be all conspiracy theorist, but doesn't that just seem mindboggling to anyone else?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 10, 2008, 01:18:54 PM
([url]http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1892/facest4.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://imageshack.us[/url])



That will be burned on the inside of my eyelids forever and ever.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 10, 2008, 04:21:17 PM
I know I'm an outsider looking in on this American politics thing, but I frequently enjoy reading The Rude Pundit's thoughts on the campaign, etc. Like today:

Quote
The truly aggravating thing is watching opportunity after opportunity pass by the Obama campaign. Here's some advice to them: you are not living in subtle times. You are living in an era in our nation where people only react if you use a fucking mallet, not a stiletto, to get your point across. The choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was a brilliant read of the national zeitgeist. She's like the winner of America's Next Top Model, not a qualified politician, and as such, idiot America thinks they relate.


The rest. (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/note-to-barack-obama-use-sex-ad-to.html)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on September 10, 2008, 04:37:16 PM
There doesn't seem to be any 'general' perception, or else there wouldn't be a 50/50 split between McCain and Obama currently.

It's simply incomprehensible to me that we have sat at a clean 50/50% split of public opinion between two parties for a decade.  Not to be all conspiracy theorist, but doesn't that just seem mindboggling to anyone else?

I think Americas' unique pedigree accounts for some of it, a puritanical streak
mixed with founders that were rebel/intellectuals add some slavery voila! If America were a person what would she look like?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 10, 2008, 04:52:17 PM
When one of the parties starts to pull ahead, the one that's behind just adopts enough of the other's ideas in order to bring things back into balance.  Notice that Republicans are now the party of big spending-- it wins votes!  And notice how Obama goes on about "tax relief," not to mention Clintonian centrism.

Also any party that has been in power long enough begins to be seen as (and to actually be) a lot more corrupt, and the party out of power brands itself as the party of "reform" or "change."  So they trade back and forth on that, too.  Basically both the parties are too smart and agile to let history pass them by, and as long as we have a "first past the post" electoral system, we will only ever have two parties.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 10, 2008, 05:42:26 PM
Quote
If America were a person what would she look like?


(http://anyeventuality.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/Bianche%20Two-Face%20Cropped%2080pc.JPG)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on September 10, 2008, 06:00:08 PM
When one of the parties starts to pull ahead, the one that's behind just adopts enough of the other's ideas in order to bring things back into balance.  Notice that Republicans are now the party of big spending-- it wins votes!  And notice how Obama goes on about "tax relief," not to mention Clintonian centrism.

Also any party that has been in power long enough begins to be seen as (and to actually be) a lot more corrupt, and the party out of power brands itself as the party of "reform" or "change."  So they trade back and forth on that, too.  Basically both the parties are too smart and agile to let history pass them by, and as long as we have a "first past the post" electoral system, we will only ever have two parties.

There was also a law passed in 1948 - the name escapes me now, but it was named after a couple of congressmen - that makes it virtually impossible for third parties to get any real traction.  The performance of third-party like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, or Ross Perot was more of a historical blip than, say, the impressive performance of Teddy Roosevelt in 1918 or whenever it was he ran in the Bull Moose Party.  If you look at the electoral map in that year, the GOP only won 2 states.

I'm like if your history teacher had brain damage!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 10, 2008, 06:11:07 PM
I definitely believe that a third party can emerge and eventually replace a currently existing party as a dominant party, I just don't think that a 3 party situation would be stable given our electoral system.  Though I didn't take too many poli sci courses, I seem to recall that first-past-the-post/plurality systems tend to generate two party systems, and that multi party systems tend to need proportionality.  Not that I think that the parliamentary model of, say, an Italy is to be emulated.

I keep expecting/hoping the Huckabee evangelical/anti-capitalism faction will split from the Rs but it hasn't happened.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 10, 2008, 06:37:23 PM
I keep expecting/hoping the Huckabee evangelical/anti-capitalism faction will split from the Rs but it hasn't happened.

It would be interesting to see if the Bible Belt would go with them or stick with their traditional Republican. Neo-Cons would then be able to run pro-choice leaving them as the true middle ground and they might end up taking enough Democratic votes away to make up for the ones they lost to the Evangelicals. In the end, people would go back to the Republican party and we'd be back to square one.

How many votes do you think Obama would lose if he ran on a strong pro-life ticket while keeping everything else the same? I think he'd gain more than he'd lose... I think the only 3rd party that could really take off is a pro-life/Democratic ideals party because they'd take a lot of votes away from both sides if they ran a strong candidate.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 10, 2008, 06:58:30 PM
All the Republicans I know are Federalist society/lawyer/public policy nerd types, and they are pretty open about their personal disdain for the bible belt crowd.  That's the biggest tension I see.  (Even the more religious ones tend to be "high church" types---the Catholic church is becoming hegemonically dominant among some intellectual conservatives---but I'm not totally convinced that they sincerely believe in the Deep Magic rather than trying to anchor themselves in the West.)

I sense some unease between more internationally oriented, and more "America first" oriented Democrats.  However, overall it seems they've been better able to reconcile the different interest groups that make up their base.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 10, 2008, 07:57:51 PM
Quote
All the Republicans I know are Federalist society/lawyer/public policy nerd types, and they are pretty open about their personal disdain for the bible belt crowd.


Many who identify that way also claim 'South Park Republican' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican) beliefs. My stepdad is that way. I can tell he wants to rip on fundamentalist conservatives just as much, but he's more comfortable ripping on airheaded celebrity liberals (http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/).
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: A.M. Thomas on September 11, 2008, 03:32:44 AM
I get more and more nervous about this election every day.

Here's a pretty good editorial about its international implications:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on September 11, 2008, 08:10:11 AM
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/hippocatgeek/obamaknockyouout.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 11, 2008, 12:04:53 PM
([url]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/hippocatgeek/obamaknockyouout.jpg[/url])


Follow through, Barack. Follow through.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 11, 2008, 12:46:38 PM
Imagine the shower of powdery bone dust that would cover everyone if Obama followed through.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Wes on September 11, 2008, 02:01:05 PM
([url]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/hippocatgeek/obamaknockyouout.jpg[/url])


Events immediately preceding this photo:

A textbook Randall Savage Handshake Attack from Obama.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 11, 2008, 02:13:04 PM
In an all-out fistfight between these two, I'd pick Obama, but in reality he's way too much of a gentleman for that. I could see McCain starting a fistfight.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Chris L on September 11, 2008, 02:25:11 PM
In an all-out fistfight between these two, I'd pick Obama, but in reality he's way too much of a gentleman for that. I could see McCain starting a fistfight.

I thought McCain only attempted to fight elderly women in wheelchairs. OOOH SMEAR! 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: njkaters on September 11, 2008, 02:31:06 PM
I agree that Obama would be too much of a gentleman...In a perfect world, they would resolve their issues in a Jules Verne, "Around the World in Eighty Days" style with hot air balloons, elephant rides and such.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 11, 2008, 02:49:37 PM
There's still time for that!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: njkaters on September 11, 2008, 02:53:08 PM
yeah, they may need to do an abbreviated one...like "Around the World in 53 days." It would fit well between "Hole in the Wall" and "Do Not Disturb" on Fox. 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 11, 2008, 04:30:56 PM
Man, Clinton looks like he's 70. Just think what McCain would look like after a presidency.

(http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5iebk_Pz_hDEqnVYrZcLEZPx-SNFQ?size=m)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 11, 2008, 05:25:09 PM
I agree that Obama would be too much of a gentleman...In a perfect world, they would resolve their issues in a Jules Verne, "Around the World in Eighty Days" style with hot air balloons, elephant rides and such.

That would be awesome.

You know what I'd like to see?  A completely unfair fight, like "Dueling Lecturers in American Constitutional Law" featuring Obama and McCain. Instead of having a fourth debate, there would be an on-the-spot, extemporaneous lecture on some aspect of Con Law, like the history of the Commerce Clause, school desegregation or the Lochner era. The topic would be drawn from a hat by Nina Totenberg, with five minutes of preparation for each candidate. That would be even awesomer.

Then both candidates would be thrown into the pit of lime green jello, and made to climb their way out.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 11, 2008, 05:34:59 PM
It really isn't the lack of a third party that gets me, it's the decade of heavy, heavy shit going down and through it all we can't budge a 50/50 ideological deadlock??  Mind boggling.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 11, 2008, 05:53:56 PM
It really isn't the lack of a third party that gets me, it's the decade of heavy, heavy shit going down and through it all we can't budge a 50/50 ideological deadlock??  Mind boggling.


People aren't quick to budge on moral and human rights issues.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on September 11, 2008, 10:17:18 PM
([url]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/hippocatgeek/obamaknockyouout.jpg[/url])


Events immediately preceding this photo:
  • Obama tells McCain that McCain has earned his respect, is tired of being enemies
  • Obama extends hand of friendship, wary McCain does not trust Obama, looks back and forth to crowd for advice
  • Crowd cheers for McCain to shake Obama's hand
  • McCain and Obama shake hands and smile to delight of crowd
  • McCain turns to walk away but Obama does not release handshake
  • Obama stops smiling, pulls McCain back towards him

A textbook Randall Savage Handshake Attack from Obama.


I think Obama just said, "Hey John, ever had a hertz donut?"
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 11, 2008, 10:36:49 PM
(http://images.cafepress.com/product/242767796v1_240x240_Front_Color-Black.jpg)

That's a really badly drawn fist. Did a Republican draw that?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 11, 2008, 11:32:50 PM

I think Obama just said, "Hey John, ever had a hertz donut?"

I totally did the "want to get your palm red?" trick to my ladyfriend recently.

I am also a fan of the "planting tulips" joke, viz., "plant your two lips right here."
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: ericluxury on September 12, 2008, 10:53:11 AM
([url]http://images.cafepress.com/product/242767796v1_240x240_Front_Color-Black.jpg[/url])

That's a really badly drawn fist. Did a Republican draw that?


I believe that the sentiment is that Obama and his supporter's fingernails are too long to make a proper fist.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: A.M. Thomas on September 12, 2008, 01:13:26 PM
Local ABC affiliate in Maine sticks it to the man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q6LMsc7iic
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Chris L on September 12, 2008, 01:34:04 PM
This "McCain can't use a computer" ad is what they mean by taking the gloves off?  After the mindboggling lies and hypocrisy of the past week? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

Then again, I thought that "celebrity" ad was dopey but it had an effect, so I don't know anymore (or ever, really).
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on September 12, 2008, 02:41:46 PM
([url]http://images.cafepress.com/product/242767796v1_240x240_Front_Color-Black.jpg[/url])

That's a really badly drawn fist. Did a Republican draw that?


I believe that the sentiment is that Obama and his supporter's fingernails are too long to make a proper fist.


It's clearly an elitist fist.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: masterofsparks on September 12, 2008, 03:38:53 PM
([url]http://images.cafepress.com/product/242767796v1_240x240_Front_Color-Black.jpg[/url])

That's a really badly drawn fist. Did a Republican draw that?


I believe that the sentiment is that Obama and his supporter's fingernails are too long to make a proper fist.


It's clearly an elitist fist.


It's in mid-terrorist fist jab.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Nicksy on September 12, 2008, 03:43:45 PM
Barack poster my friends and I put around SF:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3092/2426923465_482b5637ed.jpg)


Also, nobody seems to be talking about the Ron Paul factor. He is McCain's Nader!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 12, 2008, 03:48:15 PM
Nah, he's our Nader too. Trust me. I have lots of liberally-leaning friends that go for Ron Paul for some reason I can't quite explain.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Nicksy on September 12, 2008, 03:53:49 PM
Just forward them R.P.'s classic quote:

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on September 12, 2008, 03:55:30 PM
Nah, he's our Nader too. Trust me. I have lots of liberally-leaning friends that go for Ron Paul for some reason I can't quite explain.

I kind of like him. I don't agree with most of his positions (e.g., the quote above), but in terms of foreign policy, he's just about the only candidate I've heard who seems prepared to fully engage with reality.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Nicksy on September 12, 2008, 03:57:41 PM
Yeah, a flat tax makes more sense, right??
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on September 12, 2008, 04:01:44 PM
Yeah, a flat tax makes more sense, right??

Um, no.

I don't agree with most of his positions (e.g., the quote above), but in terms of foreign policy, he's just about the only candidate I've heard who seems prepared to fully engage with reality.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Nicksy on September 12, 2008, 04:14:41 PM
oh... oops.

But regardless of that, if he can't engage with reality on domestic issues, there's no way he can do it in his foreign policy.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 12, 2008, 04:22:16 PM
Having Ron Paul around is great on a practical level. His presence in American politics has saved me a lot of time. Now I don't have to engage morons in a debate to know if they're full of shit - their homemade bumper stickers do the talking for them!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 12, 2008, 05:07:21 PM
Ron Paul is the candidate that conservatives who are upset with Neo-Conservatism should be voting for. There's not even a question.... he's a classic Republican who has adapted to the times without destroying the constitution. I look at those in my family who vote Republican... they're well off but not top 5 percent. Ron Paul is the kind of politician they should get behind.

People get behind a guy like Ron Paul because he actually doesn't just talk change, he shows how he wants to make the change. Why are they morons for supporting somebody who is sick of the way our country has been run? Better question, who's the bigger moron, someone who backs a guy who has unattainable plan for change or someone who believes that one of the major party candidates is actually going to change things? I'll be the moron voting for Obama but I'm a huge fan of the way Ron Paul goes about his business.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 12, 2008, 05:28:48 PM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/12/us/mccain_view_533.2.jpg)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/the-view-couch-not-so-cozy-for-mccain/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/the-view-couch-not-so-cozy-for-mccain/)

This picture cracks me up. It looks like they're discussing Weight Watchers points or something. But actually, I kind of applaud Whoopi Goldberg a little???

Quote
On the topic of abortion, Mr. McCain said that Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973, was “a very bad decision.” He said he would not impose a litmus test on any of his nominations to the Supreme Court “because that’s not fair to the American people.” But, he said, he would nominate justices who would interpret the constitution as it was written and not legislate from the bench.

This prompted Whoopi Goldberg to worry that if he wanted to return to the constitution as it was written, and not as it was amended, she would be returned to slavery.

ZING!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Nicksy on September 12, 2008, 05:33:03 PM
Yeah, I watched most of that interview here this morning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-grilled-on-the-vie_n_125972.html

I was actually very impressed with their grilling of him. They really had him looking like a shifty creep. Not that he needs any help.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 12, 2008, 05:48:32 PM
(1) I was going to rant on about Paul but suffice to say he's an ideologue, and that's dangerous.

(2) Whoopi's point is really, really stupid.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 12, 2008, 05:58:03 PM
(1) I was going to rant on about Paul but suffice to say he's an ideologue, and that's dangerous.

(2) Whoopi's point is really, really stupid.


I don't think it was really a point, but rather a joke. And I found it slightly humorous. Hence I applaud her, because I normally don't even smile when she cracks a joke.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 12, 2008, 06:11:03 PM
Ron Paul is the candidate that conservatives who are upset with Neo-Conservatism should be voting for. There's not even a question.... he's a classic Republican who has adapted to the times without destroying the constitution. I look at those in my family who vote Republican... they're well off but not top 5 percent. Ron Paul is the kind of politician they should get behind.

People get behind a guy like Ron Paul because he actually doesn't just talk change, he shows how he wants to make the change. Why are they morons for supporting somebody who is sick of the way our country has been run? Better question, who's the bigger moron, someone who backs a guy who has unattainable plan for change or someone who believes that one of the major party candidates is actually going to change things? I'll be the moron voting for Obama but I'm a huge fan of the way Ron Paul goes about his business.

The way he goes about his business is something to be admired, I guess... but his "business" is the ugliest amalgamation of libertarian "starve the beast" tax policy and social conservatism. His pro-life libertarian (a complete clusterfuck of a contradiction) bullshit is as paper thin as any other fake libertarian.

Libertarianism has become an umbrella for disaffected republicans. They're usually crackpots who insist abolishing healthcare and schools will lead to some private enterprise utopia, and "people who get behind a guy like Ron Paul" are the political equivalent of that guy in philosophy class who WON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT AYN RAND.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 12, 2008, 06:50:29 PM
I agree with how backwards his platform is, but he never claimed to be Libertarian. I'm also not willing to moan about the kids who are excited about him because I think any interest in the political system is a good thing. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul because of his ideals, I'm a fan because he's ignited a spark in a lot of kids (and adults) who would have let this election fly over their head. I don't think he knew he was going to do that, but it's not that surprising that it happened.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: JonFromMaplewood on September 12, 2008, 07:05:13 PM
Anyone who thinks privatization will solve all of our problems should try out the rail system in England.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 12, 2008, 07:09:02 PM
I agree with how backwards his platform is, but he never claimed to be Libertarian. I'm also not willing to moan about the kids who are excited about him because I think any interest in the political system is a good thing. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul because of his ideals, I'm a fan because he's ignited a spark in a lot of kids (and adults) who would have let this election fly over their head. I don't think he knew he was going to do that, but it's not that surprising that it happened.

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. The only good vote for Ron Paul in my mind is one that would've gone to McCain otherwise (which is most).
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 12, 2008, 07:14:38 PM
I bet Weev supports Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 13, 2008, 01:34:01 AM
Anyone who thinks privatization will solve all of our problems should try out the rail system in England.

Word.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 13, 2008, 03:41:07 AM
I bet Weev supports Ron Paul.

Absolutely. But I bet Weev didn't care about politics before Ron Paul and that's what matters. Do we only want kids to care about politics as long as they support liberal thought or at least the two major parties? I don't think so. My idealogy is that 100 percent of this country votes for whoever they feel like voting for. Ron Paul ignited something in people who would have never voted before because he represented something that wasn't just talk.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 13, 2008, 10:59:08 AM
Gilly, I totally agree with your point.  I just hold all those newly-involved younguns don't get turned off the whole thing when they realize that no one ever gets a politician they can be happy with.  I'm not sure that the virtues of incrementalism have many defenders among the commenters on Digg.com.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 13, 2008, 01:47:05 PM
Gilly, I totally agree with your point.  I just hold all those newly-involved younguns don't get turned off the whole thing when they realize that no one ever gets a politician they can be happy with. 

Right on.  That's why I think it becomes silly to threaten the canada move all the time.  What if Obama wins?  Then it may as well be like "If Obama doesn't openly support gay marriage, I'm moving to Canada!"  You should probably move to Canada because you want to move to Canada and not because you're mad at the voting habits of other Americans. 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on September 13, 2008, 03:44:31 PM
I think when people make that threat--or even carry it out--it often has less to do with pique at their fellow citizens than with terror at what they think their country is about to become.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on September 14, 2008, 12:22:11 AM
There's only one thing that could get me to move to Canada: if the Expos left Montreal.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 14, 2008, 12:28:02 AM
I think when people make that threat--or even carry it out--it often has less to do with pique at their fellow citizens than with terror at what they think their country is about to become.

Depends on what form of terror the country is about to become.  Sort of like if someone said "These Nazi's scare me, I'm moving to Poland!" 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on September 14, 2008, 07:50:48 AM
And that's why my parents moved to New Zealand.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 14, 2008, 10:35:14 AM
I have a friend who moved to New Zealand because he couldn't become a citizen in the U.S., and I've had more than one moment where I've thought that wasn't such a bad deal for him after all. And I'm not from the school of "if this crazed right-wing zealot is elected, I'm leaving the states." New Zealand sounds like a great place, even if it is one of the most isolated places on earth. I miss my friend though.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: emma on September 14, 2008, 05:44:12 PM
Canada's not so bad. We're even having our own little election here! Were you aware? There is some Serious Shit going down, and by that I mean our terrifying prime minister has been putting on sweater vests and playing the piano a lot. It is like your election would be if everyone was taking a lot of prozac and also no one cared.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 14, 2008, 06:57:05 PM
canada is silly.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: emma on September 14, 2008, 07:21:47 PM
canada is silly.


Naw. Our despicable politicians are just a little more openly lame than yours.

Republicans:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK4oWay1VbE&feature=user[/youtube]

Conservatives:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZfHe2LMRb0[/youtube]
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 14, 2008, 08:08:23 PM
canada is silly.

I like silliness. If Canada is really silly, it's for me!!

Nah, just kidding, Canada isn't silly. What's silly is people giving up on the United States so early. So a huge mass of crazed religious zealots and crackpots have hijacked one of the major political parties (the one in power). Doesn't that mean we should fight back and try to bring better governance to our country? (There are still about 7 weeks until the election.) Maybe if one doesn't really have strong feelings about America one way or the other, moving would be a fine idea. To me, that seems silly.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 14, 2008, 08:52:26 PM
I feel like the more explicitly non-representative the government gets, the weaker it becomes, which means you could eventually find yourself in a different, post-revolution country altogether without changing citizenship if you just stuck around long enough.  I mean, if it's true that the electorate is split down the middle, and it's also true we don't even have a majority of the country voting anyway, what does that say about our alleged "representatives" in government?  It's like we have an official country on television and then the phantom, actual country that is not being documented.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on September 15, 2008, 10:06:35 AM

Conservatives:
[youtube][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZfHe2LMRb0[/url][/youtube]


Emma, I've been trying to think of some appropriate context for posting that Harper video. I salute you for coming up with one.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: emma on September 15, 2008, 10:22:04 AM
It is just so completely fucking weird! I am still not entirely sure it isn't a parody ad.

Hopefully the next ad they come out with will be a tape of him and his son "jamming."
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on September 15, 2008, 10:27:24 AM
Weird? I dunno - it makes me see that Stephen Harper is a regular dad. Just like my dad!

... if my dad had tiny evil eyes, and he enforced arbitrarily cruel federal policies, and if he told lies about "jamming" with me in television commercials.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 15, 2008, 10:46:28 AM
I feel like the more explicitly non-representative the government gets, the weaker it becomes

Like that weak-ass China!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: buffcoat on September 15, 2008, 12:18:53 PM
Maybe I don't speak Canadian... but who or what is this "dod" that this guy's kid doesn't want to spend time with?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 15, 2008, 05:29:30 PM
I feel like the more explicitly non-representative the government gets, the weaker it American Democracy becomes

Like that weak-ass China!

I fixed it to reflect more what I was trying to say, Mr. Ironic Political Smarty Pants.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 15, 2008, 05:42:31 PM
I feel like the more explicitly non-representative the government gets, the weaker it American Democracy becomes

Like that weak-ass China!

I fixed it to reflect more what I was trying to say, Mr. Ironic Political Smarty Pants.

It is my right as an American to take your statements out of context in order to distort them.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: moderate rock on September 15, 2008, 08:32:24 PM

Conservatives:
[youtube][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZfHe2LMRb0[/url][/youtube]

That made me do that weird laugh you do when you are shocked at how ridiculous something is. Then I felt like a cynical American asshole for thinking that was a weak add because there was no political spin/attacks involved.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 15, 2008, 09:29:31 PM
Apparently, we've entered the era when you can lie shamelessly, over and over, and know that it's a highly effective campaign strategy. I hope voters prove this to be untrue, but I don't see it happening. I guess in some people's calculations, it's better to vote for a liar than a black man?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 15, 2008, 09:32:49 PM
Did you miss a word in the first sentence?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 15, 2008, 10:01:16 PM
it's better to vote for a liar liker than a black man?

fixed!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on September 15, 2008, 10:26:43 PM
it's better to vote for a liar liker than a black man?

fixed!

That's not how you spell licker
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 15, 2008, 10:46:46 PM
Apparently, we've entered the era when you can like shamelessly, over and over, and know that it's a highly effective campaign strategy. I hope voters prove this to be untrue, but I don't see it happening. I guess in some people's calculations, it's better to vote for a liar than a black man?

I think the effective framing of the "liberal media" over the course of the last decade+ proves how effective these people are at twisting reality and using repetition to make it stick in people's minds as a truth.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on September 16, 2008, 06:35:02 AM
That made me do that weird laugh you do when you are shocked at how ridiculous something is. Then I felt like a cynical American asshole for thinking that was a weak add because there was no political spin/attacks involved.


The Canadians keep their political spin and attacks online with sites like this one (http://notaleader.ca/)... a few days ago the Puffin seen flying by Dion was actually crapping on his shoulder.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: emma on September 16, 2008, 04:01:45 PM
a few days ago the Puffin seen flying by Dion was actually crapping on his shoulder.

You stay classy, Conservative party.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 16, 2008, 04:21:40 PM
Like, fixed. My bad.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 19, 2008, 01:49:38 AM
Is anybody else worried about The Bradley Effect?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 19, 2008, 02:51:46 AM
What's that?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: mokin on September 19, 2008, 03:42:36 AM
The Bradley effect worries me a little, but I don't think it's a huge problem. McCain and Obama are so ideologically different that I can't imagine many people would say they were voting for Obama and then actually vote for McCain because they are a secret racist. I think the Bradley effect is more of a factor in primaries, when the candidates have similar views and it might be more PC to say you're going to vote for the black guy instead of the white guy.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on September 19, 2008, 07:52:46 AM
I think Obama has to worry about turnout among young people and African Americans more than The Bradley effect... I'm admittedly a geek and ran down to my city hall to register and fill out an absentee ballot on my eighteenth birthday, but turnout among normal people under thirty is pretty low.  Obama's got something like a 30 point lead among people my age.  Sometimes I wonder how much effort it takes that many people to get up and overcome inertia and vote for the very first time.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 19, 2008, 02:44:57 PM
I don't know about what the Obama campaign is factoring in, but I'm hearing pundits still mentioning the Bradley Effect an awful lot, if not by that name. I would think that the longer the campaign goes on, and it's gone on a long time, the less of a factor it will be in polling, as people disinclined to pull the lever for Obama would have plenty of reasons they could vote for McCain anyway, as lame as those reasons might be. I dunno.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 19, 2008, 03:16:46 PM
What's that?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on September 19, 2008, 03:20:13 PM
It's when people tell pollsters they're voting for a black candidate (to avoid appearing racist) but in fact do not.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 19, 2008, 07:01:40 PM
20% of people between the age 18-34 will probably be too busy playing World of Warcraft while the polls are open.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 19, 2008, 08:46:33 PM
Tom will cause a massive delay in his precinct, causing hundreds if not thousands of Obama voters to have to wait on him while he makes a comprehensive list of the pros and cons of each candidate in his voting booth, an effort which will require hours, thereby throwing New Jersey to the Republicans, and therefore the entire nation.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Come on, Jason on September 22, 2008, 11:40:43 PM
I just spent an hour trying to convince a lady I barely knew in high school why she shouldn't vote for John McCain, like she vows to. 
This is a lady who's pro-choice, pro-gay, and anti-war.

It seems like it would be the easiest argument of all time to make, but she was having NONE of it.

Stupid Facebook.  Stupid politics.

Trembling Eagle, let me know if you need a roommate in Toronto.  Or do they call it "flatmate"?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 22, 2008, 11:53:07 PM
Trembling Eagle, let me know if you need a roommate in Toronto.  Or do they call it "flatmate"?

Igloomate.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Jason on September 22, 2008, 11:53:37 PM
I just spent an hour trying to convince a lady I barely knew in high school why she shouldn't vote for John McCain, like she vows to. 
This is a lady who's pro-choice, pro-gay, and anti-war.

It seems like it would be the easiest argument of all time to make, but she was having NONE of it.

Stupid Facebook.  Stupid politics.

Trembling Eagle, let me know if you need a roommate in Toronto.  Or do they call it "flatmate"?

$100
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Come on, Jason on September 23, 2008, 12:08:42 AM
I don't know what that meant but I don't like it.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Come on, Jason on September 23, 2008, 12:14:37 AM
Wait, I think I do like it. 
I like it, right?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: scotttsss on September 23, 2008, 02:47:33 AM
20% of people between the age 18-34 will probably be too busy playing World of Warcraft while the polls are open.


fuck yeah... I'm working on my Warlock right now, trying to get her up to 70 just to keep up with everything...  it's a changing World, come Wrath.  Politically though, I'm a complete jackass, I probably won't even take the time to vote, given my dumb-ass demographic.  I'm a careless fuck, democracy-wise! 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: A.M. Thomas on September 24, 2008, 10:06:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ

Quote
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you ya'.


Lady looks like she's about to have a nervous breakdown.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: masterofsparks on September 24, 2008, 10:18:17 PM
You know it's bad when you're getting taken to pieces by Katie Couric. I actually felt bad for Palin for a minute while that was happening.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 24, 2008, 10:59:46 PM
You know it's bad when you're getting taken to pieces by Katie Couric. I actually felt bad for Palin for a minute while that was happening.

At this point I think the question everyone is wondering is just how hard Biden will/should tear into her. 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 24, 2008, 11:04:58 PM
We'll see. But Letterman did a pretty good job. (Worth watching the whole thing, trust me)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E[/youtube]
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 24, 2008, 11:06:27 PM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ[/url]

Quote
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you ya'.


Lady looks like she's about to have a nervous breakdown.



she is so fucking stupid
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on September 24, 2008, 11:24:30 PM
she looked great though.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 24, 2008, 11:31:04 PM
Dang, Letterman is TICKED.  (And not out of line at all.)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Phantom Hugger on September 24, 2008, 11:50:34 PM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ[/url]

Quote
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you ya'.


Lady looks like she's about to have a nervous breakdown.



she is so fucking stupid


I hate the way she keeps referring to "Amer'ca" as if she weren't a part of it. Like, "well, this could happen to youze guys if you're not careful, and if it does, good luck to ya."
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on September 25, 2008, 06:44:21 AM
Dang, Letterman is TICKED.  (And not out of line at all.)


I don't know, it seemed really petty to me.  Letterman has a legendary ego and temper and he let the ugliness that I've seen live at tapings show on camera.  Whether his motives for suspending his campaign are sincere or not, McCain would have been roundly criticized for going on a late night talk show yucking it up when the vote for the bailout is taking place.  It's probably more appropriate for McCain to do a the evening news instead of sharing the stage with a Dave and a washed up Sportscaster like Olbermann.  I'm sure Katie Couric isn't too happy to be lumped in with Rachael Ray either.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on September 25, 2008, 07:56:00 AM
You know it's bad when you're getting taken to pieces by Katie Couric. I actually felt bad for Palin for a minute while that was happening.

With all due respects, this is exactly the reaction they are counting on to help win. Feel it, my comrade, but let it be the pity that dare not speak aloud.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Stan on September 25, 2008, 08:03:38 AM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ[/url]

Quote
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you ya'.


Lady looks like she's about to have a nervous breakdown.



 She sort of sounds like this guy:

[youtube]TR3QHoqfhX8[/youtube]

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 25, 2008, 08:24:54 AM
You know it's bad when you're getting taken to pieces by Katie Couric. I actually felt bad for Palin for a minute while that was happening.

With all due respects, this is exactly the reaction they are counting on to help win. Feel it, my comrade, but let it be the pity that dare not speak aloud.

That's what I'm afraid of.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on September 25, 2008, 08:28:38 AM
She sort of sounds like this guy:

[youtube]TR3QHoqfhX8[/youtube]

I love Bubbles so.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: senorcorazon on September 25, 2008, 09:01:40 AM
She sort of sounds like this guy:

[youtube]TR3QHoqfhX8[/youtube]

I love Bubbles so.

Ricky/Bubbles '08! We don't need another Jim Lahey in office! Kitties for all! Hemp fuel! Pot in every home and a jerky in every mouth!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on September 25, 2008, 09:14:09 AM
Julian and Bubbles--that would be a ticket I could get behind.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 25, 2008, 09:55:55 AM
Agreed.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 25, 2008, 10:37:23 AM
"I believe they have postponed the debate on Friday, because John McCain... is a pussy, and his running mate is Hitler."

- Louis CK, on why people should go see his show on Friday instead of watching the debate
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Steeley Chris on September 25, 2008, 11:47:15 AM
she looked great though.
Wait, what does "great" mean again?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 25, 2008, 11:57:03 AM
Dang, Letterman is TICKED.  (And not out of line at all.)


I don't know, it seemed really petty to me.  Letterman has a legendary ego and temper and he let the ugliness that I've seen live at tapings show on camera.  Whether his motives for suspending his campaign are sincere or not, McCain would have been roundly criticized for going on a late night talk show yucking it up when the vote for the bailout is taking place.  It's probably more appropriate for McCain to do a the evening news instead of sharing the stage with a Dave and a washed up Sportscaster like Olbermann.  I'm sure Katie Couric isn't too happy to be lumped in with Rachael Ray either.

Perhaps he was unfair, but it's his show. He can do what he wants. Letterman's pissiness is a big reason people enjoy his show. Had Leno been put in this situation, he would have been very diplomatic and very boring.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 25, 2008, 12:17:48 PM
Dang, Letterman is TICKED.  (And not out of line at all.)


I don't know, it seemed really petty to me.  Letterman has a legendary ego and temper and he let the ugliness that I've seen live at tapings show on camera.  Whether his motives for suspending his campaign are sincere or not, McCain would have been roundly criticized for going on a late night talk show yucking it up when the vote for the bailout is taking place.  It's probably more appropriate for McCain to do a the evening news instead of sharing the stage with a Dave and a washed up Sportscaster like Olbermann.  I'm sure Katie Couric isn't too happy to be lumped in with Rachael Ray either.

Perhaps he was unfair, but it's his show. He can do what he wants. Letterman's pissiness is a big reason people enjoy his show. Had Leno been put in this situation, he would have been very diplomatic and very boring.
does anyone really still enjoy Letterman?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 25, 2008, 12:18:07 PM
Letterman's kind of a tool, but he has a point about Sarah Palin. A few of my Republican friends who are abstaining from voting this year have already said it--she's a good reason not to vote for McCain.

I think the issue here is more that McCain's campaign said that he was "rushing off to Washington" and then he appeared on a news show instead. Not the validity of the news show (although let's face it, they're all kind of a joke).

From a person who identifies as neither Democrat nor Republican, this whole "calling off the campaign" thing seems to me like a big stunt. A president should be capable of doing two things at once, and the idea of calling off the debate is even more ridiculous. I want to hear, ASAP (in a public, pressured forum) what these two guys have to say about how they will heal the economy, and how they will rearrange their proposed budget plans if this 700 billion dollar bailout passes.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Pat K on September 25, 2008, 12:45:18 PM
From a person who identifies as neither Democrat nor Republican, this whole "calling off the campaign" thing seems to me like a big stunt. A president should be capable of doing two things at once, and the idea of calling off the debate is even more ridiculous.

I agree. Another senator, I forget who, made the obvious point that #1, McCain is not on any of the relevant committees anyway, and #2, what exactly does he think the Congress will be busy doing at 9pm on a Friday night?

I've got so much more I'd like to go off on, but Mike is giving me the hi-sign - I've gotta move on.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on September 25, 2008, 01:15:14 PM
So since McCain suspended his campaign, does that mean that Obama wins?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Raad_Man on September 25, 2008, 01:17:51 PM
obama can have his fun mugging for the tv cameras.

johnny mac's going to washington to take care of business.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 25, 2008, 01:33:01 PM
obama can have his fun mugging for the tv cameras.

johnny mac's going to washington to take care of business.

Yes, but the way he "takes care of business" is all-too-similar to the way Lil' Georgie Jr. and his crew have been taking care of business. And at this point, Raad_Man, a lot of your fellow Republicans are starting to admit that the Bush Administration business plan ain't working anymore.

(If you ask me, it never worked. But that's just me).
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 25, 2008, 02:28:33 PM
both parties are shit at this point.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 25, 2008, 02:30:21 PM
both parties This country is are shit at this point.

I fix.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 25, 2008, 02:42:28 PM
obama can have his fun mugging for the tv cameras.

johnny mac's going to washington to take care of business.

Just like his brother Freddie.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Matt on September 25, 2008, 02:45:26 PM
Wasn't John McCain still in New York as of today, attending some kind of environmental function? Now that Congress has a plan they're going ahead with, that means everything's been done before McCain even showed his face in Washington. The "suspension" of his campaign will backfire in a huge way, if it hasn't already begun. It'll be interesting to see if he still tries to get out of the debate. He can't continue to try and disrupt the entire election process because he and his running mate aren't prepared. He knows he's lost; he may as well take his lumps and maintain whatever dignity he has left.

I should mention I know next to nothing about politics. Full disclosure!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 25, 2008, 02:57:25 PM
Wasn't John McCain still in New York as of today, attending some kind of environmental function? Now that Congress has a plan they're going ahead with, that means everything's been done before McCain even showed his face in Washington. The "suspension" of his campaign will backfire in a huge way, if it hasn't already begun. It'll be interesting to see if he still tries to get out of the debate. He can't continue to try and disrupt the entire election process because he and his running mate aren't prepared. He knows he's lost; he may as well take his lumps and maintain whatever dignity he has left.

I should mention I know next to nothing about politics. Full disclosure!
I think McCain has been pushing for more debates for some time now.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Matt on September 25, 2008, 03:11:30 PM
Wasn't John McCain still in New York as of today, attending some kind of environmental function? Now that Congress has a plan they're going ahead with, that means everything's been done before McCain even showed his face in Washington. The "suspension" of his campaign will backfire in a huge way, if it hasn't already begun. It'll be interesting to see if he still tries to get out of the debate. He can't continue to try and disrupt the entire election process because he and his running mate aren't prepared. He knows he's lost; he may as well take his lumps and maintain whatever dignity he has left.

I should mention I know next to nothing about politics. Full disclosure!
I think McCain has been pushing for more debates for some time now.

That's the problem - he only wants to debate on his terms. If you're talking about the whole town hall meeting idea, that was a ploy to get Obama dancing to McCain's tune, nothing more and nothing less. Obama was smart in not taking the bait, just as he was smart to go on television yesterday and say Friday's debate is still on. McCain keeps trying to pretend he has some say over how the debates and election should happen, and he doesn't - no Presidential candidate should. Obama continually takes the power out of McCain's hands by not playing ball.

There are only a handful of opportunities to see both candidates on the same stage, and a debate is too important to put off or cancel. On a purely superficial level, McCain has to realize that he suffers if he's placed next to Obama - Obama has kept his cool throughout this financial thingie, while McCain went on television yesterday looking like the Crypt Keeper.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 25, 2008, 03:25:28 PM
I agree, if you want to run for president, then fucking run for president.  Shit or get off the president pot.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 25, 2008, 03:27:19 PM
I suspect that lazy, blanket cynicism has poisoned the political atmosphere of this country just as badly as partisan bickering at this point.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 25, 2008, 03:29:50 PM
Some of it's not lazy. Some of it took a lot of hard work and learning to acquire.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 25, 2008, 03:39:11 PM
Quote
I suspect that lazy, blanket cynicism has poisoned the political atmosphere of this country just as badly as partisan bickering at this point.

Yes. I wouldn't say the whiny, conspiracy-obsessed "blogosphere" has helped matters either.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 25, 2008, 04:02:54 PM
I wish that Letterman would have made it less about Letterman being snubbed and more about his actual thoughts. He made his case but it was buried in a temper tantrum... he could have had a Craig Ferguson moment (that people actually saw  ;D).
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 25, 2008, 04:13:05 PM
both parties are shit at this point.
both parties This country is are shit at this point.

I fix.

Yeah, Yeah. The country's in the terlet and we're all gonna die (eventually). I know Barack's not our savior, despite his boyishly handsome good looks. But let's at least try changing the oil and rotating the tires. Let's rotate the tires on this terlet. Let's puree the hell out of this metaphor.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on September 25, 2008, 04:32:14 PM
she looked great though.
Wait, what does "great" mean again?


She's pretty and she's well dressed every time I see her, c'mon u guys gotta admit
she looks great.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 25, 2008, 06:50:45 PM
I can't admit
no such
thing
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 25, 2008, 10:51:32 PM
I can't admit
no such
thing

Double negative. That means you admit it.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 26, 2008, 02:57:45 AM
Quote
I suspect that lazy, blanket cynicism has poisoned the political atmosphere of this country just as badly as partisan bickering at this point.

Yes. I wouldn't say the whiny, conspiracy-obsessed "blogosphere" has helped matters either.

The speed of the dialogue/information too, lends itself towards political hypersensitivity.  (I know I'm guilty of getting suckered in/wrapped up in it sometimes.)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on September 26, 2008, 09:49:30 AM
www.youtube.com/v/AgHHX9R4Qtk
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 26, 2008, 10:07:29 AM
"BOth love your grandkids... all your friends are dying..."

I giggled!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on September 26, 2008, 12:49:35 PM
"McCain Decides to Participate in Debate"

Decides?!!?

Ridiculous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/us/politics/27debatecnd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 26, 2008, 01:15:56 PM
"McCain Decides to Participate in Debate"

Decides?!!?

Ridiculous.

72 year old drama queen.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on September 26, 2008, 02:33:21 PM
Ha!
My Super Sweet Presidential Debate!

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/hippocatgeek/McCain16.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 26, 2008, 04:13:43 PM
Does anyone else notice that his left eye is droopy? Is that a new thing? Is this man running for president and having strokes at the same time?

I just noticed that. Maybe it has been there all along...
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 26, 2008, 11:27:39 PM
That line on the bottom of the screen showing partisan reaction was stupid and distracting.

That debate was so meh. I'm way more exited for the Palin/Biden debate. I've developed a sort of grotesque obsession with Sarah Palin. Will she freeze like a deer in headlights, or will she find some debate skils and "bring em to ya?" Stay tuned.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erechoveraker on September 26, 2008, 11:53:13 PM
I dunno, but I am buying my first bottle of hard liquor in a good long time, and every time Palin starts off a reply with "but John McCain is the maverick", I am going to hit my girlfriend in the head with the bottle. Not exactly the drinking game my gf would want, but desperate times call for...


Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 26, 2008, 11:59:59 PM
The Dems might lose because as much as John McCain is Bush, he doesn't come across as an idiot. I was expecting Obama to clean up but that was a wash.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: wwwes on September 27, 2008, 01:37:09 AM
Were there people that thought McCain was outright stupid? I know he was in the 99.44% percentile of his class, but he does know foreign policy. The surprise for me was how crisp and unrelenting Obama was. I never expected him to be as dull as the media thought he would be, but he outmaneuvered McCain in several ways.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Raad_Man on September 27, 2008, 01:56:42 AM
it was a nice try by obama.  but john mccain didn't suck, ,which means he was great.  it was touching when he talked about soldiers who love to serve and the bracelet that he got from that woman and how important it is not to lose wars.  you'd think that would be obvious to most people.  sometimes it takes an old war hero to remind you.  i don't even care about politics really but i loved saving private ryan.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 27, 2008, 04:05:02 AM
it was touching when he talked about soldiers who love to serve and the bracelet that he got from that woman and how important it is not to lose wars.  you'd think that would be obvious to most people...
 

Sometimes it's important to bring the bloodletting to an end. Ours AND theirs. Especially when the war wasn't justified to begin with. At a certain point you have to decide whether that's more important than any abstract concept of victory. What the fuck would constitute a "victory" in Iraq at this point? Seriously, what does that even mean? 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: wwwes on September 27, 2008, 04:53:57 AM
A victory in Iraq would be a secure, stable government, and that isn't going to happen while we are there. This war wasn't supposed to be about spreading democracy, but of course it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century). We're fighting a war on TERROR. What happens when Iran gets nuclear weapons? When Pakistan breaks into instability? When Afghanistan gets even worse? What's better, executing a planned, gradual withdrawal or a hasty one that comes in a time of crisis?

The world is in the terlet. We can't afford to spend all our money, manpower and credibility on Iraq.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 27, 2008, 08:39:16 AM
I've developed a sort of grotesque obsession with Sarah Palin.

Oh, me too.  This whole fiasco is a trainwreck in slow motion and it is both incredibly difficult to look away and impossible to not appreciate if for no other reason than the sheer comedy of it all.  America is so focking weird sometimes.  haha
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: masterofsparks on September 27, 2008, 09:08:20 AM
it was a nice try by obama.  but john mccain didn't suck, ,which means he was great. 

Wrong. Foreign policy is (supposedly) McCain's strong point, which means the foreign policy debate was supposed to be his chance to put Obama against the ropes. He absolutely did not. I'd say neither one scored a decisive victory, but the advantage goes to Obama.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on September 27, 2008, 09:10:45 AM
Ahmed
din
E
Jad



5 syllables

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 27, 2008, 09:45:45 AM
Ummm.... did McCain actually say "second Holocaust" when referring to Iran vs Israel? Cuz I think Israel could blow them up in a heartbeat. They don't NEED our help.

And frankly, as a Jew, I'm tired of people voting for president of this country based on their support for another. I have family members who do that and it makes me absolutely nuts. Israel just isn't worth having another George Bush in office. They can take care of themselves just fine and I don't necessarily agree with the way they've handled things anyway.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Julie on September 27, 2008, 10:14:12 AM
I went to my friends house to watch the debate. I was pissed, so I don't remember anything specific except that McCain kept lying. I couldn't be quiet, so my husband made me go home because there was a no talking rule.

Anyway, am I the only person who thinks McCain is really working for Obama's campaign?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 27, 2008, 10:19:20 AM
The surprise for me was how crisp and unrelenting Obama was. I never expected him to be as dull as the media thought he would be, but he outmaneuvered McCain in several ways.

Yes, me too.  And he spoke right to John McCain, he looked at him and addressed him directly every time. McCain talked about Obama like he wasn't in the room at all, which was, for lack of a better word, pussy.

And boy, is Jim Lehrer is getting on in years. He looked exhausted.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Julie on September 27, 2008, 10:31:12 AM
The surprise for me was how crisp and unrelenting Obama was. I never expected him to be as dull as the media thought he would be, but he outmaneuvered McCain in several ways.

Yes, me too.  And he spoke right to John McCain, he looked at him and addressed him directly every time. McCain talked about Obama like he wasn't in the room at all, which was, for lack of a better word, pussy.

And boy, is Jim Lehrer is getting on in years. He looked exhausted.

McCain seems to have already thrown in the towel. He didn't even seem to believe what was coming out of his mouth!

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 27, 2008, 11:48:03 AM
I totally disagree, McCain came off as an expert on foreign affairs even though he's completely wrong... and they both told their half-truths but both parties portrayed their platform pretty accurately. I'm surprised that Obama is showing up in polls as the winner... that's encouraging because it shows that the independents might have been with him before the debate even started.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: wwwes on September 27, 2008, 11:58:59 AM
I secretly suspect that McCain doesn't really want the job, he's just stuck in it. Probably last spring, when he had some time to reflect while Obama and Clinton were still fighting, he realized he'd be spending a big chunk of his remaining years in the most unforgiving, demanding job in the world. At a time when it will almost assuredly be really rough in this country. The convention and Sarah Palin seemed to energize him for a time by letting him run the way he wanted to run, but now she has lost even some of her apologists (read this National Review article (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE) if you haven't) and he's starting to get hammered in the polls and the press for saying one thing, doing another thing, then saying yet another thing. Which is what he has been doing his entire career, but it's never been scrutinized and he's never had to worry about holding onto conservatives.

Watching his run has been fascinating, because it has obliterated his entire image and public goodwill. Last fall, his campaign put together this fake future news article that talked about how McCain was able to beat Hillary because he stole the change issue away and ran a clean campaign. Which is either the saddest or funniest thing you've ever heard, depending on your opinion of hubris.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: wwwes on September 27, 2008, 12:04:13 PM
I totally disagree, McCain came off as an expert on foreign affairs even though he's completely wrong... and they both told their half-truths but both parties portrayed their platform pretty accurately. I'm surprised that Obama is showing up in polls as the winner... that's encouraging because it shows that the independents might have been with him before the debate even started.
People who want to hear a real discussion on the issues made up their minds after the convention or before. They've been following the news and have looked online a couple of times. People undecided before the debates don't give a damn about issues, they go by the feeling they get from the candidates and who they think has integrity. Who seems "presidential" and who they want to see interrupting American Idol for the next four years. We'll see what happens in the next few days, though.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on September 27, 2008, 12:28:29 PM
Obama said orgy!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on September 27, 2008, 03:10:04 PM
And now you're going to vote for him, right? 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 27, 2008, 03:33:36 PM
88% of responders to the Fox News poll said that McCain won the debate.  Sounds like a pretty decisive victory.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Matt on September 27, 2008, 03:44:55 PM
88% of responders to the Fox News poll said that McCain won the debate.  Sounds like a pretty decisive victory.

Consider the source.

If anybody won, it was Obama. McCain was plenty fiesty and made a lot of attacks, but he didn't personalize them. Obama was constantly looking at McCain and saying, "John, you're wrong." McCain never threw it back in his face; he was constantly saying, "Senator Obama doesn't understand." If he had slipped "you" in there, I think he would have come off a lot better. It didn't help that McCain didn't look Obama in the eye except for the handshakes before and after the debate. He wasn't willing to engage on the level Obama was, and I think he suffered for that.

McCain won some points from me when he finally copped to the fact that it was his party who - for the most part - led us into this mess. He needed to clear the air and he made a noble attempt at it. However, any points he might've won from me were taken back minutes later, when he whined about how having access to billions of pork dollars "corrupts" politicians. Um, it corrupts you only if you let it. Apparently the American people are at fault for not electing people of more noble character, people with a backbone who could resist the temptations of all that money. Whatever "personal accountability" angle he was pushing forward slid wildly out of control on that one, for me at least. It seemed like a pretty pathetic thing to say. 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Regular Joe on September 27, 2008, 04:16:26 PM
I secretly suspect that McCain doesn't really want the job, he's just stuck in it.


I absolutely agree with this and I'm so glad to hear it expressed. I can't help thinking that John McCain has become more disillusioned with his country and party than he ever expected he would be, making his internal thoughts sound a lot like Gob Bluth's "I've made a huuuge mistake." Everything about his campaign has been so geared towards gaining poll numbers in the short term, with so little long term thinking, and I think McCain would have had it be so much different, if he was truly in control of his own run for office.

Aside from that, I cant help thinking of him as David Cross' character in this Mr. Show sketch (http://www.metacrawler.com/clickserver/_iceUrlFlag=1?rawURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-K_eQBGkV8s&0=&1=0&4=72.53.194.53&5=67.171.37.118&9=6815d7c8b5f348559d5b5ea86e20c901&10=1&11=info.metac&13=search&14=239138&15=main-title&17=4&18=1&19=0&20=3&21=1&22=XVXuIY1ethk%3D&23=0&40=aNYjKJU2lFX05fnkk6ZBqA%3D%3D&_IceUrl=true). No more news!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Jason on September 27, 2008, 04:24:04 PM
I thought it was a draw and was quite surprised that they didn't go into extra time or sudden death penalties.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: wwwes on September 27, 2008, 08:23:34 PM
Quote
he whined about how having access to billions of pork dollars "corrupts" politicians. Um, it corrupts you only if you let it. Apparently the American people are at fault for not electing people of more noble character, people with a backbone who could resist the temptations of all that money.
Joe Biden. 36 years. Big pork guy. Maximum net worth: $277,997.
Robert Byrd. Oldest member and most notorious pork barrel spender in the Senate. Maximum net worth: $350,000.

Pork barrel spending usually isn't about the person asking for it so much as it is about the place that they serve. Nothing wrong with it as long as it's transparent. Pork barrel spending creates jobs, enhances communities, fixes roads and bridges. Each project should be better evaluated and kept in the open, but it's not something that needs to be stopped.

Quote
I think McCain would have had it be so much different, if he was truly in control of his own run for office.
In an odd way, I think that's what made him pick Palin. It was him making a stand and refusing to go with the safe candidates chosen for him. Unfortunately, it appears as if it will blow up in his face. It's so sad. Had he won in 2000, we'd probably be a whole lot better off. But he was right for 2000, not now.

Of course, we all gotta give Obama some damn credit. If we were asked in 2004 who would be running in 2008, we ALL would have said it'd be Hillary running against McCain. We might not have been certain it would have been McCain, but we would have been certain it would be Hillary. Obama is on the verge of pulling off two of the biggest upsets in political history.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: wwwes on September 27, 2008, 08:38:45 PM
Or to put it another way, if John McCain were in the Senate with Mr. Smith, he would be lambasting him for wanting to build a public park with federal funds.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 27, 2008, 10:16:52 PM
John McCain likes the phrase "pork barrell" too much.  "Pork barrell" this "pork barrell" that.


Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on September 27, 2008, 10:24:08 PM
John McCain likes the phrase "pork barrell" too much.  "Pork barrell" this "pork barrell" that.




It makes me think of delicious pork burritos, so there's that.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: wwwes on September 27, 2008, 11:25:56 PM
Interesting sidenote: The origin of the phrase "pork-barrel spending" is too disgusting to mention in polite conversation.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 27, 2008, 11:37:26 PM
quit being so polite.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on September 27, 2008, 11:41:15 PM
Clearly, it was a Tor Halversom win.

Also liked that Obama said "orgy," and that McCain said "existential."
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Forrest on September 27, 2008, 11:58:04 PM
I liked how much taller Obama was than McCain, and I liked running into Jason Grote on the street today.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 28, 2008, 12:27:38 AM
If given the opportunity, I would totally dig into a barrel of pork. bbq.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 28, 2008, 02:30:37 AM
Just make sure it's not actually Arby-Q. Because those are gross.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 28, 2008, 02:37:44 AM
The Dems might lose if McCain can change the subject from the economy. Something like this, from the LA Times, might just do the trick:

* * * * *

UCLA mathematicians discover a 13-million-digit prime number

The mathematicians have found the first verified Mersenne prime number with more than 10 million digits, putting them in line to win a six-digit prize from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 27, 2008
UCLA mathematicians appear to have won a $100,000 prize from the Electronic Frontier Foundation for discovering a 13-million-digit prime number that has long been sought by computer users.

While the prize money is nothing special, the bragging rights for discovering the 46th known Mersenne prime are huge.

"We're delighted," said UCLA's Edson Smith, leader of the effort. "Now we're looking for the next one, despite the odds," which are thought to be about one in 150,000 that any number tested will be a Mersenne prime.

Prime numbers are those, like three, seven and 11, that are divisible only by themselves and one. Mersenne primes, named after the 17th century French mathematician Marin Mersenne, who discovered them, take the form 2P - 1, where P is also a prime number.

In the new UCLA prime, P = 43,112,609.

Thousands of people around the world have been participating in the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search, or GIMPS, in which underused computing power is harnessed to perform the complex and tedious calculations needed to find and verify Mersenne primes. The prize is being offered for finding the first Mersenne prime with more than 10 million digits.

Smith and his UCLA colleagues have, since last fall, harnessed the power of the 75 machines in the university's Program in Computing/Math Computer Lab, which is used by students for computer projects. Smith, a system administrator, realized that the lab was using only a fraction of its available CPU power. Rather than let it go to waste, he and his colleagues decided to use it for the GIMPS project.

The new Mersenne prime was discovered Aug. 23 on a Dell Optiplex 745 running Windows XP. The number was verified by a different computer system running a different algorithm.

The new prime is the eighth Mersenne prime discovered at UCLA. In 1952, mathematician Raphael Robinson found five of them using UCLA's Standards Western Automatic Computer. They were the 13th through 17th Mersenne primes discovered, the first ones found in more than 75 years, and the first to be discovered using a digital computer. Each had a few hundred digits.

In 1961, mathematician Alexander Hurwitz discovered two more, each with more than 1,200 digits, on the university's IBM 7090 mainframe.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an activist group supporting individual rights on the Web. The group established a series of prizes in 1999 to promote cooperative computing on the Web.

The prize will be awarded when the new prime is published, probably next year. By prearrangement, half of the money will go to UCLA, a quarter of it will go to charity and the rest will go to other GIMPS participants and the organization itself.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on September 28, 2008, 06:29:17 AM
That discovery caused riots in the streets of Lubec.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: <<<<< on September 28, 2008, 08:06:50 AM
Also liked that Obama said "orgy," and that McCain said "existential."

I'm sure it's a total egghead move, but McCain's use of the word existential rubbed me the wrong way.  Existential crisis is a spiritual crisis of meaning, so to say Israel's enemies pose a "crisis of meaning" seemed like a complete misappropriation of the term, when what he really meant to say is that they want to physically destroy them.

/nerd
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 28, 2008, 07:07:39 PM
I heard that CalTech was completely up in arms that this discovery took place at UCLA. Cars were turned over and set on fire. There were riots that had to be disbanded by a battalion of National Guard forces, who teargassed and violently beat back the angry, nihilistic mathematicians. It's a sad tragedy when such an important discovery is met with violence, destruction and mayhem. I also heard that Rodney King was interviewed, and reiterated his famous question, "Why can't we all just get along?"
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on September 28, 2008, 08:20:17 PM
I liked how much taller Obama was than McCain, and I liked running into Jason Grote on the street today.

I liked running into you, too - and I totally noticed that height thing.  I was bothered by the fact that I could see the top of McCain's podium but not Obama's.  Clearly, the only fair solution would be to shoot both candidates from the same height, so that McCain would have a few more inches of blue background over his head than Obama, and the network logo would be placed over McCain's chin and lower lip.  How else are Americans supposed to decide?

Also liked that Obama said "orgy," and that McCain said "existential."

I'm sure it's a total egghead move, but McCain's use of the word existential rubbed me the wrong way.  Existential crisis is a spiritual crisis of meaning, so to say Israel's enemies pose a "crisis of meaning" seemed like a complete misappropriation of the term, when what he really meant to say is that they want to physically destroy them.

/nerd

Allow me to way out-nerd you.  In diplomatic-speak, an "existential threat" is one where an entire state might get wiped out.  It has nothing to do with Sartre and Camus.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Come on, Jason on September 28, 2008, 09:09:09 PM
Joe Biden misuses the word "literally" literally everytime I hear him speak.  Drives me nuts.  Come on, Joe.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 28, 2008, 09:11:00 PM
Well, I thought of Sartre and Camus, and it really threw me off my game at that point in the debate.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Phantom Hugger on September 28, 2008, 11:13:00 PM
Also liked that Obama said "orgy," and that McCain said "existential."

I'm sure it's a total egghead move, but McCain's use of the word existential rubbed me the wrong way.  Existential crisis is a spiritual crisis of meaning, so to say Israel's enemies pose a "crisis of meaning" seemed like a complete misappropriation of the term, when what he really meant to say is that they want to physically destroy them.

/nerd

It seemed to me that he wanted to say 'external' or some such derivative.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 29, 2008, 12:36:34 AM
did it?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 29, 2008, 02:19:55 AM
Also liked that Obama said "orgy," and that McCain said "existential."

I'm sure it's a total egghead move, but McCain's use of the word existential rubbed me the wrong way.  Existential crisis is a spiritual crisis of meaning, so to say Israel's enemies pose a "crisis of meaning" seemed like a complete misappropriation of the term, when what he really meant to say is that they want to physically destroy them.

/nerd

It seemed to me that he wanted to say 'external' or some such derivative.

No, he meant existential, which makes perfect sense in the way he used it. It's a very common term and is used like this all the time, not sure why you guys are so confused by it.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 29, 2008, 02:25:11 AM
Joe Biden misuses the word "literally" literally everytime I hear him speak.  Drives me nuts.  Come on, Joe.

I know! He's literally done that, like, a hundred thousand times!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on September 29, 2008, 10:33:06 AM
I thought it was a draw and was quite surprised that they didn't go into extra time or sudden death penalties.

Pistols at dawn.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Chris L on September 29, 2008, 10:35:06 AM
Quote
“She's very skilled and she'll be well-prepared,” said Barack Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod Sunday night, flying with Biden back to Delaware to help him get ready.

“As you saw at the convention she can be very good. So, I think it would be foolish to assume that this isn’t going to be a really challenging debate. We're preparing for that, on that assumption.”

Taking it one step farther, Biden spokesman David Wade later added, “He's going in here to debate a leviathan of forensics, who has debated five times and she's undefeated.”

Literally!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: emma on September 29, 2008, 10:47:55 AM
I thought it was a draw and was quite surprised that they didn't go into extra time or sudden death penalties.

Pistols at dawn.

This election can obviously only end with a Hamilton/Burr style duel. I'd pay to see Obama and McCain have a gunfight in Weehawken, wouldn't you?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Spoony on September 29, 2008, 12:07:22 PM
If Obama was smart, he'd choose a weapon that he knew he could win with, like Cheeseburgers at Denny's. He'd win by surviving Red State cuisine, making him their undisputed leader.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 29, 2008, 06:59:22 PM
This Bailout thing is a bigger motivation for me to move out of this country than any election.  Seriously, this Bailout is full-on bullshit unless this company (Edit: Company!  I meant to write "COUNTRY".  Freudian slip!!) suddenly decides to go socialist (which I would fully support).  I don't want my kids to grow up in a dump like this.  This country is going to the birds.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 29, 2008, 08:23:03 PM
I don't make any claims to know a ton about economics issues, but it seems to me that the bailout would be the worst thing that could happen. Not only are taxpayers on the line for 700 billion+ dollars (that won't go back into their pockets, that's for sure) but the dollar depreciates at the same time. Lose-lose, right? It seems like the best move is to let these pieces fall and if anything has value somebody will buy it, and if it doesn't we would have been paying all that money to fund companies that aren't worth anything and they'd only struggle again. I don't get why anybody is for that but maybe I'm missing something.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 29, 2008, 08:56:11 PM
I thought it was a draw and was quite surprised that they didn't go into extra time or sudden death penalties.

Pistols at dawn.

This election can obviously only end with a Hamilton/Burr style duel. I'd pay to see Obama and McCain have a gunfight in Weehawken, wouldn't you?

You can afford to say that Emma, sittin' up there in Toronto, all smug and having a good laugh at the Americans and their foolishness. Oh, I bet you and your compadres are having a few good belly laughs right about now. And I can't blame you. I would too, if I were you.

Well, times are hard this side of the border and they're about to get a whole lot harder. We need a real president, not a pretender/incompetent/fool. I think there might be a decent one among these two, but I'm not sure and I know there's only one way to find out.

So a gun battle? No ma'am. Not just now. But paintball? Hell yeah. That would be awesome. I'd even agree to rubber bullets, with the appropriate eyewear being worn, because I have a strong hunch that McCain is the better shot.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 29, 2008, 08:59:00 PM
Canadians are silly.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Forrest on September 29, 2008, 09:03:33 PM
Andy is the king of the terse post.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 29, 2008, 09:05:33 PM
Tell me if I'm crazy, or if this is a possible October Surprise scenario. The bailout/rescue bill died. The market responds negatively, even malevolently. This course of events continues for a few days. Blame is assigned by congressional Republicans to their Democratic colleagues and vice versa.

Congressional Republicans fashion a new package, sufficiently similar to the last one, feign dissatisfaction yet manage in the process to obtain substantial Democratic support. John McCain rides into Washington and pretends to summon substantial Republican support after Democratic votes on the new package are tallied, and the bill is passed. The president signs it, and he and Republican congressional leaders commend him with the strongest possible praise for saving the day. This tips the election in McCain's favor at the last minute. The Democrats and Obama have been faked out and wrest defeat from the jaws of victory. Implausible?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 29, 2008, 09:14:41 PM
now you're thinking in the right direction.  the US Political System is the new WWF.
(http://www.guresmania.net/pics/duggan/04.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 29, 2008, 09:27:01 PM
Some guy from Texas complained that the bill puts us on the "slippery slope" toward socialism.  But I like socialism.  Socialism would be great.  I think it just accentuates how all us little folk are just becoming peasants in a weak-but-tyrannical Christian fascist state whose shots are actually gonna be called by a centralized corporate oligarchy that runs the entire world.  That, or China is gonna have our ass.  Either way.

I guess the election is starting to get me riled up after all.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Matt on September 29, 2008, 09:27:44 PM
October Surprise: Bristol Palin's Shotgun Wedding! Everyone loves a wedding, right?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on September 29, 2008, 09:30:07 PM
Socialism rocks.  It'd be like living in Sweden, only warmer.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 29, 2008, 09:33:39 PM
The Swedish bailout of 1992, which worked like a charm and arguably more than paid for itself, isn't too far from what just got voted down. I'm as wary as socializing risk and privatizing gain as the next guy, but I'd be careful just automatically assuming that bailouts are always bad. A lot of the rhetoric around this is very "cut off my nose to spite my face"-y, but I don't think it's worth having a depression just to prove a point or to teach fat cats a lesson.

Now what'll happen is that a much more left wing bill will pass, without the republicans even needed but with more support from leftier Ds. In other words the Republicans who voted against the bill have ensured what is a worse outcome according to their principals in order to score some political points by being able to claim they opposed something which was unpopular. Ah, democracy.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 29, 2008, 09:37:41 PM
neither side has any principals.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on September 29, 2008, 09:38:44 PM
now you're thinking in the right direction.  the US Political System is the new WWF.
([url]http://www.guresmania.net/pics/duggan/04.jpg[/url])


is that Sarah Palin's husband?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 29, 2008, 09:40:51 PM
I agree with your first paragraph yesno, but I'm not sure about the second. There's a lot of misinformation circulating about this, but also a great deal of fair skepticism about the ability to sell assets and recoup their value at some future point. I believe it's not only possible but likely, and probably possible at a substantial profit. That's how the bill needed to be sold in my opinion, but apparently few were willing to stick their necks out that far, leaving the "bailing out Wall Street" theme the more prominent one, and the "corporate socialism" crowd apparently crowed loudly enough to swing the bill in what was, I believe, the wrong direction.

As for the Democrats' ability to pass a different rescue bill on their own, I'd need lots of persuading that that could happen a month away from house elections. It would also have to be signed by The Moron In The White House.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on September 29, 2008, 09:42:41 PM
now you're thinking in the right direction.  the US Political System is the new WWF.
([url]http://www.guresmania.net/pics/duggan/04.jpg[/url])


is that Sarah Palin's husband?



Unlikely, I hear he's a separatist.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 29, 2008, 09:45:39 PM
but I don't think it's worth having a depression just to prove a point or to teach fat cats a lesson.

Do you really think we would have a depression though? I don't. These are businesses that sucked at what they do and failed. There's still some worth in them so let other businesses who are good at what they do buy them and if they don't want to it means the failed businesses were worthless anyway. Throwing a trillion dollars at failed businesses seems like a horrific idea especially when it's not just the trillion, it's also our dollar looking worse off than before, something I didn't think was possible. I'm just glad I don't own anything or have any kind of savings.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 29, 2008, 09:56:07 PM
The collapse of short term credit markets and pension funds etc  would be bad for a lot of innocent people and honest businesses, but I agree that "depression" is probably overstated. 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 29, 2008, 10:01:31 PM
We understand the function of the central bank a lot better than we did in the 1930s, and our economy has corrective mechanisms (e.g. unemployment compensation, the tax system) that either didn't exist then or weren't designed in a way to accommodate such a crisis. We also have a Fed Chairman whose career has centered around the study of the Great Depression, which should be worth something should the worst happen.

A depression seems very unlikely, but a long, deep, painful recession might not be.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 29, 2008, 10:07:59 PM
I can see some companies not being able to make payroll and having to lay off people. But, I think that might happen no matter what. I don't see not voting for the bailout as trying to prove a point, I see it as not wanting to throw money at a serious problem. Instead, we need to work through a recession and deal with the consequences of what's happened because if the bailout doesn't work we're right back where we were with a dollar that's worth next to nothing. Then we'll be talking depression.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 29, 2008, 10:31:46 PM
My main problem with the bailout (and I'm really not that well-versed on this, so bear with me) is that it seems to me that if the taxpayers have 700 billion dollars to throw around, then the taxpayers should be able to spend that 700 billion on themselves in the event of a really bad recession, rather than using it to bail out predatory and incompetent corporate entities that did most of the work that put them in the really bad recession.

Also, Our country has been running on these "You fuck up you die" economic principles for so long that it is uniquely and specifically offensive and insane at this historical moment in this country to be bailing out these corporations, essentially saying "There is a completely different standard for corporations then there are for the little people."  This bailout may actually be the right thing to do, but, unlike Sweden, we have been living in economic conditions that are totally opposed to government intervention, and if they're going to intervene in this, then they better follow it up with, or at least start talking about, some kind of investment in social assistance down the line for people who need it.

Also, the taxpayers actually don't have 700 billion dollars to throw around, so NO.

Also (and somewhat related to what I just said) wouldn't any corporate exec worth their salt start streamlining the shit out of their corporations with or without the bailout?  I mean, doesn't it stand to reason that the fear itself is enough to create the conditions we're wishing to avoid even if a bailout gets passed?   And then if there's no self-correction that occurs, what's to keep this from becoming the new pattern; people get hyper-rich on speculation, taxpayers bail them out on borrowed money.  That's like paying off your Visa with your Mastercard every month.  How many times can we do that before our entire country is foreclosed on by all the other countries that bought all our debt?

I got a lot of questions, yesno.

I feel like this crisis ought to be the final death-knell for the insanity of Reaganomics, but my fear is that this bailout will happen and then the impulse will be to simply carry on as if nothing just happened.  I can't even begin to understand what that would mean for the country.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 29, 2008, 10:55:37 PM
I just don't understand why Democrats are for the bailout. It seems so backwards and the fact that both McCain and Obama tiptoed around the bailout questions at the debate make me think they're both fine with how the economy is being run right now and don't really want to change it. Only the real Republicans are really making sense right now. I guess if somebody can tell me why every Democrat seems to think that spending 700 billion dollars to support what probably equates to the top 5 percent is a good thing, I'll listen. But as for now, it baffles me how all of the liberals are on board with this while Obama attacks McCain for taxing the middle class and not the rich... What's going on here?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 29, 2008, 11:06:47 PM
Lobbyists.

Also, in terms of core principals, it could be argued that the bailout would mean more government oversight of markets in the future, which is a totally Democrat thing.

The govt. bailing anybody (little guy OR big guy) out is more in line with Democratic core principals then Republican core principals.  So Pelosi says Dems'll support the bailout only if there's stuff in their that Democrats supposedly believe in (govt. owns the deed so the govt. can create programs to help people keep their houses instead of just recycling them into the stock market or whatever the fuck is happening now).  For republicans, it's not about bundling it with social programs, because they hate social programs.  For them, they're actually so politically bankrupt due to the Bush Admin. getting them into this mess, and the general principal of the bailout being against their core principals, that it actually benefits them more to be obstructionist on this because distancing themselves from the Bush Admin. is literally the last thing they can do before becoming completely irrelevant.  Maybe(?)

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 29, 2008, 11:41:14 PM
The Republicans who are voting this down aren't Bush/McCain neo-cons. They're old guard republicans that will always vote against government bailouts. I wish those Republicans were still in the majority. I don't know if I'd vote for them but America would be in a better spot if that was the kind of Republican running the country. I know that Democrats like to throw money at problems (along with neo-cons) but still, throwing money at the rich seems to be the last thing they should be doing right now.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 29, 2008, 11:44:36 PM
I tend to agree with the sentiment of Nancy Pelosi's statement today: how has this been allowed to get this far before doing anything about it?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 30, 2008, 12:57:10 AM
Well, she's speaker of the house so where was she?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on September 30, 2008, 01:22:49 AM
now you're thinking in the right direction.  the US Political System is the new WWF.
([url]http://www.guresmania.net/pics/duggan/04.jpg[/url])


is that Sarah Palin's husband?



Unlikely, I hear he's a separatist.


I think that's her son, Genesis.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 30, 2008, 01:46:56 AM
I think the idea is that the system is being bailed out.  The fact that some bad actors are saved is an unfortunate side effect.  And the owners of companies that fuck up usually get little out of bailouts-- the idea is to preserve the ongoing operations of the entity, not to keep investors from going broke.

I don't think that the morality/fairness arguments coming from the left or the economic ideology arguments from the right are contributing much.

I think most Democrats support the plan because it's a good idea.  It makes pragmatic sense.  In my mind it's more like bailing out a company that provides essential infrastructure like an electric company.  No matter how greedy, corrupt, and mismanaged the company was, nevertheless the lights can't go out.  Couple that with the fact that the plan might make the government money, either directly or through increased(or higher than they otherwise would be) tax revenues down the road, it seems like a pretty good idea given the circumstances.

Republicans by and large don't support it because they think that the "market" is this independent, naturally occurring entity that exists outside of government, and all that government can ever do is interfere with it for good or ill.  But contracts, rights, property, and money only exist to the extent that the government says they do, and markets always operate on a foundation of rules that are set by the political process.  Which is my cumbersome way of saying that being opposed to government intervention in markets just because is silly.  Why not get rid of the government intervention that is limited liability corporations?  Then creditors can recoup their losses by simply suing shareholders individually.  Some of them are bound to be rich.

Overall I think that government intervention to short circuit market death spirals can be a good idea.  Sellers crowding the market drives prices down which in turn devalues the assets companies weren't selling, which makes them have to sell more to raise more cash, and down and down everything goes.  Governments have the ability to hold onto assets until they regain a more normal value.  Everything would eventually work out without the government as savvy people bought up the depressed assets and later make a killing, but the point is to avoid the hassle that attends whole sectors of the economy going bankrupt.  Again, you don't want the electric company to turn out the lights even if some investor in 2 months would eventually get things back up and running.

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 30, 2008, 02:08:21 AM
I don't agree with that thought at all then. If a couple companies are bringing the system down, let them falter. It might bring a painful recession, but it will be quick. What the bailout will bring is a long, mid-level recession with the dollar in the gutter when we get out and if Obama gets elected, that will be his legacy...
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on September 30, 2008, 02:37:30 AM
yesno, I appreciate your last post.  I'm inclined to agree with you because in general you seem way smarter and better informed than me.  On the other hand, I just have so little faith that it will actually be worth it if executed by the particular group of assholes running this particular country at this particular moment in time.

I think the point of a lot of the outrage stuff is that they pushed for something so fast, seemingly out of nowhere, that people like me haven't even had time to figure out what the fuck is going on, and in a so-called democracy, that's very upsetting.  So you need like more than a week and for something to happen that actually dramatically shits on the stock market and makes everyone mad before someone like me can actually be bothered to go and research and digest what is actually going on with the bailout thing.  I think there was a panic in the way this was proposed and brought to the American people, and I think, rightfully so, that the American people are just not fucking buying it from this Administration anymore.  There's just no more trust left (little bit of parroting of washington post happening right now on my part).  Okay, that's all.

I guess I have to admit that I'd rather have a bailout then to have my dad never be able to retire. 

The thing that fucking sucks is that in the supposed "good times" of a year ago, my dad's retirement was not entirely guaranteed then either.  That's the bullshit I mean. 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 30, 2008, 03:24:15 AM
From what I've learned the bailout is just a patch and a guess. If it doesn't work we're going to be in a real bad place for an extended period of time. We know what we're getting if we don't bailout... it's going to be real bad for a little bit, but we get the chance to clean things up and when we get out of it America will be better off. I'd rather take a near certainty than a gamble when it comes to this because I don't think anything is going to change if the bailout happens. Our country should be doing a lot better than it is but it's not because we keep patching things so we can live above our means. I think to get out of Reaganomics you have to let it implode on itself to make people realize this system hasn't worked for years. We can keep saying we need to do this first, we need to let these people retire first, some people need to get paid first. But, it's not going to change until we come to the realization that our economy sucks, stop patching it up and take the necessary steps to fix it.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 30, 2008, 03:43:01 AM
Bottom line: Sweden! Sweden! Sweden!

Right?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Trembling Eagle on September 30, 2008, 04:43:47 AM
Trickle down economics...
it's all based on hating black people.

It's crazy how deep the hate goes, and they were the ones wronged.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on September 30, 2008, 06:41:35 AM
I heard somebody yesterday (I think it was Robert Scheer) mention that fat cats will argue 364 days a year about the need for de-regulation and the importance of "letting the market work", but on that 1 other day, when they've destroyed the market, they want to be pulled into your boat, arguing that otherwise, America's economy will collapse.

It's as if your neighbors came over to your house with pick-axes and begin to beat away at the base of your house, telling you after 3 or 4 days that you'd better pay them to prevent further damage to your home, when what you really should do is just shoot the bastards.

Only 1 billion dollars worth of mortgages fall per day; 700 billion would float failing home-owners, who were welcomed into loans they could not handle, every day for 2 years. And since every dollar injected into the economy is supposedly worth seven dollars by the time it's changed hands throughout its life cycle, that path would inject the equivalent of 7 billion a day into the economy every single day.

Or we could give it all to Pat Paulson.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on September 30, 2008, 08:20:45 AM
Yeah, if Trig had been female, the name they picked was Sussudio.

now you're thinking in the right direction.  the US Political System is the new WWF.
([url]http://www.guresmania.net/pics/duggan/04.jpg[/url])


is that Sarah Palin's husband?



Unlikely, I hear he's a separatist.


I think that's her son, Genesis.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: yesno on September 30, 2008, 09:08:12 AM
Now that Drudge's headline is not red I no longer think the issue is urgent.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Sarah on September 30, 2008, 09:44:46 AM
Yeah, if Trig had been female, the name they picked was Sussudio.

now you're thinking in the right direction.  the US Political System is the new WWF.
([url]http://www.guresmania.net/pics/duggan/04.jpg[/url])


is that Sarah Palin's husband?



Unlikely, I hear he's a separatist.


I think that's her son, Genesis.



Isn't this one of the Geico cavemen?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: erika on September 30, 2008, 09:49:17 AM
Trickle down economics...
it's all based on hating black people.

It's crazy how deep the hate goes, and they were the ones wronged.


You're not actually voting in this election, are you?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on September 30, 2008, 10:04:02 AM
You can afford to say that Emma, sittin' up there in Toronto, all smug and having a good laugh at the Americans and their foolishness. Oh, I bet you and your compadres are having a few good belly laughs right about now. And I can't blame you. I would too, if I were you.

Well, times are hard this side of the border and they're about to get a whole lot harder.


I'd say most Canadians are just about as worried about the U.S. elections as U.S. citizens are. We depend on you, and we like you, so we take it all pretty personally.

Plus, we're embroiled in our own nasty little election, and up here, the good guys have about ZERO chance of winning. Our Prime Minister is a G.W.B. Jr., and he's in the process of solidifying his power here. So that pretty much sucks.

BUT, at least hoagies are finally getting their due in election coverage:
Quote
CHEESESTEAKS, PAKISTAN AND DEBATES

PHILADELPHIA, Pa. -- Palin ventured out for cheesesteaks Saturday night, taking a break from her debate prep to get the city's specialty sandwich, wit whiz.

Palin went to Tony Luke's in South Philly, bypassing two better known establishments: Pat's, where John Kerry asked for a cheesesteak with provolone in 2004, and Geno's, which has run afoul of local groups for a sign on its exterior demanding patrons order in English.

Palin ordered a cheesesteak for herself and daughter Willow, with Cheez Whiz and fried onions. She told a pool reporter she watched Friday's debate.

“McCain did awesome," she said. "He was great. He was absolutely on his game.”

She also said she was excited for her debate with Biden on Thursday.

“Look forward to it," she said. "Look forward to getting to speak to Americans through that debate, absolutely.”

Palin spoke to one patron's friend on his cell phone, and answered a couple of questions on Pakistan from another. Michael Rovito asked her specifically whether U.S. forces should cross the border from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

“If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," she said.

[...]

On Pakistan, McCain had to answer for them on ABC’s This Week. "This business of, in all due respect, people going around and -- with sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's -- that's a person's position, this is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitive policy statement made by Governor Palin,” McCain said. “And I would hope you wouldn't, either."


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/28/1462079.aspx

Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 30, 2008, 10:20:32 AM
It might bring a painful recession, but it will be quick. What the bailout will bring is a long, mid-level recession with the dollar in the gutter when we get out and if Obama gets elected, that will be his legacy...

On what basis do you claim that the recession will be "quick?"

And one what basis do you claim that the bailout will bring a "long, mid-level recession?"
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: chrisfoll577 on September 30, 2008, 10:23:46 AM
BUT, at least hoagies are finally getting their due in election coverage:


Including the time when John Kerry ordered his Cheesesteak with Swiss Cheese, Hoagies and Steaks have always been a factor in politics in The Birthplace of America:

(http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/Kerry%20cheesesteak.jpg) (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/images/2008/04/22/cheesteak.jpg) (http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0005bMI3OV6lQ/610x.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 30, 2008, 10:56:15 AM
Pelosi's speech (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4852384.ece) seemed to have had more impact than originally thought:

Quote
It was perhaps the costliest ad lib in political history, 90 seconds of ill-judged, ill-timed bile that helped to kill off any hope of consensus on Capitol Hill.

That was the charge against Nancy Pelosi after Congress’s rejection of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan yesterday, a rejection that Republicans blamed directly on her aggressive and overtly partisan speech shortly before the vote.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Bryan on September 30, 2008, 11:00:20 AM
Isn't that just partisan nonsense? The content of her speech wasn't terribly controversial. The Republicans are just trying to blame the Dems for this mess. Weak.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: todd on September 30, 2008, 11:01:34 AM
Wait wait wait... a political party blaming another political party!? I am shocked and appalled!
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Beth on September 30, 2008, 12:33:32 PM
Bottom line: Sweden! Sweden! Sweden!

Right?

Are you nuts? They'd never let us in.


Lucky.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: daveB from Oakland on September 30, 2008, 12:49:59 PM

 ([url]http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/images/2008/04/22/cheesteak.jpg[/url])


Caption: Alright, get your picture folks. Because you KNOW I'm not gonna eat this disgusting thing. You're aware that I have 0% body fat, right?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Patrick on September 30, 2008, 03:53:12 PM

 ([url]http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/images/2008/04/22/cheesteak.jpg[/url])




looks like a ringing endorsement for Philly Boy Roy if you ask me. 
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: jbissell on September 30, 2008, 03:55:36 PM
Bottom line: Sweden! Sweden! Sweden!

Right?

Eh, no thanks. I already have an IKEA by my house.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 30, 2008, 04:17:07 PM
It might bring a painful recession, but it will be quick. What the bailout will bring is a long, mid-level recession with the dollar in the gutter when we get out and if Obama gets elected, that will be his legacy...

On what basis do you claim that the recession will be "quick?"

And one what basis do you claim that the bailout will bring a "long, mid-level recession?"

That's just what I've been reading man. I have no basis but it makes sense to me. Letting them fall will bring upon quick change to bring us out of a painful recession. Bailing them out is business as usual, a patch if you will, to keep operating like we are right now (which already can be called a recession) but with 700 billion dollars to account for. Option #1 will hurt everybody for a short period of time until the economy gets fixed, option #2 hurts middle class Americans for a long period of time even though the economy has been patched. I guess where you stand on the bailout all depends on how much you believe in the current system and I think both Democrats and Neo-Cons have a strong belief that the current system works.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 30, 2008, 05:55:34 PM
You can afford to say that Emma, sittin' up there in Toronto, all smug and having a good laugh at the Americans and their foolishness. Oh, I bet you and your compadres are having a few good belly laughs right about now. And I can't blame you. I would too, if I were you.

Well, times are hard this side of the border and they're about to get a whole lot harder.

I'd say most Canadians are just about as worried about the U.S. elections as U.S. citizens are. We depend on you, and we like you, so we take it all pretty personally.

Plus, we're embroiled in our own nasty little election, and up here, the good guys have about ZERO chance of winning. Our Prime Minister is a G.W.B. Jr., and he's in the process of solidifying his power here. So that pretty much sucks.


We love you too Bryan. And we're really gratified that you still, somehow, don't hate us like the rest of the world does.

We've heard about the Canadian election, but in typical American self-absorbed fashion, there isn't much mention of it in the US media, is there? Or am I failing to read things I should? I learned more about the election in a two-day visit to Canada than I possibly could have by staying at home.

Who says the world is getting smaller? I say it's getting lazier and stupider.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on September 30, 2008, 06:00:02 PM
Bottom line: Sweden! Sweden! Sweden!

Right?

Eh, no thanks. I already have an IKEA by my house.

When I was in New York in April, some people I met were thrilled that I was from Sweden. "We love IKEA!" they said. And then they asked, "Do you have IKEA in Sweden?"

TRUE STORY
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on September 30, 2008, 06:01:07 PM
Hey bailout fans, check out Paul Krugman's comment on the NY Times site today. You might have to read it a couple of times to get it to stick like I did, but it goes a long way to understanding what the government is really proposing to do. It's not so much a matter of making a big gift to Wall Street firms and commercial banks (although that might happen in effect, it's not the objective). He argues that it's not even a matter of getting foreigners to buy US treasuries -- I get what he means, but I'm not sure it's quite that easy.

If everyone in America read this, I'm sure they'd be confused as hell, but at least we'd stop with the nonsense about this bailout being socialism.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/where-will-the-money-come-from/ (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/where-will-the-money-come-from/)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: buffcoat on September 30, 2008, 08:40:37 PM
Bottom line: Sweden! Sweden! Sweden!

Right?

Eh, no thanks. I already have an IKEA by my house.

When I was in New York in April, some people I met were thrilled that I was from Sweden. "We love IKEA!" they said. And then they asked, "Do you have IKEA in Sweden?"

TRUE STORY

I need closure on that anecdote.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 30, 2008, 08:58:41 PM
I kind of wish he would ask why the Democrat's are backing this plan but Michael Moore despises the bailout as well.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=235 (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=235)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: cutout on September 30, 2008, 09:47:03 PM
Quote
I kind of wish he would ask why the Democrat's are backing this plan but Michael Moore despises the bailout as well.

I couldn't make it through the overheated hyperbole of just his first paragraph... I'm sorry, I'm sure there are good points hiding in there.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 30, 2008, 09:55:29 PM
so in the NYT example, what happens if the insitutions that are issued the bonds in exchange for equity continue to go about business as usual?  Nothing changes, right?  Except that now the US govt owns a piece of the shitty companies and the bonds eventually get sold to make their balance sheets look better at some future date?  And if the companies do well, what is the likelihood that the taxpayers actually share in the good fortune of the company/govt (and I'm talking about the people who pay their taxes and their mortgages, not the people who cannot pay their ridiculous ARM's)  

In that scenario, what's the end game for the govt?  When do they disconnect themselves from the scenario?  Why should we think that interjecting our inefficient govt into these companies will make them run any better/more efficiently? Or are we just turning the money over and letting the industry that got us into this mess keep running wild?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 30, 2008, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: Michael Moore
Let me state this simply: If we had had universal health coverage, this mortgage "crisis" may never have happened.

Way to go out on a limb, there.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Gilly on September 30, 2008, 10:08:55 PM
I was just putting it out there, I'm not a huge fan of the guy. It's just weird that he's the first liberal I've heard (that isn't an average citizen) who thinks this bailout is a load of crap. I think he's right that once again the Dems are getting played by fear and confusion.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Andy on September 30, 2008, 10:13:00 PM
I agree. I think what he's saying is right, but I also think he's piggy backing his other causes (which is obviously his right, it's his blog)

I heard the bailout wouldn't have been needed if GM had stayed in Flint Michigan.
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Emily on September 30, 2008, 11:10:04 PM
Bottom line: Sweden! Sweden! Sweden!

Right?

Eh, no thanks. I already have an IKEA by my house.

When I was in New York in April, some people I met were thrilled that I was from Sweden. "We love IKEA!" they said. And then they asked, "Do you have IKEA in Sweden?"

TRUE STORY

Well, do you?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Fido on October 01, 2008, 12:38:33 AM
I was just putting it out there, I'm not a huge fan of the guy. It's just weird that he's the first liberal I've heard (that isn't an average citizen) who thinks this bailout is a load of crap. I think he's right that once again the Dems are getting played by fear and confusion.

You're referring to Michael Moore, right?
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: Martin on October 01, 2008, 03:55:31 AM
Bottom line: Sweden! Sweden! Sweden!

Right?

Eh, no thanks. I already have an IKEA by my house.

When I was in New York in April, some people I met were thrilled that I was from Sweden. "We love IKEA!" they said. And then they asked, "Do you have IKEA in Sweden?"

TRUE STORY

I need closure on that anecdote.

Yes, we do have IKEA warehouses in Sweden.

The same people asked me whether we had any farms in Sweden. (Yes.)
Title: Re: Why The Dems Might Lose
Post by: dave from knoxville on October 01, 2008, 08:09:53 AM
Bottom line: Sweden! Sweden! Sweden!

Right?

Eh, no thanks. I already have an IKEA by my house.

When I was in New York in April, some people I met were thrilled that I was from Sweden. "We love IKEA!" they said. And then they asked, "Do you have IKEA in Sweden?"

TRUE STORY

I need closure on that anecdote.

Yes, we do have IKEA warehouses in Sweden.

The same people asked me whether we had any farms in Sweden. (Yes.)

Running water? Electricity? We just got it out here a few months back. Junior keeps sticking his finger in the socket.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on October 01, 2008, 10:47:11 AM
If anyone else is like me, and finds that obsessive trawling for election analysis is eating up their time, this is a pretty great site:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

It provides a daily round-up of polls, news and analysis. Get it all in 10 minutes!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on October 01, 2008, 12:28:18 PM
Hey Gilly, I offered up a sort of answer to your bailout question here:

http://jasongrote.blogspot.com/2008/10/quick-and-dirty-bailout-thoughts.html

I'll spare everyone the copy-and-paste.  It's longish.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gilly on October 01, 2008, 02:02:18 PM
Why can't we regulate AND get rid of failures? This bill should be all about regulation, not how much money taxpayers are going to have to give Wall Street. Wall Street will pick itself up without the taxpayers help, and with regulation this won't happen again. Also, throwing 700 billion into failed companies and then trying to tackle housing and health care isn't going to work nor should those two issues be tacked on to an already complicated bill. Health care is such a delicate issue, and while I'm without it and wishing there were a cost effective way for me to get it, I don't know if forcing American families to pay around 600 dollars in taxes every month to get health care is right. I like that Obama has health care as a top priority but it needs to be well thought out and debated heavily so it doesn't hurt Americans more than help them. It definitely should be completely isolated from a bailout bill even as a negotiation tool. Maybe, you just meant that once this is done, the average American citizen needs to be first and foremost on the priority list in DC. If that's the case, I agree with that. You make some great points about the inner-workings of it all and where both sides lie, but relief isn't going to come anytime soon if we bail them out.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on October 01, 2008, 02:33:11 PM
I think the issue is far greater than a few bad apples, Gilly.  I won't pretend to understand all the details, but it's more about making sure that there's credit available for the economy in general to expand.  It's not like we can just let a few asshole corporations die out and the good ones will survive, and the rest of the economy will be the better for it.  It's more like, no one anywhere can get significant credit and no one can start small businesses or make large purchases (like cars and houses) and even big corporations can't finance their operations effectively.  Farmers (the family kind and the factory kind) can't buy the following year's seeds and such.  Eventually the fallout hits everybody, there are mass layoffs and senseless shortages and so on.  It won't be as bad as the Great Depression because, even through all the deregulation mania from Carter to Bush2, we still have some kind of safety net.  But it will still be pretty bad.

Believe me, I hate these corporate fucks more than anyone, but capitalism didn't exist in its current form until there was credit.  Once it ceases to become available, the economy starts to contract, and then we're screwed.  Again, I don't know how exactly it works, but it's more or less what's happened in the past.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: f. crib on October 02, 2008, 02:41:44 AM
Im sorry, I have to add some humor to this thread.
Former best show fill in Sam Seder and Marc Maron have a funny live video show at Air America.  The station they were both fired from!
Lots of informative banter about the bailout and some hate for Dane Cook.

1st episode
http://blip.tv/play/AdDDa4+_JA (http://blip.tv/play/AdDDa4+_JA)

www.mvslive.com (http://www.mvslive.com)

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 02, 2008, 11:52:53 AM
Here's some GREAT humor.  Seriously, you can't make this shit up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBt0r9Exv2I
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 02, 2008, 12:05:28 PM
Why did John change the name of this thread?

Oh, and here's some humor:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=67077201&blogID=437317010&Mytoken=B1440D2C-7863-4

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 02, 2008, 12:36:17 PM
Why did John change the name of this thread?


It's a tribute to Josh.  I don't like it as much as the original title, though.  Maybe I'll change it back.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 02, 2008, 04:41:53 PM
Why did John change the name of this thread?

Oh, and here's some humor:

[url]http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=67077201&blogID=437317010&Mytoken=B1440D2C-7863-4[/url]



 
I love how Patton's missive is repeated in its entirety on five separate pages.

The new title of this thread is good, since there needs to also be a humorous politics thread. I think it should be called "Humorful politics thread." And we should make it have lots of laffs, contributed by us all and that it should show our tremendous diversity as a community of Friends of Tom members, since I mean we all do come from different states and countries and different walks of life. You know, we don't all think the same things about everything and what's great about that is that you know, we can have different ways of thinking that we can express in our humor, which should make our humor a lot more funny. It can be serious sometimes, and funny on other occasions. We definitely shouldn't be humorless all the time, we should be more humorful sometimes too. But when we talk about serious things, we can mix in humor and vice versa. Dammit, I still have to go to the store to get some stuff I forgot to get. But anyway, we should try that in the future soon.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on October 02, 2008, 05:03:19 PM
Why did John change the name of this thread?

Oh, and here's some humor:

[url]http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=67077201&blogID=437317010&Mytoken=B1440D2C-7863-4[/url]



 
I love how Patton's missive is repeated in its entirety on five separate pages.

The new title of this thread is good, since there needs to also be a humorous politics thread. I think it should be called "Humorful politics thread." And we should make it have lots of laffs, contributed by us all and that it should show our tremendous diversity as a community of Friends of Tom members, since I mean we all do come from different states and countries and different walks of life. You know, we don't all think the same things about everything and what's great about that is that you know, we can have different ways of thinking that we can express in our humor, which should make our humor a lot more funny. It can be serious sometimes, and funny on other occasions. We definitely shouldn't be humorless all the time, we should be more humorful sometimes too. But when we talk about serious things, we can mix in humor and vice versa. Dammit, I still have to go to the store to get some stuff I forgot to get. But anyway, we should try that in the future soon.


I strongly disagree!!!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gibby on October 02, 2008, 07:52:29 PM
SPOILERS FOR TONIGHT

Biden makes several sensible unplagiarised points
Palin does a gee shucks downhome ain't we just the experienced party bit + a horrendously forced/scripted putdown which goes over well; Biden attacks back, falls on face.

Papers tomorrow scrap all debate over hottest broad ever and declare Palin the thinkin', drinkin' and workin' man's bit of crumpet.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on October 02, 2008, 08:57:24 PM
Debate is minutes away!

Bible Spice!

Bible Spice!

Bible Spice!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 04, 2008, 10:18:56 AM
New Yorkers, how do you feel about Mayor Bloomberg's trying to change the law governing term limits?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 04, 2008, 11:40:04 AM
Mixed, to say the least. He's turned out to be quite a competent mayor. I never dreamed that I'd be saying that I'm glad he was elected and re-elected, as someone who voted against him twice.

However, there are strong arguments both for and against term limits. I've come to think that Bloomberg himself is kind of a one-man argument against them, given his record as a two-term mayor and despite his past support for them. Part of me thinks that the commitment that's been made to them in this city shouldn't be sacrificed for the political expediency of allowing Bloomberg to run once again for mayor. Another part of me thinks that bad times are ahead, and he's exactly the man for the job once again, and that no one else could function as capably as he could in the role of mayor. (Another part of me wishes that if we were to be stuck with a McCain presidency, that Michael Bloomberg were going to be his No. 2, but that would probably just open up a can of worms.)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 04, 2008, 01:03:04 PM
I don't know anything about Bloomberg, but if I were living in NYC I'd be scared.

RANT:  A so-called body language expert just appeared on MSNBC.  When asked to analyze Biden's b.l. when he choked up during the debate while he was talking about the death of his wife and daughter and the injuries of his sons, all he could talk about was how by keeping controlling his emotions Biden lost a chance to "connect" with the viewers.  Talking about Palin during one of her many maverick maunderings, the "expert" noted how sincere she was when she wrinkled her nose ("that's what mavericks do--it shows that they think something literally stinks" [I paraphrase]) and frowned (to show she was angry!).  And here I was finding Palin's every expression and gesture fake, consciously intended to manipulate and deceive and impressed by Biden's dignity and self-control when he refused to pander by breaking down when alluding to the damage to his family.  How could I have been so wrong?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 04, 2008, 01:09:34 PM
Yeah, well fuck that guy.

I can't believe how people thought Palin looked "real" and "sincere". She looked like a goddarn' robot, and spoke like one too. (That's what I meant with my Uncanny Valley comment in some other thread, though I suspect it didn't come through.)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cutout on October 04, 2008, 01:15:32 PM
Quote
("that's what mavericks do--it shows that they think something literally stinks" [I paraphrase])

Translation: As a so-called expert, MSNBC paid me to say stuff that sounds like it makes sense. The maverick->stuff stinks explanation will resonate with people who make loose associations and don't think very carefully about the stuff they read. A win/win!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 04, 2008, 01:46:29 PM
Palin is a walking pile of signifiers.  She is not a human being.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 04, 2008, 01:51:10 PM
Yeah, well fuck that guy.

I can't believe how people thought Palin looked "real" and "sincere". She looked like a goddarn' robot, and spoke like one too. (That's what I meant with my Uncanny Valley comment in some other thread, though I suspect it didn't come through.)

there are as many people out there in the US who have a hard time admitting that republicans can do anything wrong as there are people on this board who have a hard time admitting that they can ever do anything right.  there's as much unconditional love for them in the US as there is unconditional hate here.

I hate both sides equally.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 04, 2008, 03:44:05 PM
The thing is, Andy, my hatred and fear of Sarah Palin are much more fierce than what's usual for me.  The way people respond to her so-called folksiness reminds me way too much of how they fell for Reagan, and if anything I think Palin--if it were ever necessary to take her truly seriously--would be more dangerous than he was.  I think she's ruthless, and that combined with her extreme religious beliefs scares the bejesus out of me.

Dagnabit. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gilly on October 04, 2008, 04:44:37 PM
I don't see the ruthlessness, but maybe I'm missing something. I see her as the annoying, gossipy ladies at my church who have nothing better to do than get involved in church politics even though they're just rattling off everything their husband tells them without a mind of their own.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 04, 2008, 04:53:35 PM
I can acknowledge when the more libertarian-leaning Republicans promote specific ideas I agree with (marijuana decriminalization, more open borders). I think the problem now is that those guys are way, way outweighed by the Palin types, and there are just as many if not more Democrats who also hold the same views.

Gilly, what I see in Palin is an especially fierce know-nothingism. A jock-like disdain for nerds who actually care about policies and facts and nuance.  We're not electing the professor in chief but that attitude scares me.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cutout on October 04, 2008, 04:55:56 PM
Quote
I think she's ruthless, and that combined with her extreme religious beliefs


I've heard bits about her former church and former pastor, but still not clear on what qualifies as her own 'religious extremism'. She said this in a recent interview (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/0c03d39e-df44-41fc-af7d-f2f9a7f56b68):

Quote
HH: Do you think the mainstream media and the left understands your religious faith, Governor Palin?

SP: I think that there’s a lot of mocking of my personal faith, and my personal faith is very, very simple. I don’t belong to any church. I do have a strong belief in God, and I believe that I’m a heck of a lot better off putting my life in God’s hands, and saying hey, you know, guide me. What else do we have but guidance that we would seek from a Creator? That’s about as simple as it gets with my faith, and I think that there is a lot of mocking of that. And you know, so bet it, though I do have respect for those who have differing views than I do on faith, on religion. I’m not going to mock them, and I would hope that they would kind of I guess give me the same courtesy through this of not mocking a person’s faith, but maybe perhaps even trying to understand a little bit of it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 04, 2008, 05:23:28 PM
just so that its clear, I hate, hate, hate palin.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 04, 2008, 05:52:12 PM
I thought a lot of Palin's faux-folksy charm rubbed off when, after Biden almost broke down when describing his wife's death and child's injury, she merely plowed right back into her "McCain will provide change" talking points. Not very neighborly, that.

I know a lot of folks don't like Keith Olbermann, but I saw an interesting bit on his show last night where he attempted to connect the McCain/Palin campaign with some of the stuff Bush did in 2000, like talking about trying to reform government, "reaching across the aisle," and showing a photo/poster of Bush (standing alongside Giuliani) with the words "A reformer with results" in the background. etc. He even found a clip of Bush identifying himself as a "Washington outsider." I just hope people know about/remember this when the McCain campaign is spewing their "maverick" and "reformer" nonsense.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 04, 2008, 09:45:05 PM
I don't see the ruthlessness, but maybe I'm missing something. I see her as the annoying, gossipy ladies at my church who have nothing better to do than get involved in church politics even though they're just rattling off everything their husband tells them without a mind of their own.

Argh!  AAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!!!

Read about her actual political career. 

Also, your impression of her, though pretty sexist, would still suggest a horrible and scary person to have running the country.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gilly on October 04, 2008, 10:48:53 PM
Do you think I'm voting McCain/Palin JJ? No. You don't need to convince me of anything. There was nothing sexist about what I said either, that's exactly who she is right now. I think you need to chill out.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 04, 2008, 11:10:04 PM
I don't see the ruthlessness, but maybe I'm missing something.
Gilly, what I see in Palin is an especially fierce know-nothingism. A jock-like disdain for nerds who actually care about policies and facts and nuance.  We're not electing the professor in chief but that attitude scares me.


What I sense in her is the ruthlessness possessed by people with an unshakable belief in their correctness, despite mountains and mountains of evidence to the contrary. A characteristic she shares with our current president.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 05, 2008, 12:00:06 AM
I can acknowledge when the more libertarian-leaning Republicans promote specific ideas I agree with (marijuana decriminalization, more open borders). I think the problem now is that those guys are way, way outweighed by the Palin types, and there are just as many if not more Democrats who also hold the same views.

Gilly, what I see in Palin is an especially fierce know-nothingism. A jock-like disdain for nerds who actually care about policies and facts and nuance.  We're not electing the professor in chief but that attitude scares me.

This sums it up for me pretty well too, yesno. In addition to agreeing with libertarian-minded Republicans, I've also supported moderate or liberal Republicans in the past, where the Democrat who was running was basically corrupt or incompetent (e.g., Marion Barry, an Ohio Attorney General whose name escapes me now). Or in instances where a Republican was really more of a competent technocrat than a conservative -- e.g. Mike Bloomberg, who was a registered Republican until earlier this year, when he registered as an independent.

The problem with Republicans for me has become their commitment to far-right ideology 24/7, disavowing the Republican moderates in their midst, and particularly the dominance of the party by social conservatives. Oh, and their efforts to make the tax structure more regressive. I can't say I'm so thrilled with Democrats all the time that I'd never support Republican candidates in the future with more moderate positions.

Don't get me started on Palin. It's already been said above in this thread anyway, and more eloquently. And there's an old Jacques Tati movie on. A perfect antedote to the humorless politics thread.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Come on, Jason on October 05, 2008, 01:32:17 AM
Libertarians make me angry, but that Penn Jillette is one mighty talented magician and ballroom dancer, so I'm on the fence.

Much more important to me is the fact that mutant former-moderator Jason and I have a $100 bet on this election! 

I can't wait to take his dumb bald money.

I plan to either donate my winnings to a charity of Lauries's choice, or put it towards that psychological evaluation FOTchan still wishes for me.

Either way, things are looking up! 
U-S-A!  U-S-A!

(http://www.highimpactwrestling.com/Hacksaw%20Jim%20Duggan%20website%20pic.jpg)

-Dorvid  (the real one, not Jason or Regular Joe posting on Fotchan under my former username.  Screw you both!)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Regular Joe on October 05, 2008, 03:48:43 AM
-Dorvid  (the real one, not Jason or Regular Joe posting on Fotchan under my former username.  Screw you both!)


I've never done that, and therefore patently reject your screwing! I do nothing but defend all of you. ALL OF YOU! If it wasn't for me and me alone, every thread on the excellent www.fotchan.com website would be a complete consensus of mutant hatred. Yet, I'll defend them too!

I say welcome back, wild-man. You never should have left!

(http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/1364/junkyarddogkk6.jpg)

PS: The thing I agree with most on this thread is "Palin is a walking pile of signifiers. She is not a human being", but I believe that applies to the entire ticket. McCain lost his appeal before he even began, and Palin is just the hand model paid to distract people from a lotion that when rubbed into their hands gives them the cancer.

- Joe 6-Pack
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 05, 2008, 06:38:53 AM
Do you think I'm voting McCain/Palin JJ? No. You don't need to convince me of anything. There was nothing sexist about what I said either, that's exactly who she is right now. I think you need to chill out.

JJ was "ARRRGGGHH"ing because you said you don't see the ruthlessness. Some of the shit she did while rising the ranks in Alaska was pretty cutthroat, and I believe that is what he was referring to.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on October 05, 2008, 07:29:26 AM
I don't see the ruthlessness, but maybe I'm missing something. I see her as the annoying, gossipy ladies at my church who have nothing better to do than get involved in church politics even though they're just rattling off everything their husband tells them without a mind of their own.

Say amen, somebody!

I am right there with you, Gilly. My own church has dozens of this exact woman.

How do I get my wife to be this way? All that independent thinking of hers is a real bee in my bonnet.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 05, 2008, 09:41:16 AM
So men wear bonnets down there in Knoxvul? Y'all are setting some fashion trends!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 05, 2008, 10:40:04 AM
One last (probably) comment on the VP debate:  Both candidates and the moderator all mangled the English language to the point where it was sometimes hard to figure out what the hell they were trying to say.  I don't expect spoken English to be perfect, but the speech of these three was at times garbled beyond the point of decoding.  Back when I edited bad books, I used to say I sometimes had to lay my hands on the page (yup, this was in the olden days, when one put pencil to paper to edit) and divine what the author was trying to say.  The VP debate often required similar leaps in intuition.

P.S.  Don't ask me for specific examples, because I didn't write any of them down while I was watching.  I just know I spent much of the hour and a half spluttering over the misuse of language.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 05, 2008, 04:10:33 PM
Do you think I'm voting McCain/Palin JJ? No. You don't need to convince me of anything. There was nothing sexist about what I said either, that's exactly who she is right now. I think you need to chill out.

I stand by what I said, but I probably didn't need to scream-type.   I apologize for that.

Sarah, --that's a good point.  At times they seemed to say, like, the opposite of what they actually meant, but everyone sort of agreed that they understood, more or less, what the other person was saying.  Should make for interesting out-of-context quotes down the line.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 06, 2008, 11:29:08 AM
Do you think I'm voting McCain/Palin JJ? No. You don't need to convince me of anything. There was nothing sexist about what I said either, that's exactly who she is right now. I think you need to chill out.

JJ was "ARRRGGGHH"ing because you said you don't see the ruthlessness. Some of the shit she did while rising the ranks in Alaska was pretty cutthroat, and I believe that is what he was referring to.

As a Chicago-based politician, Obama is certainly guilty of his own share of cutthroat rising in the ranks.  There's such a rich history of corruption in the state on both sides that part of me can never totally trust him.  Of course corruption is pretty much a given with politics anyways, so I don't know what I'm worried about.

All that being said, I'd rather have someone who's only had a few years to be corrupted than decades.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 06, 2008, 11:30:09 AM
Totally trusting a politician?  Is that even possible?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on October 06, 2008, 11:32:50 AM
Possible, but not recommended.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 06, 2008, 11:35:17 AM
Totally trusting a politician?  Is that even possible for anyone with a minimum of intelligence and sense?

Fixed.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 06, 2008, 11:58:46 AM
Totally trusting a politician?  Is that even possible for anyone with a minimum of intelligence and sense?

Fixed.

What I meant by "trust" was the way that a lot of hardcore Obama supporters (at least the ones I know) think he's going to sweep into the White House and everything is instantly going to be fixed, when obviously it's just not that simple.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: AllisonLeGnome on October 06, 2008, 12:10:12 PM
I've probably said this before, but I think Obama supporters' blind trust is being overestimated. I hear people complaining about how he's a charismatic cult figure much more than I see people regarding him that way. Even the most excessively fervent Obama supporters I know will readily admit that they don't love everything about him or expect him to behave in a way radically different from any politician.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 06, 2008, 12:28:33 PM
The people declaring Obama a cult figure are the same media jerks who oozed "tonight was Sarah Palin's night!!" after the debate she clearly lost.  They live primarily to sensationalize stuff.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 06, 2008, 12:34:20 PM
I've probably said this before, but I think Obama supporters' blind trust is being overestimated. I hear people complaining about how he's a charismatic cult figure much more than I see people regarding him that way. Even the most excessively fervent Obama supporters I know will readily admit that they don't love everything about him or expect him to behave in a way radically different from any politician.

I'd agree that Fox News is certainly pushing the blind faith aspect way too hard but I do have several very politically active friends whose support approaches those levels. I will say that it seems to have dipped slightly since the end of the primaries.

Either way, November can't come soon enough.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 06, 2008, 12:43:30 PM
She's now (mis) quoting Starbucks cups to try and gain the support of female voters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/05/palin-misquotes-albright_n_131967.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/05/palin-misquotes-albright_n_131967.html)


(http://ideiasemdesalinho.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Embarrassed%20chimpanzee_Tim%20Davis.jpg)


Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Emily on October 06, 2008, 12:46:35 PM
This lady is a mega bitch.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 06, 2008, 12:59:02 PM
I heard her say something this morning along the lines of "I'm glad that I'm providing work for Tina Fey".  Yes, the rise of Sarah Palin has lifted Emmy-winner Tina Fey from the depths of obscurity.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 06, 2008, 01:51:12 PM
I heard her say something this morning along the lines of "I'm glad that I'm providing work for Tina Fey".  Yes, the rise of Sarah Palin has lifted Emmy-winner Tina Fey from the depths of obscurity.


Not only that, but they may actually be looking to "spoof" Tina Fey now (http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1203739,CST-FTR-fey05.article) (David Zucker-style?).  Who says she holds grudges?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 06, 2008, 02:05:57 PM
I heard her say something this morning along the lines of "I'm glad that I'm providing work for Tina Fey".  Yes, the rise of Sarah Palin has lifted Emmy-winner Tina Fey from the depths of obscurity.


Not only that, but they may actually be looking to "spoof" Tina Fey now ([url]http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1203739,CST-FTR-fey05.article[/url]) (David Zucker-style?).  Who says she holds grudges?


Ugh.  Real-life politicians joking around with the people spoofing them is right up there with spoofs of Napolean Dynamite in my "Book of Worst Things".
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 06, 2008, 02:24:11 PM
I heard her say something this morning along the lines of "I'm glad that I'm providing work for Tina Fey".  Yes, the rise of Sarah Palin has lifted Emmy-winner Tina Fey from the depths of obscurity.


You see, being a Mayor is sort of like being the head writer on a TV show, except that you have actual responsiblilities.


Not only that, but they may actually be looking to "spoof" Tina Fey now ([url]http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1203739,CST-FTR-fey05.article[/url]) (David Zucker-style?).  Who says she holds grudges?

Quote from: [url]http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1203739,CST-FTR-fey05.article[/url]
It's looking more and more likely that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will appear on ''Saturday Night Live'' -- to have some fun with Tina Fey.


Please don't do that, SNL. The only thing that could redeem that scenario is Tina punching Sarah in the face.

The first skit (Tina & Amy as Sarah & Hillary) was brilliant ... but SNL does have a tendency to take a good thing, run it into the ground ...

... and then continue to burrow into the dirt until it's six feet under

... and then continue to burrow further, and fuhthuh, and fuhthuh.

(Hey Mawky, do you like my use of eclipses?)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on October 06, 2008, 02:26:42 PM
The first skit (Tina & Amy as Sarah & Hillary) was brilliant ... but SNL does have a tendency to take a good thing, run it into the ground ...

... and then continue to burrow into the dirt until it's six feet under

... and then continue to burrow further, and fuhthuh, and fuhthuh.

I think the Palin stuff is still pretty funny. The debate sketch had a lot of good stuff in it, including the devastating line: "I believe marriage is a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers."

I can see why Palin would want to hit back, but I agree that SNL should resist having her on. It would almost surely be horrible.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 06, 2008, 02:31:26 PM
The first skit (Tina & Amy as Sarah & Hillary) was brilliant ... but SNL does have a tendency to take a good thing, run it into the ground ...

... and then continue to burrow into the dirt until it's six feet under

... and then continue to burrow further, and fuhthuh, and fuhthuh.

I think the Palin stuff is still pretty funny. The debate sketch had a lot of good stuff in it, including the devastating line: "I believe marriage is a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers."

I can see why Palin would want to hit back, but I agree that SNL should resist having her on. It would almost surely be horrible.

It might be horrible, but you know everyone would watch it.  Plus it just gives the O'Reilly types more ammunition that the liberal media isn't being fair to poor little Sarah.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 06, 2008, 02:36:40 PM
It might be horrible, but you know everyone would watch it. 

I'd be compelled to seek it out, in the same way Tom has a sick compulsion to see every Kevin Smith movie.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 06, 2008, 02:42:41 PM
I can see why Palin would want to hit back, but I agree that SNL should resist having her on. It would almost surely be horrible.

It would be more uncomfortable than if Nixon showed up and tried to clown around with Dan Aykroyd.  I'm of course talking about Nixon now
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: tenspeed on October 06, 2008, 02:47:18 PM

Don't worry, this isn't from the Vegan (http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/40/31_40_bm_palin_mockery.html).

(http://www.brooklynpaper.com/assets/photos/31/40/31_40_palinbanner02_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 06, 2008, 02:49:58 PM
I can see why Palin would want to hit back, but I agree that SNL should resist having her on. It would almost surely be horrible.

It would be more uncomfortable than if Nixon showed up and tried to clown around with Dan Aykroyd.  I'm of course talking about Nixon now

First they'd have to revive the corpse. I'm of course talking about Dan Ackroyd.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on October 06, 2008, 03:04:17 PM
It might be horrible, but you know everyone would watch it. 

I'd be compelled to seek it out, in the same way Tom has a sick compulsion to see every Kevin Smith movie.

Oh yeah, of course. Me too.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 06, 2008, 03:11:22 PM
SNL shouldn't ever have politicians guest on the show.

The whole little tradition of that should stop.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 06, 2008, 06:12:50 PM
Let's form a human chain around 30 Rock to prevent Palin from entering the building.

Bryan, I just watched the Tina Fey debate sketch ... you're right, that was great. The guy portraying Biden was surprisingly good ... he was wise enough to go for broad caricature rather than try and do an exact imitation. I'm glad they got somebody besides Darrell Hammond to do it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 06, 2008, 06:21:47 PM
Yeah, I agree the guy doing Biden was really good.  Darrell Hammond's impressions of politicians are actually more boring and over-studied than the actual politicians.  He's in that Live From Saturday Night book talking about how he studies really hard for his impressions and it's like No Shit, I feel like I'm watching a schizophrenic's audition for Juilliard when I see your Bill Clinton.  It's not funny, it's stilted and kinda scary.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on October 06, 2008, 09:56:05 PM
It is true what you say.

This is quite possibly the worst of all things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyYi_l9MfmM

I heard her say something this morning along the lines of "I'm glad that I'm providing work for Tina Fey".  Yes, the rise of Sarah Palin has lifted Emmy-winner Tina Fey from the depths of obscurity.


Not only that, but they may actually be looking to "spoof" Tina Fey now ([url]http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1203739,CST-FTR-fey05.article[/url]) (David Zucker-style?).  Who says she holds grudges?


Ugh.  Real-life politicians joking around with the people spoofing them is right up there with spoofs of Napolean Dynamite in my "Book of Worst Things".
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 06, 2008, 10:23:50 PM
This is pretty scary:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8[/youtube]
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 06, 2008, 11:21:03 PM
who are "they"?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 07, 2008, 12:31:45 AM
Speaking of the Biden impression, what does Armisen need to do to improve his Obama? Because his current take on it is pretty awful.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 07, 2008, 08:28:24 AM
Our choice tonight is between the show and the debate. Which will you choose?

I'm listening to the Best Show.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 07, 2008, 09:13:54 AM
Our choice tonight is between the show and the debate. Which will you choose?

I'm listening to the Best Show.

I'm hoping for a running commentary by Spike.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 07, 2008, 09:17:53 AM
Our choice tonight is between the show and the debate. Which will you choose?

I'm listening to the Best Show.

If it were a regular debate, then the debate.  But a "town hall"?  Best Show by a mile.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 07, 2008, 09:43:43 AM
Our country is at war, the financial markets are crashing, and this is possibly the most important election of my life thus far.

I'm choosing the debate.

(How's that for humorless?)

Also, read this: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Vote2008/story?id=5963751&page=1
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 07, 2008, 10:07:35 AM
I'll be forgoing all but the last half hour of the show, but only because otherwise I'd have to listen to the debate afterward in order to be able to participate properly in the backseat punditry with which my sister and I fill the early morning hours. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 07, 2008, 10:19:42 AM
The problem with the debate is that it's humorless. Politics are fine, but they should be funny at all times, and lately that hasn't been happening. 

I'm planning to listen to the Best Show and watch the debate with the sound turned down. That should maximize the entertainment value, while minimizing the information level.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 07, 2008, 10:21:24 AM
I don't want to give the impression that I'm not interested in the debate, but I can check it out later if the highlights that I'll see 8,000,000 times compel me. I'm pretty stressed out for all the obvious reasons and a few laughs are just what I need.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 07, 2008, 11:00:28 AM
I just can't stand the kind of cringe-inducing questions I expect at town hall style events.  I do not like to cringe.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 07, 2008, 11:52:49 AM
Our country is at war, the financial markets are crashing, and this is possibly the most important election of my life thus far.

I'm choosing the debate.

(How's that for humorless?)

Also, read this: [url]http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Vote2008/story?id=5963751&page=1[/url]

are you still undecided about who you're going to vote for?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 07, 2008, 12:19:17 PM
No. But I just need to see this thing pan out. I don't really know why, but I think it's important to tune into these things.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 07, 2008, 12:20:42 PM
who are "they"?

Admittedly, I don't know this either.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 07, 2008, 12:29:12 PM
who are "they"?

Admittedly, I don't know this either.

If this in reference to my post, I was referring to the McCain campaign the shadowy consortium that controls political cameos in sketch comedy.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 07, 2008, 12:32:43 PM
Ohhh I thought it was in reference to that youtube clip I posted.

But Chris L "the man" is right about the political cameos...
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 07, 2008, 12:50:08 PM
I was talking about the youtube clip.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 07, 2008, 01:06:33 PM
Chris L., how dare you inject an inappropriate note of humor into this thread.  Tsk, tsk.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 07, 2008, 01:16:00 PM
Chris L., how dare you inject an inappropriate note of humor into this thread.  Tsk, tsk.
EXACTLY!!!!!!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 07, 2008, 01:57:10 PM
Chris L., how dare you inject an inappropriate note of humor into this thread.  Tsk, tsk.
EXACTLY!!!!!!

Sorry, but I reinvented myself as a maverick, once I saw that was becoming popular.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 07, 2008, 02:13:02 PM
Are you tryin to tell me that the heels are on and the gloves are off? Is that what you're sayin?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 07, 2008, 02:20:53 PM
Are you tryin to tell me that the heels are on and the gloves are off? Is that what you're sayin?

I'm saying I'm wearing nothing but heels.  Sorry if that wasn't clear, I've only been at this for, what, five hours?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 07, 2008, 02:53:28 PM
jpeg, plz
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 07, 2008, 03:27:16 PM
Chris L., how dare you inject an inappropriate note of humor into this thread.  Tsk, tsk.
EXACTLY!!!!!!

Sorry, but I reinvented myself as a maverick, once I saw that was becoming popular.

I've started winking at everyone I meet. I'll let you know how it's going.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on October 07, 2008, 04:11:08 PM
Our choice tonight is between the show and the debate. Which will you choose?

I'm listening to the Best Show.

If it were a regular debate, then the debate.  But a "town hall"?  Best Show by a mile.

Not only a "town hall", but one in which any questions from "regular citizens" were provided to the candidates in advance.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 07, 2008, 04:30:43 PM
Our choice tonight is between the show and the debate. Which will you choose?

I'm listening to the Best Show.

If it were a regular debate, then the debate.  But a "town hall"?  Best Show by a mile.

Not only a "town hall", but one in which any questions from "regular citizens" were provided to the candidates in advance.
...via youtube.  Filmed on Main Street.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 08, 2008, 07:32:24 AM
I ended up watching the debate. Sounds like I missed a good show.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 08, 2008, 08:21:56 AM
You guys, I'm writing a paper right now and I used the phrase "fundamental difference." I'm thinking about putting something else.  Ugh. That, along with "Now, Look" and "My Friends" are phrases I never want to hear again after this election is over.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on October 08, 2008, 08:47:09 AM
I ended up watching the debate. Sounds like I missed a good show.

I watched the debate, too, and afterwards felt like I should have listened to TBS instead.  There's always the podcast.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 08, 2008, 09:15:09 AM
I know why I listened to the debate now. It wasn't because we're at war and all that other stuff I said yesterday. It's just that I want to see what kind of lies McCain is telling up there... I like to see what kind of BS the candidates put out first-hand instead of via the news.

So, in short, I'm a masochist.

But I can always listen to the archive today at work and it'll undoubtedly make my day go that much faster :)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 08, 2008, 09:26:34 AM
"That One" ended up a comfortable winner. How about the whole "not shaking hands" thing at the end?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI0iIOqPGak
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Wes on October 08, 2008, 09:38:32 AM
That was a great move. I initially thought he just pulled a Belichick there, but it was much slicker. I'm going to try that this week, when somebody goes for a handshake, I'll give that curt nod and point to someone next to me and give the "No, you're shaking that hand" signal instead. This is a handshake gamechanger.

What does he say after that? He says something, and Obama nods, acknowledging that the handshake isn't coming. 'I just sneezed'? 'I've lost all feeling in that hand'?

Watching it again, I think what he actually does is pull that move where you tap somebody's shoulder from behind on the opposite side, and when they turn to look, you go all "Nope, wasn't me!" Classic. I would have turned my approval dial through the roof on that one. I hope he does the one where you walk up behind somebody and hit your knees into the backs of their knees so they almost fall at the last debate.

Has anybody found any photos with the guy who looks like Jackie Martling with a moustache over Obama's shoulder yet?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 08, 2008, 09:52:31 AM
It was odd how Obama stuck around and chatted with some of the audience members, while McCain left fairly abruptly after the debate, and some of the audience mentioned that afterwards. It seems like something that shouldn't matter, but considering that a lot of those people will be interviewed in coming days, it's probably a lesson learned for future candidates at events like this one.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 08, 2008, 10:08:47 AM
It's just that I want to see what kind of lies McCain is telling up there...


Don't hold me to this, but I'm willing to bet that Obama lied also. 

But that's cool he stuck around. I listened on the radio, so I obviously didn't see that.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 08, 2008, 10:49:38 AM
Yeah... but I tend to think of Obama's as just a little bullshitting vs bold-faced lies. Which makes me some sort of bleeding heart who doesn't care much about double standards or the true definition of "bullshit" ;)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 08, 2008, 11:05:00 AM
Elections are nothing but bullshitting and pandering, but I do think that I'd rather have Obama and Biden in the White House than McCain and Palin. I didn't really care enough about either candidate before her nomination, but the idea of Sarah Palin being that close to the presidency frightens me SO much.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 08, 2008, 11:42:41 AM
Elections are nothing but bullshitting and pandering, but I do think that I'd rather have Obama and Biden in the White House than McCain and Palin. I didn't really care enough about either candidate before her nomination, but the idea of Sarah Palin being that close to the presidency frightens me SO much.

what are you, anti-woman?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Matt on October 08, 2008, 11:47:32 AM
Elections are nothing but bullshitting and pandering, but I do think that I'd rather have Obama and Biden in the White House than McCain and Palin. I didn't really care enough about either candidate before her nomination, but the idea of Sarah Palin being that close to the presidency frightens me SO much.

what are you, anti-woman?

I'll have you know that there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 08, 2008, 12:58:37 PM


(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2008/10/07/thatonesk9_2.jpg)

(Jacked from the Washington Post website, and I think they jacked it from elsewhere).
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 08, 2008, 01:39:06 PM
I thought the reaction to the "That One" was kind of humorless. Much like this thread! Who cares, really? No, he probably doesn't like Obama much personally, sees him as a young smooth operator. Whatever, leave it at that.

What I'm surprised by is how McCain said to that (black) audience member who asked a question, "I bet you never heard of Fannie and Freddie until this crisis came along."

I was like, what?!?  Dude might have heard of them, might not. Might be a financial analyst or an economist who understands the economy better than you, old man. Why ask the question?

My conclusion about McCain: not very socially sensitive, and probably not a good host of cocktail parties.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 08, 2008, 01:46:38 PM
It was odd how Obama stuck around and chatted with some of the audience members, while McCain left fairly abruptly after the debate, and some of the audience mentioned that afterwards. It seems like something that shouldn't matter, but considering that a lot of those people will be interviewed in coming days, it's probably a lesson learned for future candidates at events like this one.

My sister came up with a plausible explanation for this:  he desperately needed to take a piss.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 08, 2008, 01:48:15 PM
the dude that hacked palin's email last month was - and i'm not implying anything here - a Dave. from Knoxville.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93MDSE80&show_article=1
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 08, 2008, 01:50:30 PM
What I'm surprised by is how McCain said to that (black) audience member who asked a question, "I bet you never heard of Fannie and Freddie until this crisis came along."
I was like, wait, whauuuuuuut?!? 

Fixed.

I bet the piss theory is correct.

I think it's way past time for me to get serious about my work. Later skaters.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 08, 2008, 01:54:39 PM
the dude that hacked palin's email last month was - and i'm not implying anything here - a Dave. from Knoxville.

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93MDSE80&show_article=1[/url]


Christ, you think this guy had never heard of running Tor through free public WiFi on a computer with a forged MAC address.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 08, 2008, 02:17:25 PM
McCain seemed doddering and stiff and old mansy. 

Obama just seems cooler.  In all senses of the word.  I like how McCain was like "He hasn't said how much that fee's gonna be!" after Obama talked about his health plan and Obama just drank some water with a body language that exuded "Fuck off."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 08, 2008, 02:25:32 PM
Plus there's the fact that the whole "fine" thing was a fabrication.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 08, 2008, 03:32:28 PM
Another good one is the whole "Speak softly and carry a big stick" malarchy.  WTF was he talking about?  That didn't make sense.  "This guy is saying he's gonna be tough on them.  Now they're gonna know that he's gonna be tough on them!  What I'm  gonna do is pretend I'm not gonna be tough on them, but then be REALLY tough on them, and they'll never know!  The way he does it, they're gonna know!  It's a good thing I'm not on the radio....  Wait, Whuuuuuuut??"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on October 08, 2008, 03:33:14 PM
I thought the reaction to the "That One" was kind of humorless. Much like this thread! Who cares, really? No, he probably doesn't like Obama much personally, sees him as a young smooth operator. Whatever, leave it at that.

What I'm surprised by is how McCain said to that (black) audience member who asked a question, "I bet you never heard of Fannie and Freddie until this crisis came along."

I was like, what?!?  Dude might have heard of them, might not. Might be a financial analyst or an economist who understands the economy better than you, old man. Why ask the question?

My conclusion about McCain: not very socially sensitive, and probably not a good host of cocktail parties President.

Fixed
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on October 08, 2008, 03:35:22 PM
the dude that hacked palin's email last month was - and i'm not implying anything here - a Dave. from Knoxville.

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93MDSE80&show_article=1[/url]


Wait'll you see what I've got planned for Trig
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on October 08, 2008, 03:39:03 PM
It was odd how Obama stuck around and chatted with some of the audience members, while McCain left fairly abruptly after the debate, and some of the audience mentioned that afterwards. It seems like something that shouldn't matter, but considering that a lot of those people will be interviewed in coming days, it's probably a lesson learned for future candidates at events like this one.

My sister came up with a plausible explanation for this:  he desperately needed to take a piss.

One word: sundowning.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 08, 2008, 04:02:02 PM
It was odd how Obama stuck around and chatted with some of the audience members, while McCain left fairly abruptly after the debate, and some of the audience mentioned that afterwards. It seems like something that shouldn't matter, but considering that a lot of those people will be interviewed in coming days, it's probably a lesson learned for future candidates at events like this one.

My sister came up with a plausible explanation for this:  he desperately needed to take a piss.

Doesn't he have a bag for that?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 09, 2008, 08:56:48 AM
Not yet...
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 09, 2008, 10:13:50 AM
Another good one is the whole "Speak softly and carry a big stick" malarchy.  WTF was he talking about?  That didn't make sense.  "This guy is saying he's gonna be tough on them.  Now they're gonna know that he's gonna be tough on them!  What I'm  gonna do is pretend I'm not gonna be tough on them, but then be REALLY tough on them, and they'll never know!  The way he does it, they're gonna know!  It's a good thing I'm not on the radio....  Wait, Whuuuuuuut??"

Sort of like the whole "if I say yes, I re-ignite the Cold War" nonsense.  Why even put that on the table, even in jest?  I found that more disconcerting than anything Obama said about Pakistan.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Dan B on October 09, 2008, 10:58:13 AM
Another good one is the whole "Speak softly and carry a big stick" malarchy.  WTF was he talking about?  That didn't make sense.  "This guy is saying he's gonna be tough on them.  Now they're gonna know that he's gonna be tough on them!  What I'm  gonna do is pretend I'm not gonna be tough on them, but then be REALLY tough on them, and they'll never know!  The way he does it, they're gonna know!  It's a good thing I'm not on the radio....  Wait, Whuuuuuuut??"

Sort of like the whole "if I say yes, I re-ignite the Cold War" nonsense.  Why even put that on the table, even in jest?  I found that more disconcerting than anything Obama said about Pakistan.

Yeah, and that was after he said there would never be a second Cold War.  Well, unless he says one thing.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 09, 2008, 11:36:10 AM
Well, unless he says one thing.

I know, huh??  Power trip much, nominee McCain?  Lord knows the Kremlin is hanging on every word the guy in second place says.

Didn't Russia accuse one of our Presidential nominees of aggitating the situation in Georgia, though?  Didn't hear any more about that.  The Russians are liars, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me if there was some truth to it either.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 09, 2008, 12:39:21 PM
(http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/1535/undecidedwb6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 09, 2008, 12:58:43 PM
that graph doesn't show the portion of "stupid" that count as "tiger petters", my personal favourite demographic.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 09, 2008, 01:15:56 PM
(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/928/tigerpetterszj9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

There's also this:

(http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/589/undecided2lv9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 09, 2008, 01:25:25 PM
I knew I could rely on you, ex-crimestick!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Emily on October 10, 2008, 07:20:52 AM
[youtube]iz4Z6L4u8E4[/youtube].
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 10, 2008, 10:56:16 PM
I'm sure you all know this already, but I have to chortle.  First, "For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

Also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 10, 2008, 11:02:41 PM
I'm sure you all know this already, but I have to chortle.  First, "For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

Also

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE[/url]




Oh man.  McCain's like, "Please, Republican base, can you please stop being openly racist?  Please?  Just for this one month?"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 10, 2008, 11:18:20 PM

Also

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE[/url]


Wow. I try and try not to be an effete blue-state snob, but then I see footage like this where representatives of "the base" turn out to support their guy. And sometimes members of the base are pretty fucking base.

Also: If McCain cares so much about maintaining a respectful tone, why did he pull that shitty avoiding-Obama's-handshake move at the end of the last debate?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Come on, Jason on October 10, 2008, 11:41:20 PM
http://www.thatone08.com/ (http://www.thatone08.com/)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 10, 2008, 11:54:35 PM
That woman? The upper midwest's version of stupid w**** t**sh. I know the type.

This has not been a good week for Wisconsin, among other things.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 10, 2008, 11:59:47 PM
McCain:  "You don't have to be scared."

Crowd:  *booooo*

WTF, we WANT TO BE SCARED McCain.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on October 11, 2008, 12:11:53 AM
McCain:  "You don't have to be scared."

Crowd:  *booooo*

WTF, we WANT TO BE SCARED McCain.


McCain is too decent and human to run on the GOP ticket.  WTF.  He doesn't even want to win. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: sleepytako on October 11, 2008, 12:15:30 AM
I'm sure you all know this already, but I have to chortle.  First, "For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

Also

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE[/url]




"I've read about him and he's an Arab."

Even if Obama was an Arab. I mean are all Arabs bad? Some people complain about supposed racism against foreigners in Japan, and given what little there is it's no where even close to that stupidity.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 11, 2008, 03:53:16 AM
To those people, Arab = terrorist. And has ever since the Iranian hostage crisis, really. The irony that they are also the party and ideological brethren of Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh escapes them.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 11, 2008, 05:05:29 AM
McCain is too decent and human to run on the GOP ticket.  WTF.  He doesn't even want to win. 

I think he has his flaws (his temper) but I also think he's compromised his own integrity along this path and is regretting it deep down.  I suspect you're right.  Some day he'll look back on this and come clean about being feeling that he lost control of his campaign.

Personally, I can forgive and forget down the road when it comes to this guy.  Just don't want him to win.  Nothing personal.

Palin, not so much.  She's a nut and always will be.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 11, 2008, 06:57:57 AM
That woman? The upper midwest's version of stupid w**** t**sh. I know the type.

Yeah, we've got our share up here, too.  That woman was a very familiar type.

It's so handy for McCain/Palin that it is considered semilegitimate to fear Arabs/Muslims these days.  Otherwise, they'd be forced to be racist in the more obvious way, which would fly far less well. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: sleepytako on October 11, 2008, 07:20:20 AM
To those people, Arab = terrorist. And has ever since the Iranian hostage crisis, really. The irony that they are also the party and ideological brethren of Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh escapes them.

I doubt they remember the pre-OK city bombing days of AM talk radio with its successionists. I remember the station that had Art Bell back then (KOGO 600, San Deigo) had this completely insane dood syndicated from Medford, OR. The stuff he said then couldn't fly now, but I bet those same people calling Obama a terrorist were all for this guy back in 93.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on October 11, 2008, 09:03:13 AM
Fully agree.  Trying not to be lulled into a false sense of security by what increasingly seems like McCain's effort to throw the election.  Also, 2004 almost thoroughly erased my ability to feel optimistic about the future.  All this shortly after the birth of my child.  So actually, for me it is personal, I suppose.

McCain is too decent and human to run on the GOP ticket.  WTF.  He doesn't even want to win. 

I think he has his flaws (his temper) but I also think he's compromised his own integrity along this path and is regretting it deep down.  I suspect you're right.  Some day he'll look back on this and come clean about being feeling that he lost control of his campaign.

Personally, I can forgive and forget down the road when it comes to this guy.  Just don't want him to win.  Nothing personal.

Palin, not so much.  She's a nut and always will be.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 11, 2008, 11:56:43 AM
And so the spinning begins.  During the portion of the stump speech I heard today, Palin said not one word about Troopergate and spoke more specifically than ever before about McCain's plans for rescuing the economy.  More, she is being refashioned as a new Madonna, mother of the holy infant Trig and patron goddess of the disabled.  I suspect anyone who alludes to the virulent hate mongering of the past week or the finding that Palin acted unethically in her campaign to get Wooten fired will be scolded for once again looking to the past instead of the future.  It makes me sick at heart.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 11, 2008, 12:32:39 PM
Don't worry, Sarah. It's being noticed in Alaska, I'm sure. And once she goes back there, I bet they'll have more questions that she won't be able to duck quite so easily. That's the problem with picking a two-year governor, really. High approval ratings are commonplace in two years time for someone runnin as a "reformer". It takes time to properly flame out.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 11, 2008, 01:21:14 PM
Don't worry, Sarah. It's being noticed in Alaska, I'm sure. And once she goes back there, I bet they'll have more questions that she won't be able to duck quite so easily. That's the problem with picking a two-year governor, really. High approval ratings are commonplace in two years time for someone runnin as a "reformer". It takes time to properly flame out.

Alaska is a pretty red state though, would most people mind?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 11, 2008, 02:27:51 PM
I'm sure you all know this already, but I have to chortle.  First, "For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

Also

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE[/url]




It just occured to me that maybe Tom is to FOT vs. Shut Up Weirdo as McCain is to GOP vs. Obama.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 11, 2008, 02:56:38 PM
It just occured to me that maybe Tom is to FOT vs. Shut Up Weirdo as McCain is to GOP vs. Obama.

That old woman was about to start talking about her dog before McCain heave ho'd her.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 11, 2008, 10:10:38 PM
It just occured to me that maybe Tom is to FOT vs. Shut Up Weirdo as McCain is to GOP vs. Obama.

I thought the same thing yesterday, JJ!  Which means that Tom thinks he has some loose cannons among his partisans, which is kind of funny, but maybe not off-base.

I'm worried about our economy, but not too worried about the scary McCain fringe elements. America has encountered and rejected ideologues at many times in its history, and I still think we're capable of doing so in the future, as long as our economy doesn't completely hit the skids, which hasn't happened just yet.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 11, 2008, 11:44:15 PM
That woman? The upper midwest's version of stupid w**** t**sh. I know the type.

Yeah, we've got our share up here, too.  That woman was a very familiar type.

I'm related to women like her. In fact, if asked, I would imagine my grandparents would say something similar. Which is why I haven't asked.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 12, 2008, 08:09:21 AM
You'll be glad to hear the happy results of a poll of one I conducted yesterday:  a young woman of my acquaintance, a pretty mainstream type, fairly politically apathetic but conservative/Republican by habit, told me yesterday she's voting for Obama.  When I asked her why, she said, "Because we don't need more of what we've had for eight years."  When I asked what she thinks of Palin, she said, "She's an idiot--I mean, 'I can see Russia from my house'?"  I was cheered.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Julie on October 12, 2008, 08:38:32 AM
I had dinner with my mom yesterday. She told me she saw some couple on tv who lost their home because of medical bills, and she said, "Tough shit! Why should the government pay for their mortgage because someone in their family had cancer?" She thinks the bad economy is a good thing because Americans need to get away from having so much stuff and get back to family values. Fuck if I know what she means by family values, though! Small towns in Ohio are full of people who might not be crazy as my mom, but who think along the same lines, and Ohio is important in not electing a republican. I was feeling pretty good about the outcome because usually Cincinnati is covered with yard signs and bumper stickers for Republican candidates and I've only seen two. Now I'm nervous.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gibby on October 12, 2008, 08:46:26 AM

I had dinner with my mom yesterday. She told me she saw some couple on tv who lost their home because of medical bills, and she said, "Tough shit! Why should the government pay for their mortgage because someone in their family had cancer?"
She thinks the bad economy is a good thing because Americans need to get away from having so much stuff and get back to family values. Fuck if I know what she means by family values, though! Small towns in Ohio are full of people who might not be crazy as my mom, but who think along the same lines, and Ohio is important in not electing a republican. I was feeling pretty good about the outcome because usually Cincinnati is covered with yard signs and bumper stickers for Republican candidates and I've only seen two. Now I'm nervous.

Maybe it's because I'm a pinko liberal left-wing factonista (and British, even worse), but this kind of attitude strikes me as absolutely insane.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 12, 2008, 08:58:28 AM
Cincinnati is usually overwhelming Republican. In my experience, the rural areas and the southern half of the state are typically red while the cities in the central and northern parts of the state (Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo) are typically blue. I'd be surprised if Cincinnati (where my afore-mentioned grandparents live, not to mention my uncle who still sends me "Obama is a muslim" emails) votes Democrat.

I had dinner with my mom yesterday. She told me she saw some couple on tv who lost their home because of medical bills, and she said, "Tough shit! Why should the government pay for their mortgage because someone in their family had cancer?" She thinks the bad economy is a good thing because Americans need to get away from having so much stuff and get back to family values. Fuck if I know what she means by family values, though! Small towns in Ohio are full of people who might not be crazy as my mom, but who think along the same lines, and Ohio is important in not electing a republican. I was feeling pretty good about the outcome because usually Cincinnati is covered with yard signs and bumper stickers for Republican candidates and I've only seen two. Now I'm nervous.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gibby on October 12, 2008, 09:04:52 AM
Every right wing type I know over here wouldn't say something so heartless. "Am I not my brother's keeper?"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 12, 2008, 09:25:09 AM
You'll be glad to hear the happy results of a poll of one I conducted yesterday:  a young woman of my acquaintance, a pretty mainstream type, fairly politically apathetic but conservative/Republican by habit, told me yesterday she's voting for Obama.  When I asked her why, she said, "Because we don't need more of what we've had for eight years."  When I asked what she thinks of Palin, she said, "She's an idiot--I mean, 'I can see Russia from my house'?"  I was cheered.

My boyfriend's sister is got married yesterday, into a relatively conservative family.  At the reception, I talked to a woman maybe 7 or 8 years older than me who lived in Florida (in fact, she was glued to the Gators/LSU game while I was talking to her!) and she told me that although she was a registered Republican, she was leaning toward Obama. She also told me that Palin scared her and was "too conservative for me, and I'm a Republican!" I also have another friend who was gung-ho for McCain and then got extremely turned off when he picked Palin.

I think that the McCain campaign underestimated its voters  by a lot when they chose her. I mean, Bush's approval rating is down in the 30s right now. Picking someone so folksy and conservative as Palin may just be reminding people of Bush. Not everyone thinks like that woman in the town hall video. People are smart enough to see that she's not qualified for the presidency, and that she's simply being used by the McCain's campaign to reel in voters with winks and
"betcha"s. I think many people feel a bit insulted by this, and it's created resentment.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 12, 2008, 09:35:05 AM
It's really bizarre watching McCain defend Obama's character to those folks at his own rally, and get booed.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 12, 2008, 10:46:42 AM
It's really bizarre watching McCain defend Obama's character to those folks at his own rally, and get booed.

I'm sure it's confusing for them since his campaign just spent the last week telling them essentially the opposite.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Julie on October 12, 2008, 10:53:24 AM


Maybe it's because I'm a pinko liberal left-wing factonista (and British, even worse), but this kind of attitude strikes me as absolutely insane.

It is absolutely insane, but not very uncommon where my mom lives. I suppose when you live in the middle of nowhere and almost everyone thinks like you, it's easy to be absolutely insane. And it's not so much a Republican thing as much as an ignorant, right-wing Christian thing.

If Philly Boy Roy was born again, he would be my mother.

I'd be surprised if Cincinnati (where my afore-mentioned grandparents live, not to mention my uncle who still sends me "Obama is a muslim" emails) votes Democrat.

I will not be very surprised if Cincinnati votes Democrat. I'm kind of enjoying watching conservative Republicans become disillusioned. They all aren't changing, but it seems like a lot of them are fed up enough to vote for Obama or to not vote at all. But I thought the same thing about John Kerry.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 12, 2008, 11:15:47 AM
I think many people feel a bit insulted by this, and it's created resentment.

Yeah, the woman I mentioned said this specifically.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 12, 2008, 11:32:23 AM
It's really bizarre watching McCain defend Obama's character to those folks at his own rally, and get booed.

I'm sure it's confusing for them since his campaign just spent the last week telling them essentially the opposite.

Yeah. Which is why I don't feel sorry for McCain in that situation. Sweet, sweet irony.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Raad_Man on October 12, 2008, 11:57:32 AM
i'm a mccain supporter and a republican, but here's what i don't get... they go around telling us obama's a terrorist, but then act surprised when we get pissed off at him like we get pissed off at other terrorists.  i mean, for fucks sake -- this whole war on terror, all we've been hearing is how terrorists are the ultimate evil who want to destroy america.  mccain and palin then make it pretty clear that obama is a terrorist/terrorist supporter, and we're not supposed to be outraged?  wtf?  a terrorist bcoming president isn't enough to get you all riled up?!

whey the fuck didn't johnny mac take obama's terror loving ass to the floor during the debate?  we can debate boring ass policy differences until the cows come home, but that debate could have been over in a second if he's just said 'yeah, yeah, yeah socialism is great, obama... now vote for me because i'm the only presidential candidate who is not a terrorist."  you see how well that shit goes over in political rallies, right?  now imagine if the rest of the country/world got a chance to hear that same info.  debate over.  campaign over.  final score, america: 1, terrorist: 0.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Clint on October 12, 2008, 12:19:20 PM
I love that people say that Obama is a terrorist. After years of growing up on food stamps, helping the local community, working hard to get a good education, becoming a politician, fighting some of the most bitter elections in recent times, is he just going to turn around and go, "GOTCHA, I'm a terrorist!"?

Even if that were true, what would he do? Order the execution of all non-muslims? Blow himself up on the Whitehouse lawn?

This guy has been a better citizen and servant for his country than most and this is how people treat him.
At least have the balls to come out and say that its because he's black, cause deep down inside people really know that the Harvard-educated, christian politician from Chicago is not a radical muslim terrorist.


Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 12, 2008, 12:29:40 PM
The thing that really amuses me are that the same folks who think he's a muslim extremist are also the people who are upset about his attending a so-called racist (Christian) church. If he's a muslim, why would he spend 20 years attending a Christian church? You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gibby on October 12, 2008, 01:25:23 PM
The thing that really amuses me are that the same folks who think he's a muslim extremist are also the people who are upset about his attending a so-called racist (Christian) church. If he's a muslim, why would he spend 20 years attending a Christian church? You can't have it both ways.

Deep cover?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 12, 2008, 02:12:35 PM
I don't like him because he's  a lawyer.  does that make me a racist?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on October 12, 2008, 03:17:35 PM
I usually vote Republican, but I hate McCain because he's a former P.O.W.  Those guys drive me nuts!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 12, 2008, 03:34:07 PM
I usually vote Republican, but I hate McCain because he's a former P.O.W.  Those guys drive me nuts!
especially Vietnam Vets.  Always whining about how they were mistreated when they came home as well.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 12, 2008, 03:34:35 PM
I usually vote Republican, but I hate McCain because he's a former P.O.W.  Those guys drive me nuts!

Dude totally pals around with prisoners and other assorted lowlifes.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 12, 2008, 03:41:58 PM
One wonders: how would Dutch vote in this election?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Denim Gremlin on October 12, 2008, 04:44:32 PM
I usually vote Republican, but I hate McCain because he's a former P.O.W.  Those guys drive me nuts!

seriously, from what I hear he was set up in the presidential suite of some swanky hilton property
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 13, 2008, 05:42:13 AM
I usually vote Republican, but I hate McCain because he's a former P.O.W.  Those guys drive me nuts!

seriously, from what I hear he was set up in the presidential suite of some swanky hilton property
Jesus, what a phony. Just imagine what he'd do for those terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. He'd probably give them all X-Boxes.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 13, 2008, 07:32:09 AM
Pointless observation:  "Obama" spelled backward means "I will love" in Latin.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 13, 2008, 07:51:10 AM
Pointless observation:  "Obama" spelled backward means "I will love" in Latin.

And, as everybody knows, the opposite of love is terrorism.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 13, 2008, 07:57:54 AM
But what about the future tense?  Why not "I love"?  Aren't we lovable now?  Is this name implying that America needs to change in order to be loved?  Treason!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 13, 2008, 08:51:43 AM
maybe "love" is speaking of the physical act of love? in which case it is "I will fuck"?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Emily on October 13, 2008, 09:55:53 AM
Pointless observation:  "Obama" spelled backward means "I will love" in Latin.

I bet it would make Maureen Dowd's day to hear that.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 13, 2008, 11:13:44 AM
(in fact, she was glued to the Gators/LSU game while I was talking to her!)

Go Gators!

Actually, driving home after said game, one guy rolled down his window just to yell at me "You know who's going in the right direction? McCain and Palin!" and then when I sort of laughed and nodded, another guy in the same car said, about me,  "He doesn't look like a supporter. I can tell".

I guess that's good? Never been judged on my political beliefs in traffic before.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 13, 2008, 11:27:13 AM
(in fact, she was glued to the Gators/LSU game while I was talking to her!)

Go Gators!

Actually, driving home after said game, one guy rolled down his window just to yell at me "You know who's going in the right direction? McCain and Palin!" and then when I sort of laughed and nodded, another guy in the same car said, about me,  "He doesn't look like a supporter. I can tell".

I guess that's good? Never been judged on my political beliefs in traffic before.

Well you know, u probably don't look like one of "us"
and by us I mean them.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 13, 2008, 12:40:31 PM
(in fact, she was glued to the Gators/LSU game while I was talking to her!)

Go Gators!

Actually, driving home after said game, one guy rolled down his window just to yell at me "You know who's going in the right direction? McCain and Palin!" and then when I sort of laughed and nodded, another guy in the same car said, about me,  "He doesn't look like a supporter. I can tell".

I guess that's good? Never been judged on my political beliefs in traffic before.

It was probably your derby, monocle, and little delicate tea cup.  Europeans are "in the tank" for Obama.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on October 13, 2008, 01:59:53 PM
(in fact, she was glued to the Gators/LSU game while I was talking to her!)

Go Gators!

Actually, driving home after said game, one guy rolled down his window just to yell at me "You know who's going in the right direction? McCain and Palin!" and then when I sort of laughed and nodded, another guy in the same car said, about me,  "He doesn't look like a supporter. I can tell".

I guess that's good? Never been judged on my political beliefs in traffic before.


You should've adopted a fake Louisiana accent and told them not to talk that way to the governor.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Wes on October 13, 2008, 02:04:15 PM
(in fact, she was glued to the Gators/LSU game while I was talking to her!)

Go Gators!

Actually, driving home after said game, one guy rolled down his window just to yell at me "You know who's going in the right direction? McCain and Palin!" and then when I sort of laughed and nodded, another guy in the same car said, about me,  "He doesn't look like a supporter. I can tell".

I guess that's good? Never been judged on my political beliefs in traffic before.

That was actually a test run for the new McCain marketing campaign, but the guy was doing it incorrectly. The way it's supposed to work is, they would be driving on the wrong side of the road, into incoming traffic, and when you get their attention and scream "Look out, you're going the wrong way," they yell back "But you know who's going the right way? McCain and Palin!"

Ideally, they then veer out of the way of the oncoming traffic, but they're still working the bugs out of that part.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 13, 2008, 02:23:56 PM
I love it. Very French Connection!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 13, 2008, 02:32:23 PM
Articulate lunatic Christopher Hitchens and former Bush I speechwriter/funny novelist/son of William F. Christopher Buckley have endorsed Obama recently.

People are tripping over their feet to distance themselves from that trainwreck.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 13, 2008, 03:30:04 PM
You should've adopted a fake Louisiana accent and told them not to talk that way to the governor.


I can see it. That guy is kind of a dink, though.

(http://www.nilacharal.com/enter/celeb/images/BobbyJindal.jpg)(http://photos-e.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v338/28/31/5204758/n5204758_46821836_6014.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 13, 2008, 07:36:37 PM
Never seen a picture of Bobby Jindal before. Is his face made out of silly putty? That smile of his is kind of tilting five directions simultaneously.

Also, Samir, do you always balance a teacup on your head when you're making phone calls?

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 13, 2008, 09:00:37 PM
Not always.
And that's actually a cup of salsa.
From my first night in NYC last month. We took a lot of stupid photos that night.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 14, 2008, 03:22:50 AM

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2940326897_d599a12aca_o.jpg)

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on October 14, 2008, 11:29:12 AM
You should've adopted a fake Louisiana accent and told them not to talk that way to the governor.


I can see it. That guy is kind of a dink, though.

([url]http://www.nilacharal.com/enter/celeb/images/BobbyJindal.jpg[/url])([url]http://photos-e.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v338/28/31/5204758/n5204758_46821836_6014.jpg[/url])



Oh, he's a total dink.  And I don't think you really look like him.  But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these particular guys wouldn't *necessarily* be able to make that distinction, and they would probably offer you all the beer you could drink if they thought you were that fella.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 14, 2008, 11:52:25 AM

([url]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2940326897_d599a12aca_o.jpg[/url])





Haha! Wow that took me a moment.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 14, 2008, 12:46:13 PM
I don't know who that is.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 14, 2008, 01:25:24 PM
the original bikini rifle girl.

(http://www.wowowow.com/files/imagecache/530x353/slideshow/2008_0903_featured.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 14, 2008, 01:28:08 PM
Clever!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on October 14, 2008, 03:25:35 PM
I usually vote Republican, but I hate McCain because he's a former P.O.W.  Those guys drive me nuts!

Dude totally pals around with prisoners and other assorted lowlifes.

McCain consorts with Lieberman. Isn't that enough?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 14, 2008, 04:47:28 PM
I usually vote Republican, but I hate McCain because he's a former P.O.W.  Those guys drive me nuts!

Dude totally pals around with prisoners and other assorted lowlifes.

McCain consorts with Lieberman Droopy Dog. Isn't that enough?

I fix.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Stupornaut on October 14, 2008, 06:32:58 PM
Teddy Rockstar gets interviewed on political stuff, and the Wonkette commenters flail confusedly against it with fists of ham. (http://wonkette.com/403508/famous-dc-rock-star-doesnt-like-sarah-palin#comments)

Quote
Ugh, I bet this dude eats Two Boots pizza and likes it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 14, 2008, 06:44:52 PM
Clever!

Is that meant to be as sarcastic as it seems?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 14, 2008, 10:45:59 PM
Looks that way to me, but given the climate of our angry nation, who knows? However, this is wonkette, so I'm guessing so.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 14, 2008, 10:59:01 PM
I think John was referring to Martin's "Clever!" remark.

That said, the Two Boots comment on Wonkette made me laugh.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on October 14, 2008, 11:27:24 PM
Wonkette is like Gawker for ugly people.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 14, 2008, 11:46:50 PM
Wonkette is like Gawker for ugly people.


SURELY you're not suggesting that politicians are unattractive?!

(http://www.leveesnotwar.org/Images/LNW_HillMcCain2.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 15, 2008, 12:46:29 AM
I hate to say it, but it does remind me of Gawker too. Gawker is fun occasionally, but so is playing video games and eating ice cream.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Stan on October 15, 2008, 01:29:05 AM
Teddy Rockstar gets interviewed on political stuff, and the Wonkette commenters flail confusedly against it with fists of ham. ([url]http://wonkette.com/403508/famous-dc-rock-star-doesnt-like-sarah-palin#comments[/url])

Quote
Ugh, I bet this dude eats Two Boots pizza and likes it.



 Have you ever tried Two Boots Pizza? Horrifying.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 15, 2008, 02:26:09 AM
man I like Ted Leo more and more
see how he got talking about Palin? That's how I get talking about about any right wing position

No abortion even in cases of rape or incest? *I proceed to lose my shit*

Only difference, I have no talent.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 15, 2008, 03:07:38 AM
Clever!

Is that meant to be as sarcastic as it seems?


No! Clever, as in "actually clever"! I just didn't get it at first.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on October 15, 2008, 07:18:32 AM
I have no talent.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: emma on October 15, 2008, 08:50:31 AM
man I like Ted Leo more and more

I think it is impossible not to.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 15, 2008, 09:48:42 AM
Teddy Rockstar gets interviewed on political stuff, and the Wonkette commenters flail confusedly against it with fists of ham. ([url]http://wonkette.com/403508/famous-dc-rock-star-doesnt-like-sarah-palin#comments[/url])

Quote
Ugh, I bet this dude eats Two Boots pizza and likes it.



I'm not familiar with that Wonkette site at all, so I have a dumb question. Who wrote this part:

Quote from: BLargh
Here’s one for the children of Washington, D.C., with Wonkette’s own Liz Glover interviewing famous local hero rock star Ted Leo of the wonderful elitist band Ted Leo & The Pharmacists outside a Black Cat show last week. He talks about some obscure album someone made once, because that is what indie rock people do whenever they hear a fleeting reference to anything music-related. Then Liz asks about Sarah Palin and he gets “all emo” and start talking about “bullets in bellies.” Why does Ted Leo hate the troops?


This kind of writing is T H E   W O R S T, especially coming from someone who clearly doesn't really understand what the fuck they're talking about. Emo? Elitist? Indie rock? It's like watching my parents try to be "internet snarky."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 15, 2008, 10:19:04 AM
http://www.palinaspresident.com/
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 15, 2008, 11:34:32 AM
I wonder what Sarah Palin thinks oil is.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 15, 2008, 12:09:04 PM
Teddy Rockstar gets interviewed on political stuff, and the Wonkette commenters flail confusedly against it with fists of ham. ([url]http://wonkette.com/403508/famous-dc-rock-star-doesnt-like-sarah-palin#comments[/url])

Quote
Ugh, I bet this dude eats Two Boots pizza and likes it.



I'm not familiar with that Wonkette site at all, so I have a dumb question. Who wrote this part:

Quote from: BLargh
Here’s one for the children of Washington, D.C., with Wonkette’s own Liz Glover interviewing famous local hero rock star Ted Leo of the wonderful elitist band Ted Leo & The Pharmacists outside a Black Cat show last week. He talks about some obscure album someone made once, because that is what indie rock people do whenever they hear a fleeting reference to anything music-related. Then Liz asks about Sarah Palin and he gets “all emo” and start talking about “bullets in bellies.” Why does Ted Leo hate the troops?


This kind of writing is T H E   W O R S T, especially coming from someone who clearly doesn't really understand what the fuck they're talking about. Emo? Elitist? Indie rock? It's like watching my parents try to be "internet snarky."


Even I got that it was tongue in cheek.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 15, 2008, 12:18:52 PM
Teddy Rockstar gets interviewed on political stuff, and the Wonkette commenters flail confusedly against it with fists of ham. ([url]http://wonkette.com/403508/famous-dc-rock-star-doesnt-like-sarah-palin#comments[/url])

Quote
Ugh, I bet this dude eats Two Boots pizza and likes it.



I'm not familiar with that Wonkette site at all, so I have a dumb question. Who wrote this part:

Quote from: BLargh
Here’s one for the children of Washington, D.C., with Wonkette’s own Liz Glover interviewing famous local hero rock star Ted Leo of the wonderful elitist band Ted Leo & The Pharmacists outside a Black Cat show last week. He talks about some obscure album someone made once, because that is what indie rock people do whenever they hear a fleeting reference to anything music-related. Then Liz asks about Sarah Palin and he gets “all emo” and start talking about “bullets in bellies.” Why does Ted Leo hate the troops?


This kind of writing is T H E   W O R S T, especially coming from someone who clearly doesn't really understand what the fuck they're talking about. Emo? Elitist? Indie rock? It's like watching my parents try to be "internet snarky."


They're using over-worked buzzwords. That's why it's ironic, which is what they were going for, knowing Wonkette.


I have more fun on Wonkette than Gawker, probably because they have more of a sense of humor about themselves.  The site that makes me fume on Gawker the most is Jezebel. I used to read it all the time but they do this awful pretentious third wave fun-feminist thing that irritates me sooo much.

We think other gossip blogs are shallow and sexist!! Now we're going to post a picture of Lindsay Lohan for you to judge. Oh and it was cool that Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl because she was into it, and there was a Bikini Kill song called "I Like Fucking!" We're the FEMINIST gossip blog. Yeah!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 15, 2008, 12:29:27 PM
I get that it's supposed to be winking and ironic, but it's not even good at doing that. The things it chooses to be ironic about are so obvious and boring.

Quote from: Some blurb about a launch party
Comedian Aziz Ansari kind of told some jokes in that indie comedian “not actually really telling jokes” way.

Alternative comics don't actually tell jokes! Ho-ho-ho, that is some scathing satire, Wonkette!

Quote from: Some article about the kid who knocked up Palin's kid
The brave high school dropout who impregnated Sarah Palin’s daughter talked with an AP reporter, in his driveway. He spoke in complete sentences, unlike his future mother-in-law!

Ugh!

This is mom humor!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on October 15, 2008, 12:49:08 PM
Todd, your mom is much more caustic and in-the-know than mine, apparently.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 15, 2008, 12:59:22 PM
Todd, your mom is much more caustic and in-the-know than mine, apparently.

No but if your mom tried to be caustic, this is how it would come out.

Thumbs down, Wonkette. Waaaayyy down.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cutout on October 15, 2008, 01:06:35 PM
Quote
No but if your mom tried to be caustic, this is how it would come out.

That's the whitest "mama joke" ever.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 15, 2008, 01:11:49 PM
Ha Ha.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on October 15, 2008, 09:59:48 PM
Your mother is so gauche, she ate her cucumber sandwich with her LEFT hand while reaching for a PAPER DOILY to wipe her mouth.

Oh, goodness, snap.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gilly on October 15, 2008, 10:10:43 PM
Oh crap. Roe v. Wade had to be brought up sometime.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 15, 2008, 11:48:53 PM
After Heart and Foo Fighters, now Bon Jovi has objected to the McCain/Palin campaigns using their song at rallies.
http://www.nme.com/news/bon-jovi/40468

Don't these fuckers think of this BEFORE selecting a song? it seems very shoot-in-foot to always have people saying "we don't endorse this!" It's not like they're ever going to run out of Hank 3 songs, is it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gibby on October 16, 2008, 06:36:03 AM
Todd, your mom is much more caustic and in-the-know than mine, apparently.

Just go back and read the quotes in the voice of the mother from Freaks and Geeks.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 16, 2008, 09:56:05 AM
After Heart and Foo Fighters, now Bon Jovi has objected to the McCain/Palin campaigns using their song at rallies.
[url]http://www.nme.com/news/bon-jovi/40468[/url]

Don't these fuckers think of this BEFORE selecting a song? it seems very shoot-in-foot to always have people saying "we don't endorse this!" It's not like they're ever going to run out of Hank 3 songs, is it.


These artists gave up their right to complain about people they don't like doing public performances of their songs when they started cashing those ASCAP checks.

Actually, they can complain all they want, but it annoys me when bands like Heart get lawyers involved given that they don't have a legal leg to stand on.  (Using a song in an ad is a different story of course.)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 16, 2008, 12:46:24 PM
After Heart and Foo Fighters, now Bon Jovi has objected to the McCain/Palin campaigns using their song at rallies.
[url]http://www.nme.com/news/bon-jovi/40468[/url]

Don't these fuckers think of this BEFORE selecting a song? it seems very shoot-in-foot to always have people saying "we don't endorse this!" It's not like they're ever going to run out of Hank 3 songs, is it.


These artists gave up their right to complain about people they don't like doing public performances of their songs when they started cashing those ASCAP checks.

Actually, they can complain all they want, but it annoys me when bands like Heart get lawyers involved given that they don't have a legal leg to stand on.  (Using a song in an ad is a different story of course.)



Hmmm ... Maybe as a symbolic move, Heart and all those other bands could write out a check to the McCain campaign, representing their ASCAP share for the play of their song at a McCain Nuremberg rally event. I'm sure it would be a very piddling amount. Pennies.

The next move would be to multiply that figure by 666 and issue a check for that amount to the Obama campaign.

(Is it just a coincidence that YesNo's comment on this topic is the 666th post on this thread?)


Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 16, 2008, 01:02:11 PM

(Is it just a coincidence that YesNo's comment on this topic is the 666th post on this thread?)


No.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on October 16, 2008, 01:42:04 PM
I've been thinking that maybe the liberal media filter had been exaggerating the shocking behavior at Republican rallies. Then I saw this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0
Wow. Scary stuff, and weird. Al-Jazeera reporting from Ohio? Imagine if those interviewees knew they'd been talking to an Al-Jazeera reporter - they would have torn him limb from limb!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 16, 2008, 01:45:44 PM
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=561782528#/pages/Joe-Wurzelbacher/34957461388?ref=nf

The Plumber already has his own fanpage.

Hoo boy.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cutout on October 16, 2008, 02:00:52 PM
http://twitter.com/joetheplumber
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 16, 2008, 02:26:40 PM
(http://i36.tinypic.com/27wyaae.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: A.M. Thomas on October 16, 2008, 07:33:24 PM
([url]http://i36.tinypic.com/27wyaae.jpg[/url])


(http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/bush-door-china.jpg)

Coincidence?

I THINK NOT.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 16, 2008, 07:47:12 PM
(http://i36.tinypic.com/27wyaae.jpg)
(http://www.robocoparchive.com/wide/emil2.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 16, 2008, 07:50:52 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2jr2cWLjZn4/SMVxZgE-B0I/AAAAAAAAAMM/IO5anSdQpGQ/s1600-h/Emobama.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2jr2cWLjZn4/SMVxZgE-B0I/AAAAAAAAAMM/IO5anSdQpGQ/s1600-h/Emobama.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2jr2cWLjZn4/SMVxZgE-B0I/AAAAAAAAAMM/IO5anSdQpGQ/s1600-h/Emobama.jpg)

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on October 16, 2008, 08:58:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0OajeJs9uQ&feature=related

Dramatic McCain!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 16, 2008, 10:01:30 PM
I've been thinking that maybe the liberal media filter had been exaggerating the shocking behavior at Republican rallies.


There's a reason this guy won a Nobel Prize for literature.  America is still very much like the America he observed.

(http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/14300000/14303305.JPG)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gilly on October 16, 2008, 10:30:34 PM
It's funny, I used to stop in the town that Sinclair Lewis grew up in every time I drove home or back to college, and they regard him as a town hero. Maybe they haven't read the book.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 16, 2008, 10:38:35 PM
It was always my understanding that Sauk Centre felt ill of him at first, but got over it once he'd garnered world-wide celebration.



"in America most of us — not readers alone, but even writers — are still afraid of any literature which is not a glorification of everything American, a glorification of our faults as well as our virtues," and that America is "the most contradictory, the most depressing, the most stirring, of any land in the world today."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 16, 2008, 11:40:43 PM
Sauk Center is still a pretty small Midwestern town, just a bedroom community for the bustling metropolis of St. Cloud. So it really doesn't matter very much.


(Kidding, kidding..)

It doesn't sound like Chicago has let go of its anger for Nelson Algren either, after the hatchet jobs he did on it.


Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 17, 2008, 10:23:37 AM
(http://img29.picoodle.com/img/img29/3/10/17/f_evolutionDAm_d82c101.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 17, 2008, 12:54:52 PM
Am I embarassingly out of it for... wait, let me finish... for never having heard of this Alfred E. Smith white tie (creepy) dinner McCain and Obama attended, where the people that rule the world apparently get together and roast each other shortly before the election?  If only we'd heard something similar before the Newbridge election!  I don't think Marky Ramone would respond well to being roasted though. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 17, 2008, 02:08:28 PM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

 ???
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 17, 2008, 02:37:38 PM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

 ???

lying sack of crap = typical republican

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trotskie on October 17, 2008, 03:03:25 PM
Am I embarassingly out of it for... wait, let me finish... for never having heard of this Alfred E. Smith white tie (creepy) dinner McCain and Obama attended, where the people that rule the world apparently get together and roast each other shortly before the election?

I wouldn't say that you are out of it, just not in it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 17, 2008, 03:19:54 PM
I've never heard of it either.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 17, 2008, 03:32:07 PM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

 ???

lying sack of crap = typical republican


good point.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 17, 2008, 03:35:17 PM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

d) very small-business savvy at all
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 17, 2008, 03:48:02 PM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

 ???

He's not not named Joe?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 17, 2008, 03:51:19 PM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

 ???

He's not not named Joe?

Joe is his middle name.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 17, 2008, 03:52:12 PM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

 ???

He's not not named Joe?

No.

-os
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 17, 2008, 04:11:37 PM
Hey Ohio, stop letting the GOP push you around already.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27238980/
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Regular Joe on October 18, 2008, 02:36:35 AM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

 ???

He's not not named Joe?

No.

-os

Look, let's not get into a pipe wrench fight over it! I said some things, you said some things... in the end, who can say who is right? Can't we just moveon.org already? Jeez.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gilly on October 18, 2008, 03:55:18 AM
You're going to get an ass full of pipe wrench Joe the Plumber.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: A.M. Thomas on October 18, 2008, 11:38:37 AM
Racist Ohioan Mike Lunsford Hangs Obama Effigy from Noose in Tree

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

Ew Buoy.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 18, 2008, 12:28:18 PM
So what's everyone going to do when the Republicans steal the election this time?  I'm hoping for revolution myself.  Or at least mass civil disobedience--say, everyone who voted for Obama refusing to pay his/her taxes come next April.  What do you think?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 18, 2008, 01:02:04 PM
So what's everyone going to do when the Republicans steal the election this time?  I'm hoping for revolution myself.  Or at least mass civil disobedience--say, everyone who voted for Obama refusing to pay his/her taxes come next April.  What do you think?

I'm going to refuse to pay for anything at all.  This protest will dovetail nicely with my financial destitution.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 18, 2008, 01:43:01 PM
You jest, but another of my notions has to do with a moratorium on all spending plus a general strike.  On top of not paying taxes.  Just a downright refusal to do anything but the barest minimum necessary for survival.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on October 18, 2008, 02:10:34 PM
Racist Ohioan Mike Lunsford Hangs Obama Effigy from Noose in Tree

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbcVNOMqSk[/url]

Ew Buoy.


Nasty!

I have to confess, every time something like this comes out of Ohio ppl in Indiana breathe a sigh of relief.  Not that we don't have nutjobs aplenty.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 18, 2008, 02:37:09 PM


I have to confess, every time something like this comes out of Ohio ppl in Indiana breathe a sigh of relief.  Not that we don't have nutjobs aplenty.

I guess you're hyperventilating these days.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 18, 2008, 03:43:08 PM
So what's everyone going to do when the Republicans steal the election this time?  I'm hoping for revolution myself.  Or at least mass civil disobedience--say, everyone who voted for Obama refusing to pay his/her taxes come next April.  What do you think?


CHAAAAIIIINNN  FIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 18, 2008, 04:44:49 PM
with who?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on October 18, 2008, 04:59:36 PM


I have to confess, every time something like this comes out of Ohio ppl in Indiana breathe a sigh of relief.  Not that we don't have nutjobs aplenty.

I guess you're hyperventilating these days.

And in danger of getting hooked on the pain relievers to treat the strain from patting myself on the back, yeah.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on October 18, 2008, 05:16:31 PM
Racist Ohioan Mike Lunsford Hangs Obama Effigy from Noose in Tree



Ew Buoy.

Nasty!

I have to confess, every time something like this comes out of Ohio ppl in Indiana breathe a sigh of relief.  Not that we don't have nutjobs aplenty.


This goes double for those of us in the South.  I am not alone among Southerners in having met much more virulently racist people from the Northern part of the country than the South, but, unfortunately Southerners are the ones in the black-and-white videos with the dogs, the axe handles and the firehoses.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 18, 2008, 05:36:42 PM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

 ???

He's not not named Joe?

Joe is his middle name.

It's funny, I was driving to Cincinnati this weekend and accidentally picked up Rush Limbaugh and he was talking about how Joe was the guy's middle name.  He then went on to say that this isn't a big deal because some people aren't afraid to reveal their middle names, unlike Barack Hussein Obama.  And then he went on and on about how McCain killed at that roast dinner and Obama just seemed bitter the whole time.  Of course seeing the video of it today, Obama was laughing plenty and seemed to have done just as well as McCain.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 18, 2008, 06:47:16 PM
So Joe is apparently not

a) a plumber
b) earning the kinds of money he claimed
c) not named Joe!

 ???


He's not not named Joe?

Joe is his middle name.

It's funny, I was driving to Cincinnati this weekend and accidentally picked up Rush Limbaugh and he was talking about how Joe was the guy's middle name.  He then went on to say that this isn't a big deal because some people aren't afraid to reveal their middle names, unlike Barack Hussein Obama.  And then he went on and on about how McCain killed at that roast dinner and Obama just seemed bitter the whole time.  Of course seeing the video of it today, Obama was laughing plenty and seemed to have done just as well as McCain.

I thought Obama's "John McCain is older than Bea Arthur's dick" joke was over the line.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 18, 2008, 06:56:35 PM
I have to confess, every time something like this comes out of Ohio ppl in Indiana breathe a sigh of relief.  Not that we don't have nutjobs aplenty.

At this point, I hope that Ohio goes to McCain and it doesn't make any goddamn difference.  I'm sick of every election hanging on such an emo state.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 18, 2008, 08:50:10 PM
If Obama takes Ohio and he wins the election, can we get the credit for the victory since we've had to take the blame for Bush's victory?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 18, 2008, 09:25:52 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 18, 2008, 09:43:22 PM
I thought Obama's "John McCain is older than Bea Arthur's dick" joke was over the line.

I love it, Junk. Picture me spewing a mouthful of martini like at a Dean Martin Roast. No, don't. On second thought, just picture me laughing.

Boy, am I tired of guys like that talk show dude saying McCain killed and Obama wasn't funny and seemed bitter. Now that's the definition of humorless politics. They were both funny at various moments. Also, does anyone else think J. the P. sounds like he's listened to WAAAAYYYY too much talk radio?

Mo Udall was kinda funny in his day, which is long before I was born. He probably wouldn't be considered funny now. He was kind of McCain's mentor in politics actually. Now his kids are running for/in the US Senate. Why can't we have more guys like him?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 19, 2008, 12:21:31 AM
So Sarah Palin was on SNL. I know there's an SNL thread, but I thought this one had a more appropriate title.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 19, 2008, 12:37:54 AM
So Sarah Palin was on SNL. I know there's an SNL thread, but I thought this one had a more appropriate title.

All it managed to do was remind me that 30 Rock isn't on for another 2 weeks. Ridiculous.

Although I chuckled when Marky Mark showed up.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 19, 2008, 02:13:15 AM
(http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/2931/palinzm0qz7.gif)

I want to do naughty things to her







http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/18/sarah-palin-on-snl-with-t_n_135887.html
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 19, 2008, 02:23:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu_fHWTofcs&eurl=http://friendsoftom.com
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 19, 2008, 05:01:06 AM
Not really sure what Palin proved by doing this.  Alec Baldwin basically echoed my sentiments (which was amusing) up until the point where he starts kissing her butt.   :D
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 19, 2008, 05:34:23 AM
She's trying to prove she's a good sport who can take a joke at her expense.  I believe the hope is that, if people believe this, they will forgive her for championing ignorance and mongering hate.

I hate to say it, but I'm really worried about Maine.  A few weeks ago, I had faith in this surprisingly Democratic state, but I had forgotten the deep streak of racism that flows within the average Mainer.  I had forgotten the numerous arguments I've had with young white men here who complain about people of various hues taking their jobs--a particularly jaw-droppingly stupid claim given that there are only about seven blacks and Hispanics in the state.  I had forgotten that when Jesse Jackson won here it was semimeaningless, since caucuses attract only the most active Democrats.  Now I'm hearing that McCain-Palin signs are everywhere.  Worse, when someone is asked what s/he thinks of Obama, the response all too often is, "Oh, he seems like a nice guy, but . . ."  Mostly no one dares complete the sentence, but its conclusion is clear. 

If Obama loses (and more and more I'm thinking he will), anyone who attributes this to anything but race (or "cultural differences," as the code now goes) is naive, dumb, or a big fat liar.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 19, 2008, 06:15:40 AM

If Obama loses (and more and more I'm thinking he will)


why do u say this?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 19, 2008, 06:25:50 AM
Because I have a low opinion of the human race, my dear.  I think McCain/Palin's hate campaign is going to scare some people enough to vote for them.  I think when it comes down to it a lot of assholes are not going to vote for Obama because of his skin.  And I think that in the grand tradition begun in 2000 (well, earlier, but that was such a biggie) the Republicans are going to steal the election regardless of how we vote.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 19, 2008, 07:40:01 AM
I'm hoping that the lazy and guilt/fear-ridden racists will simply stay home.  If McCain cannot adequately inspire or infuriate enough people (which I don't really think he can), this is somewhat more likely.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 19, 2008, 08:25:04 AM
Don't get all worked up over anecdotal stuff, the cold hard numbers look good.

(http://s.wsj.net/media/obamastlouis_Q_20081018135311.jpg)

This was right over by the court house that decided the Dredd Scott Supreme Court case. The good guys can win one.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on October 19, 2008, 10:09:43 AM
Racist Ohioan Mike Lunsford Hangs Obama Effigy from Noose in Tree



Ew Buoy.

Nasty!

I have to confess, every time something like this comes out of Ohio ppl in Indiana breathe a sigh of relief.  Not that we don't have nutjobs aplenty.


This goes double for those of us in the South.  I am not alone among Southerners in having met much more virulently racist people from the Northern part of the country than the South, but, unfortunately Southerners are the ones in the black-and-white videos with the dogs, the axe handles and the firehoses.

Preach it brother guff! Sadly, while we're not all racists down here, way too many of us are.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on October 19, 2008, 10:11:33 AM
She's trying to prove she's a good sport who can take a joke at her expense.  I believe the hope is that, if people believe this, they will forgive her for championing ignorance and mongering hate.

I hate to say it, but I'm really worried about Maine.  A few weeks ago, I had faith in this surprisingly Democratic state, but I had forgotten the deep streak of racism that flows within the average Mainer.  I had forgotten the numerous arguments I've had with young white men here who complain about people of various hues taking their jobs--a particularly jaw-droppingly stupid claim given that there are only about seven blacks and Hispanics in the state.  I had forgotten that when Jesse Jackson won here it was semimeaningless, since caucuses attract only the most active Democrats.  Now I'm hearing that McCain-Palin signs are everywhere.  Worse, when someone is asked what s/he thinks of Obama, the response all too often is, "Oh, he seems like a nice guy, but . . ."  Mostly no one dares complete the sentence, but its conclusion is clear. 

If Obama loses (and more and more I'm thinking he will), anyone who attributes this to anything but race (or "cultural differences," as the code now goes) is naive, dumb, or a big fat liar.



Guess how I feel about Tennessee.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 19, 2008, 10:37:45 AM
She's trying to prove she's a good sport who can take a joke at her expense.  I believe the hope is that, if people believe this, they will forgive her for championing ignorance and mongering hate.

I hate to say it, but I'm really worried about Maine.  A few weeks ago, I had faith in this surprisingly Democratic state, but I had forgotten the deep streak of racism that flows within the average Mainer.  I had forgotten the numerous arguments I've had with young white men here who complain about people of various hues taking their jobs--a particularly jaw-droppingly stupid claim given that there are only about seven blacks and Hispanics in the state.  I had forgotten that when Jesse Jackson won here it was semimeaningless, since caucuses attract only the most active Democrats.  Now I'm hearing that McCain-Palin signs are everywhere.  Worse, when someone is asked what s/he thinks of Obama, the response all too often is, "Oh, he seems like a nice guy, but . . ."  Mostly no one dares complete the sentence, but its conclusion is clear. 

If Obama loses (and more and more I'm thinking he will), anyone who attributes this to anything but race (or "cultural differences," as the code now goes) is naive, dumb, or a big fat liar.



Guess how I feel about Tennessee.


damn
dems are some beaten down mofos

si se puede people
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 19, 2008, 10:44:57 AM
Whether he wins or not I'm just happy I can cast my vote (for the first time) without sighing and feeling like I'm choosing the lesser of two evils or voting just to vote against the republicans. I actually truly believe in my candidate. I don't hang my head when I watch the debates, waiting for him to embarrass himself and the rest of the democratic party. It's so refreshing.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 19, 2008, 01:21:54 PM

damn
dems are some beaten down mofos

It's less that I'm a Dem than that I'm aging and infirm, Tee(h)E(e).  At this point, I'm banking on the sweet naivety of the young'uns who are still unbruised enough to be hopeful.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 19, 2008, 04:03:18 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2832750064_a1dd298f37.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 19, 2008, 04:06:32 PM
I am not reassured.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Emily on October 19, 2008, 08:37:21 PM
Now is not the time for negativity or doubt! Now is the time for optimism and hope! Just for like 16 days. You can do it!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 19, 2008, 08:59:36 PM
I'm not just being optimistic for the sake of hope or change or blah blah blah. I actually like the man's policies and the character he displayed in [at least two of the three] debates.

In fact, I'm not optimistic that he'll win at all. I think he'll lose because the voting systems are fucked. But I'm glad to be voting for someone who's politics I agree with and who's personality I don't despise. I couldn't tell what Kerry was all about and Gore was an embarrassment in the public eye.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 19, 2008, 09:12:20 PM
I couldn't tell what Kerry was all about and Gore was an embarrassment in the public eye.

I like Gore a lot more than I did in 2000.  He's become a lot more mellow and human-seeming.  No doubt the lack of pressure, or maybe it was that retreat he went on in 2002 with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 19, 2008, 09:37:55 PM
Oh absolutely. I grew to like Gore when he wasn't being over-handled or separating himself from Clinton like he was the devil...
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 20, 2008, 12:20:23 AM
Oh absolutely. I grew to like Gore when he wasn't being over-handled or separating himself from Clinton like he was the devil...

Hey Erika that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is member of the tribe?

something about her seems a little .....urban to me.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 20, 2008, 06:20:31 AM
Now is not the time for negativity or doubt! Now is the time for optimism and hope! Just for like 16 days. You can do it!

No, I can't. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on October 20, 2008, 08:38:40 AM
Oh absolutely. I grew to like Gore when he wasn't being over-handled or separating himself from Clinton like he was the devil...

Hey Erika that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is member of the tribe?

something about her seems a little .....urban to me.

I'm with Tom... I don't know what to make of TE.  He's one of a kind. Thank God.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 20, 2008, 10:08:04 AM
Oh absolutely. I grew to like Gore when he wasn't being over-handled or separating himself from Clinton like he was the devil...


Hey Erika that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is member of the tribe?

something about her seems a little .....urban to me.


I'm with Tom... I don't know what to make of TE.  He's one of a kind. Thank God.

c'mon.....I'm the only one that sees it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEd_Ev2vZYY
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 20, 2008, 10:57:53 AM
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Raad_Man on October 20, 2008, 11:11:06 AM
i'm no fan of obama, but this guy kinda makes me consider voting for him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrqeTyEcZPg
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 20, 2008, 11:23:13 AM
Hey Erika that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is member of the tribe?

something about her seems a little .....urban to me.

Does she seem just a little too cosmopolitan for your taste TE?  A bit rootless?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on October 20, 2008, 11:50:25 AM
I somehow doubt that TE is an anti-Semite, but that would be an awesome addition to the list.  TE, correct me if I'm wrong, and feel free to add, but so far I've got:

-Mixed martial arts fan
-Anarchist
-Lover of Native Tongues hip-hop
-Anti-Scientologist
-Lusts after Sarah Palin
-African-American bodybuilder
-Anti-imperialist historical revisionist
-Harper's reader
-Supporter of euthanasia for the disabled
-Dislikes capital letters
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 20, 2008, 12:25:57 PM
I somehow doubt that TE is an anti-Semite, but that would be an awesome addition to the list.  TE, correct me if I'm wrong, and feel free to add, but so far I've got:

-Mixed martial arts fan
-Anarchist
-Lover of Native Tongues hip-hop
-Anti-Scientologist
-Lusts after Sarah Palin
-African-American bodybuilder
-Anti-imperialist historical revisionist
-Harper's reader
-Supporter of euthanasia for the disabled
-Dislikes capital letters


-Likes Coldplay
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 20, 2008, 12:42:55 PM
I somehow doubt that TE is an anti-Semite, but that would be an awesome addition to the list.  TE, correct me if I'm wrong, and feel free to add, but so far I've got:

-Mixed martial arts fan
-Anarchist
-Lover of Native Tongues hip-hop
-Anti-Scientologist
-Lusts after Sarah Palin
-African-American bodybuilder
-Anti-imperialist historical revisionist
-Harper's reader
-Supporter of euthanasia for the disabled
-Dislikes capital letters


-Likes Coldplay

-Hater of Lil' Wayne, Liker of You-Know-Who
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 20, 2008, 01:20:24 PM
I somehow doubt that TE is an anti-Semite, but that would be an awesome addition to the list.  TE, correct me if I'm wrong, and feel free to add, but so far I've got:

-Mixed martial arts fan
-Anarchist
-Lover of Native Tongues hip-hop
-Anti-Scientologist
-Lusts after Sarah Palin
-African-American bodybuilder
-Anti-imperialist historical revisionist
-Harper's reader
-Supporter of euthanasia for the disabled
-Dislikes capital letters


-Likes Coldplay

-Hater of Lil' Wayne, Liker of You-Know-Who
- Maintains the blog at cakewrecks.blogspot.com
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 20, 2008, 01:52:23 PM
Well now that I can have some respect for...
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Phantom Hugger on October 20, 2008, 05:33:20 PM
I'm taking the subject of this thread at face value. This guy has a certain Brian Cox-like affect.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236&hl=en

More angry tenured communists, please.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 20, 2008, 07:59:15 PM
I somehow doubt that TE is an anti-Semite, but that would be an awesome addition to the list.  TE, correct me if I'm wrong, and feel free to add, but so far I've got:

-Mixed martial arts fan
-Anarchist
-Lover of Native Tongues hip-hop
-Anti-Scientologist
-Lusts after Sarah Palin
-African-American bodybuilder
-Anti-imperialist historical revisionist
-Harper's reader
-Supporter of euthanasia for the disabled
-Dislikes capital letters


sweet baby jebus
this is so funny 'cause it's so true.

But f'real
that Wasserman-Schultz has some kinda of Harry Connick Jr. Vin Diesel thing going on. Not that there's anything wrong with that...in fact I love it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Come on, Jason on October 20, 2008, 08:17:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ

Wait for it...
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 20, 2008, 09:31:29 PM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ[/url]

Wait for it...


That's fucked up. 



Not in a good way. 

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dania on October 20, 2008, 10:34:52 PM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ[/url]

Wait for it...


that was the best thing i've seen EVER
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 20, 2008, 11:04:37 PM
But f'real
that Wasserman-Schultz has some kinda of Harry Connick Jr. Vin Diesel thing going on. Not that there's anything wrong with that...in fact I love it.


In an attempt to clarify his position, TE pulls some profoundly dissonant reference points out of the murky ether. To paraphrase Tina Fey, I am lost in the corn maze. (http://www.film.com/features/story/tina-fey-breaks-down-her/23654516) But it's all good ... keep doing what you're doing TE. I support it ... I think??

P.S. I think what Trembling Eagle is trying to say is that Debbie Wassermann Schulz uses a voice modulator.

P.P.S. Had anybody else heard of Ms. Schulz before TE brought her name up? Is TE positioning her for a Vice Presidential run in 2012?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 20, 2008, 11:55:10 PM
She's been on MSNBC a lot lately as a kind of Democratic congressional spokesperson. I think she comes across pretty well usually. So yeah, I had heard of her, but only in this election campaign. I'd have to say I'm a fan.

I don't get it though... urban? Vin Diesel/Harry Connick? Can you clarify, TE? I'm dying to know.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 20, 2008, 11:58:09 PM
She's been on MSNBC a lot lately as a kind of Democratic congressional spokesperson. I think she comes across pretty well usually. So yeah, I had heard of her, but only in this election campaign. I'd have to say I'm a fan.

I don't get it though... urban? Vin Diesel/Harry Connick? Can you clarify, TE? I'm dying to know.

eh, forget it.
I must just be imagining it.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: A.M. Thomas on October 21, 2008, 12:37:03 AM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ[/url]

Wait for it...


That's fucked up. 



Not in a good way. 




You have to at least respect that editing.  Prett-y impressive.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on October 21, 2008, 12:45:37 AM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ[/url]

Wait for it...


that was the best thing i've seen EVER


Wow, I guess all that Reebok money from 2003 finally ran out.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 21, 2008, 08:10:06 AM
She's been on MSNBC a lot lately as a kind of Democratic congressional spokesperson. I think she comes across pretty well usually. So yeah, I had heard of her, but only in this election campaign. I'd have to say I'm a fan.

I don't get it though... urban? Vin Diesel/Harry Connick? Can you clarify, TE? I'm dying to know.


eh, forget it.
I must just be imagining it.




Oh, come on.  The reasons for your saying what you said are apparent.  I have a notion that people are worried that you posted about it to draw out hidden racism and that's why they are responding as they are.  (I will now await the lynch mob.)

On another note:  I voted yesterday.  Glad to get that over and done with.

Finally, this

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236&hl=en[/url]


Good stuff.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 21, 2008, 09:24:39 AM
Whatever you want, Sarah:

(http://www.heavyharmonies.com/bandpics/lynchmob.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 21, 2008, 03:43:50 PM
She's been on MSNBC a lot lately as a kind of Democratic congressional spokesperson. I think she comes across pretty well usually. So yeah, I had heard of her, but only in this election campaign. I'd have to say I'm a fan.

I don't get it though... urban? Vin Diesel/Harry Connick? Can you clarify, TE? I'm dying to know.


eh, forget it.
I must just be imagining it.




Oh, come on.  The reasons for your saying what you said are apparent.  I have a notion that people are worried that you posted about it to draw out hidden racism and that's why they are responding as they are.  (I will now await the lynch mob.)

On another note:  I voted yesterday.  Glad to get that over and done with.

Finally, this

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236&hl=en[/url]


Good stuff.


Nice call, Sarah. I genuinely couldn't figure out what was going on, but smelled a rat. By the way, who is the speaker in the video? It's nice to hear from folks who will never be seen on CNN at a time like this.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 21, 2008, 04:08:29 PM
Head O State (http://headostate.com/)

(NSFW)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 21, 2008, 07:12:18 PM
These have been posted to death but I like this montage:

(http://www.erasing.org/img/obama-buttons.png)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Phantom Hugger on October 21, 2008, 07:18:29 PM

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236&hl=en[/url]

It's nice to hear from folks who will never be seen on CNN at a time like this.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Phantom Hugger on October 21, 2008, 07:31:58 PM
Now to play loose with the subject of this thread to balance out my previous tweedy post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLKzgpdVOKk&eurl=http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=46107

This is the main reason that any conservative friends I have are voting Democrat this year.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 22, 2008, 12:31:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eubvRXQ7y4


wait for it...
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: theyellowchair on October 22, 2008, 01:20:32 AM
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j287/timetorockout82/zeke.jpg)

"Joe Who?"

-Zeke the Plumber, Bob Barr Victory 2008 supporter
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 22, 2008, 07:00:44 AM
I saw that Eagleburger interview yesterday and thought, "What a senile old evasive loon."

On the bright side, Maine is dark blue again:  53% to 38% (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/maine.html).  That made me happy this morning. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 22, 2008, 09:06:19 AM
Future Best Show guest John Hodgman on politics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tuLCiClb6k
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 22, 2008, 09:56:17 AM
I saw that Eagleburger interview yesterday and thought, "What a senile old evasive loon."

On the bright side, Maine is dark blue again:  53% to 38% ([url]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/maine.html[/url]).  That made me happy this morning. 


That was the prototypical grumpy old codger right there. Even better than Pat Buchanan. The expression on his face was just perfect!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on October 22, 2008, 11:46:59 AM
Yeah, it's just a slip of the tongue, and god knows I do worse on a daily basis, but still good for a larf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLVSURlFoQs
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 22, 2008, 11:56:14 AM
Yeah, it's just a slip of the tongue, and god knows I do worse on a daily basis, but still good for a larf:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLVSURlFoQs[/url]



He's sleepwalking his way to defeat (I hope I hope I hope ...)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 22, 2008, 01:47:52 PM
I can't believe all the uproar over Sarah Palin spending $150,000 on her wardrobe. What's she supposed to wear, a sack? Jesus!

Look, maybe this won't sit well with all those "Georgetown cocktail party" conservatives or "latte-sipping" liberals, but real Americans frequently drop AT LEAST $60,000 a year on clothing. IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 22, 2008, 01:49:09 PM
The headline on today's Wall Street Journal: "Obama Opens Double-Digit Lead."  That made my morning, but the election isn't over yet.

But here's the fat lady singing:


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RhriAN7jME[/youtube]

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 22, 2008, 02:37:15 PM
Yeah, it's just a slip of the tongue, and god knows I do worse on a daily basis, but still good for a larf:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLVSURlFoQs[/url]



Yeah, but his save was garbage.  Come on, man.  Pull yourself together.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 22, 2008, 03:40:12 PM
The headline on today's Wall Street Journal: "Obama Opens Double-Digit Lead."  That made my morning, but the election isn't over yet.

I just looked on MSNBC and they said a new poll has the candidates tied up. Who to believe?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 22, 2008, 03:44:12 PM
Who to believe?


http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 22, 2008, 04:27:20 PM
The headline on today's Wall Street Journal: "Obama Opens Double-Digit Lead."  That made my morning, but the election isn't over yet.

I just looked on MSNBC and they said a new poll has the candidates tied up. Who to believe?

I think you must have either misread something, MoS.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 22, 2008, 04:42:39 PM
The headline on today's Wall Street Journal: "Obama Opens Double-Digit Lead."  That made my morning, but the election isn't over yet.

I just looked on MSNBC and they said a new poll has the candidates tied up. Who to believe?

I think you must have either misread something, MoS.
nope.  it was an AP article that was on the front page earlier.  I'm having trouble finding it.  Basically stating that with the margin of error from most polls it was looking 44% Obama and 43% Mccain.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 22, 2008, 04:55:12 PM
Ah.  Nobody seems to be making much of a fuss about it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 22, 2008, 06:13:50 PM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 22, 2008, 06:43:09 PM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

I'd expect to hear that from someone living in Gainesville.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 22, 2008, 07:02:30 PM
The headline on today's Wall Street Journal: "Obama Opens Double-Digit Lead."  That made my morning, but the election isn't over yet.


I just looked on MSNBC and they said a new poll has the candidates tied up. Who to believe?


I think you must have either misread something, MoS.

nope.  it was an AP article that was on the front page earlier.  I'm having trouble finding it.  Basically stating that with the margin of error from most polls it was looking 44% Obama and 43% Mccain.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27324419/
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 22, 2008, 07:44:55 PM
realclearpolitics is a insane rightwing website
but I like their aggregate polls


I won't even dignify them with a link
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 22, 2008, 07:47:16 PM
I can't believe all the uproar over Sarah Palin spending $150,000 on her wardrobe. What's she supposed to wear, a sack? Jesus!

Look, maybe this won't sit well with all those "Georgetown cocktail party" conservatives or "latte-sipping" liberals, but real Americans frequently drop AT LEAST $60,000 a year on clothing. IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE.


She looks freaking hot in them
and better they waste money on that than on more slanderous ad's and robocalls
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on October 22, 2008, 07:52:21 PM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

Well I know for a fact Boston is historically more patriotic than any other place in America.  We started this patriot shit and this is the thanks we get?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 22, 2008, 08:00:36 PM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

Well I know for a fact Boston is historically more patriotic than any other place in America.  We started this patriot shit and this is the thanks we get?

Hey, do you like the Dropkick Murphy's? I was just listening to "Shipping up to Boston"
damn, that song rox
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 22, 2008, 08:18:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-9VW4ewI1M

sweet Jesus are they just gonna keep sending republican bimbos to Chris Matthews to ravish?
how do I get that job?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 22, 2008, 08:48:28 PM
In the AP poll that has been cited, 44% of its respondents identified themselves explicitly as evangelical Christians. So not too unusual that it would be so far towards McCain. Particularly when their likely voter model is also far more skewed towards 2004 numbers than what we see now from actual polls of the electorate. From registered voters, their numbers hit +5. From all adults, their numbers hit +10.

To put the problem of using the 2004 numbers for likely voters, Rasmussen's numbers, which are done from weekly tracking polls that survey 21,000 people over a period of six weeks, gives the Dems a 6.7 point advantage, which was NOT the case in 2004.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 22, 2008, 08:50:03 PM
You know, I find Chris Matthews obnoxious, but I kinda wish I felt that way about more journalists. At least he'll say "stop changing the subject" or "you are wrong" to someones face instead of politely smiling like Katie Couric and every other spineless journalist on television.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 22, 2008, 09:09:42 PM
You know, I find Chris Matthews obnoxious, but I kinda wish I felt that way about more journalists. At least he'll say "stop changing the subject" or "you are wrong" to someones face instead of politely smiling like Katie Couric and every other spineless journalist on television.

I'm not a big fan of Couric, but she did a good job of letting Palin hang herself with her own rope. Had Matthews interviewed Palin, he'd probably try to get a date with her.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 22, 2008, 09:13:53 PM
You know, I find Chris Matthews obnoxious, but I kinda wish I felt that way about more journalists. At least he'll say "stop changing the subject" or "you are wrong" to someones face instead of politely smiling like Katie Couric and every other spineless journalist on television.

I'm not a big fan of Couric, but she did a good job of letting Palin hang herself with her own rope. Had Matthews interviewed Palin, he'd probably try to get a date with her.

Matthews was surprisingly restrained when letting Michele Bachmann hang herself on his show last week when she accused Barack Obama and other (liberal) members of Congress of being "Anti-American." He stayed away from his usual tactics of overtalking and "louder = better" interviewing.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 22, 2008, 09:52:51 PM
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2008/10/18.jpg)

One thing Bush and Obama have in common, is that they're both in really good shape.  (Or at least Bush was 7 years ago.  Barry Obama might look like Barry Dworkin after 2 terms.)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 22, 2008, 09:57:46 PM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

I'd expect to hear that from someone living in Gainesville.


Number of seconds it took for Michelle Obama to pander to the locals with the Gator Chomp?

Fifteen (http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v343/84/11/2004290/n2004290_51385594_361.jpg).
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 22, 2008, 10:01:58 PM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

I'd expect to hear that from someone living in Gainesville.


Number of seconds it took for Michelle Obama to pander to the locals with the Gator Chomp?

Fifteen ([url]http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v343/84/11/2004290/n2004290_51385594_361.jpg[/url]).


You should have seen Obama in Boulder (http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m188/Bushwack_2006/obama-smoking1.jpg).
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 22, 2008, 11:26:13 PM
Isn't Photo Shop the best thing since sliced bread? I mean, look at the red they added to Obama's eyes in that picture.

So Trembling Eagle, Sarah Palin must be like some kind of femme fatale to you. Mad hot but totally evil, right?

All that winking shit she did in that debate just made me think of her as some kind of cheesy pinup girl you'd have expected to see in a warehouse office circa 1970. But oh, I forgot, many well-respected pundits repeatedly warn that people like me vastly underestimate her, at my own peril.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Phantom Hugger on October 22, 2008, 11:55:32 PM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

Well I know for a fact Boston is historically more patriotic than any other place in America.  We started this patriot shit and this is the thanks we get?

Hey, do you like the Dropkick Murphy's? I was just listening to "Shipping up to Boston"
damn, that song rox

This is a not so shocking development in the M.O. of the Trembling Eagle character.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 23, 2008, 01:24:21 AM


So Trembling Eagle, Sarah Palin must be like some kind of femme fatale to you. Mad hot but totally evil, right?



precisely.

I'm really taken with her as a female, disgusted by her politics and wary of her as a person.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 23, 2008, 03:03:04 AM
I know it's been said by FOT before, but I suspect that at this point, not only has McCain ceased really wanting this, so has the GOP.

They need to go lick their wounds and get their mess of a political party in order.


No Cavalry Coming For McCain

Republicans attuned to conservative third-party efforts say that with less than two weeks to go until Election Day, the prospects for any 11th-hour, anti-Obama ad campaign are highly unlikely.

Many in the party, including inside the McCain campaign, have held out hope that a deep-pocketed benefactor would emerge to bankroll ads in the campaign’s final days - spots that might, for example, resurrect the most incendiary clips from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

But thanks largely to lack of passion for McCain within the conservative base, diminished hopes that he can win and a sharp decline in the stock market that has badly pinched donors’ pockets, veteran Republican operatives say it appears almost certain that what could be the most damaging line of attack against the Democratic nominee will be left on the shelf.

..

“Republican donors at the end of day aren’t stupid,” said another Republican familiar with third-party activities this cycle. “They’re not going to throw good money after bad news.”

And it wasn’t just the economic bad news - McCain did little to help his own cause.

..

These sources said that after McCain didn’t use the Nashville debate to aggressively go after Obama, one prominent conservative financier remarked: “I’m not going to bother investing anymore.”

And donors were always fearful they would be rebuked by their party’s notoriously unpredictable nominee if they underwrote a major effort.

“McCain never gave a real wink and said, ‘Go ahead boys,’ ” explained one operative close to a third-party group this year.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/22/politics/politico/main4538433.shtml
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 23, 2008, 03:44:18 AM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

I'd expect to hear that from someone living in Gainesville.


Number of seconds it took for Michelle Obama to pander to the locals with the Gator Chomp?

Fifteen ([url]http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v343/84/11/2004290/n2004290_51385594_361.jpg[/url]).


Speaking of PhotoShop, remove Michelle's lower arm and you have one Hitler-saluting potential first lady.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on October 23, 2008, 05:59:19 AM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

Well I know for a fact Boston is historically more patriotic than any other place in America.  We started this patriot shit and this is the thanks we get?

Hey, do you like the Dropkick Murphy's? I was just listening to "Shipping up to Boston"
damn, that song rox

The Dropkick Murphy's represent everything I hate about this city. They are a disgrace.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 23, 2008, 09:41:06 AM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

I'd expect to hear that from someone living in Gainesville.


Number of seconds it took for Michelle Obama to pander to the locals with the Gator Chomp?

Fifteen ([url]http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v343/84/11/2004290/n2004290_51385594_361.jpg[/url]).


Speaking of PhotoShop, remove Michelle's lower arm and you have one Hitler-saluting potential first lady.


Dude... she's a socialist not a facist!

God...
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 23, 2008, 09:44:14 AM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

Well I know for a fact Boston is historically more patriotic than any other place in America.  We started this patriot shit and this is the thanks we get?

Hey, do you like the Dropkick Murphy's? I was just listening to "Shipping up to Boston"
damn, that song rox

The Dropkick Murphy's represent everything I hate about this city. They are a disgrace.

rocking song though
u got to admit
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Stupornaut on October 23, 2008, 10:04:48 AM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

I'd expect to hear that from someone living in Gainesville.


Number of seconds it took for Michelle Obama to pander to the locals with the Gator Chomp?

Fifteen ([url]http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v343/84/11/2004290/n2004290_51385594_361.jpg[/url]).


Speaking of PhotoShop, remove Michelle's lower arm and you have one Hitler-saluting potential first lady.


Dude... she's a socialist not a facist!

God...


Try telling that to Jonah Goldberg.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 23, 2008, 10:41:39 AM
(http://personal.cobleskill.edu/student/lewerjm/goldberg.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: emma on October 23, 2008, 12:27:58 PM


So Trembling Eagle, Sarah Palin must be like some kind of femme fatale to you. Mad hot but totally evil, right?



precisely.

I'm really taken with her as a female, disgusted by her politics and wary of her as a person.


If I were so inclined I might politely point out that there is no difference between a female and a person.

But you know that already.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 23, 2008, 01:26:54 PM
([url]http://personal.cobleskill.edu/student/lewerjm/goldberg.jpg[/url])


My hero!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 23, 2008, 02:05:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8fXaJmDbsY
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 23, 2008, 02:35:18 PM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8fXaJmDbsY[/url]



That was pretty funny!

The  John Woo one could have used a few more explosions and some white doves.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 23, 2008, 02:35:55 PM
the "x town is more patriotic than y town" shit needs to stop.

I'd expect to hear that from someone living in Gainesville.


Number of seconds it took for Michelle Obama to pander to the locals with the Gator Chomp?

Fifteen ([url]http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v343/84/11/2004290/n2004290_51385594_361.jpg[/url]).


Speaking of PhotoShop, remove Michelle's lower arm and you have one Hitler-saluting potential first lady.


Keep it under your hat, Martin. You might be giving the enemy some (PhotoShop) ideas.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Phantom Hugger on October 23, 2008, 04:04:10 PM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8fXaJmDbsY[/url]



That was pretty funny!

The  John Woo one could have used a few more explosions and some white doves.


I expected the pieces of the constitution to come fluttering down endlessly like a slow motion blizzard of feathers.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on October 23, 2008, 04:47:41 PM


In my day, yokels were limited to "stop animation" for their clever little videos.  All we had was "Hardware Wars" and we loved it, even though we didn't really know what a waffle iron was anymore.


The Wes Anderson one is the best.  "Probably not."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 23, 2008, 05:04:39 PM
That video could have been 10000x more fun with a proper budget, but what are you gonna do? I also kept waiting for doves.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 23, 2008, 05:40:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB5CLV18NBw

There is basically no difference between Fonz in this video and the Gorch.

Also, I once cited Fonzie's inability to say "I was wrong" in a paper.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 23, 2008, 05:43:56 PM
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9693/mccainlogo3ly2.png) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 23, 2008, 05:57:50 PM
(http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2005/03/16/opie.jpg)

*sniff*
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 23, 2008, 09:06:10 PM


So Trembling Eagle, Sarah Palin must be like some kind of femme fatale to you. Mad hot but totally evil, right?



precisely.

I'm really taken with her as a female, disgusted by her politics and wary of her as a person.


If I were so inclined I might politely point out that there is no difference between a female and a person.

But you know that already.

don't be silly
everybody knows women aint people.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 23, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
([url]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9693/mccainlogo3ly2.png[/url]) ([url]http://imageshack.us[/url])



I look at this sign and I hear him punctuating it with that horrible "Heh" sound that (mayubanatorial candidate) Todd Palin and everybody else hates so much.

"You don't judge me, HEHH?! I judge you, HEHH?! How 'bout that Governor Palin, HEHHHHH?!"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 24, 2008, 01:02:36 PM
OBAMA- JUST LIKE A REALLY HOT CHICK WITH CHLAMYDIA!

From Fox News' Blog:

Quote
So yesterday, during an ideas meeting, a staffer pitched a story about Sarah Palin, focusing on how little we know about her time in college.

My blood pressure spiked, because naturally her history — or lack thereof — is far less murkier than Barack Obama’s. But it didn’t seem to matter, because no matter what you have against the man, it just doesn’t stick.

Seriously, the man isn’t a presidential candidate, he’s a really hot chick. You know what I mean, right?

You know how when a friend starts dating some girl, let’s say a stripper with top of the line implants, he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading Chlamydia like a Jehovah’s Witness unloading a case of Watchtower pamphlets, and it won’t matter.

Blinded by beauty, he lets her get away with everything, until your buddy is left broken and broke, riddled with disease, sleeping in your garage and convinced a mob boyfriend wants him dead.

I’m not saying Barack is that harmful. I’m just saying that when it comes to the media, he possesses a force field that every hot chick has and no matter what you say or do to convince obsessed fans otherwise, it’s pointless.

Face it: If you found out that your new girlfriend, who happened to be Megan Fox, worked with ACORN, hung around with Bill Ayers and used to do coke back in college, would you care?

Of course you wouldn’t! It’s Megan Fox!

Congratulations. You’re now The New York Times.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.


Oh, I forgot to give credit to the author Greg Gutfield. He hosts a show on Fox News called "Red Eye". Never seen it, but it sounds awful.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 24, 2008, 01:16:07 PM
Quote
You know how when a friend starts dating some girl, let’s say a stripper with top of the line implants, he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading Chlamydia like a Jehovah’s Witness unloading a case of Watchtower pamphlets, and it won’t matter.

Ugh, what is this, Tucker Max?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 24, 2008, 01:19:48 PM
OBAMA- JUST LIKE A REALLY HOT CHICK WITH CHLAMYDIA!


McCain's next speech: "Friends, I'm here to tell you that my opponent's tax policies will spread the chlamydia of socialism throughout this land."

Quote from:  Fox News Blog

Blinded by beauty, he lets her get away with everything, until your buddy is left broken and broke, riddled with disease, sleeping in your garage and convinced a mob boyfriend wants him dead.

I’m not saying Barack is that harmful...


Of course you're not saying that, Fox hack! Where would anybody get that idea?

Also, why are these right wingers so wound up about people who work with acorns?

(http://www.heatherdonohue.com/crafts/images/necklace_acorn_gseedbeads.jpg)  (http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A1475/147554/300_147554.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: emma on October 24, 2008, 01:54:58 PM
Quote
You know how when a friend starts dating some girl, let’s say a stripper with top of the line implants, he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading Chlamydia like a Jehovah’s Witness unloading a case of Watchtower pamphlets, and it won’t matter.

Ugh, what is this, Tucker Max?


I, for one, would like to offer my congratulations to raad_man on his new job writing for the Fox news blog!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 24, 2008, 01:57:50 PM


Quote
Face it: If you found out that your new girlfriend, who happened to be Megan Fox, worked with ACORN, hung around with Bill Ayers and used to do coke back in college, would you care?

Of course you wouldn’t! It’s Megan Fox!



Maybe so, but then you'd see this dumb tattoo and you'd have to dump her anyway.

(http://instructors.cwrl.utexas.edu/lamb/files/images/megan-fox-mtv-movie-awards-2007-54.preview.jpg)

Also, as if Megan Fox isn't still using cocaine.

Also, as if Greg Gutfield isn't still using cocaine
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/297660/1_61_320_gutfeld_greg.jpg)

In conclusion, here's Gutfield inexplicably helping Stephen Malkmus promote his mostly-bad new album:
http://stereogum.com/archives/video/stephen-malkmus-visits-fox-news-red-eye_008644.html
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on October 24, 2008, 03:46:22 PM
This is why I refuse to have sex with Barack Obama under any circumstances.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: PatrickChew on October 24, 2008, 03:47:59 PM


Also, as if Greg Gutfield isn't still using cocaine
([url]http://www.foxnews.com/images/297660/1_61_320_gutfeld_greg.jpg[/url])

In conclusion, here's Gutfield inexplicably helping Stephen Malkmus promote his mostly-bad new album:
[url]http://stereogum.com/archives/video/stephen-malkmus-visits-fox-news-red-eye_008644.html[/url]


This douchetard once had Gibby Haynes as a guest as well
http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/20935958/gibby_haynes.htm?pageid=23167 (http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/20935958/gibby_haynes.htm?pageid=23167)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 24, 2008, 04:03:31 PM
This is a check list from Rob Riggle's tour of NYC, given to "Real Americans" on last night's Daily Show:

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/297/riggleye4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 24, 2008, 04:07:20 PM
It was nice of (Pre-Op Tranny) John Oliver to plug S&W this week.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Phantom Hugger on October 25, 2008, 12:29:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE&eurl=http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=46386

nice.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 25, 2008, 04:14:18 AM

Quote
Face it: If you found out that your new girlfriend, who happened to be Megan Fox, worked with ACORN, hung around with Bill Ayers and used to do coke back in college, would you care?

Of course you wouldn’t! It’s Megan Fox!


Maybe so, but then you'd see this dumb tattoo and you'd have to dump her anyway.

Also, as if Megan Fox isn't still using cocaine.

Wait wait, we don't have to dump her right away, do we? 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Dan B on October 25, 2008, 08:13:01 PM
(http://kucinich.us/images/izzard2.jpg)

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 25, 2008, 08:18:05 PM
([url]http://kucinich.us/images/izzard2.jpg[/url])




THIS CAN NOT BE REAL.

They'd better take this on tour, or I will be so sad.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 25, 2008, 08:32:11 PM
Eddie Izzard should do the cross dressing more
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on October 26, 2008, 01:34:19 AM
As should Dennis Kucinich.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 26, 2008, 01:35:54 AM
I want to see them to address the crowd in matching silver platforms soooooooo badly.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 26, 2008, 01:43:36 AM
As should Dennis Kucinich.


no, he should stay home and send the wife

(http://aquadoc.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/10/0_61_kucinich_elizabeth_3.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 26, 2008, 07:31:19 AM
([url]http://kucinich.us/images/izzard2.jpg[/url])




If they swung by Machias, I'd actually go. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: theyellowchair on October 26, 2008, 09:30:35 AM
I'm just wondering if any of you have spoken with Obama detractors who continually seek to make a connection between his tax policies and class warfare/communism. Living in Hudson County -- where the Obama vote is more than safe -- I'm troubled by the number of middle-class white working people I have spoken to in the last few weeks who voice concerns about Obama "giving money to the unemployed" and using "our money" to "help people on welfare." While these statements don't add up factually, I fear they are indicators of something awful lurking beneath an impending Obama election.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I feel this may be precipitating a much larger, much dirtier clash between ignorant groups of all walks of life in American metropolitan cities -- especially the white people who can't stand the sight of a black man in power. Any thoughts on this subject? Any experience speaking to those scared of a sound bottom-up economic construct?


I almost forgot to mention:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/376291
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Denim Gremlin on October 26, 2008, 01:53:18 PM
It was nice of (Pre-Op Tranny) John Oliver to plug S&W this week.

when was that?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 26, 2008, 01:58:26 PM
I'm just wondering if any of you have spoken with Obama detractors who continually seek to make a connection between his tax policies and class warfare/communism. Living in Hudson County -- where the Obama vote is more than safe -- I'm troubled by the number of middle-class white working people I have spoken to in the last few weeks who voice concerns about Obama "giving money to the unemployed" and using "our money" to "help people on welfare." While these statements don't add up factually, I fear they are indicators of something awful lurking beneath an impending Obama election.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I feel this may be precipitating a much larger, much dirtier clash between ignorant groups of all walks of life in American metropolitan cities -- especially the white people who can't stand the sight of a black man in power. Any thoughts on this subject? Any experience speaking to those scared of a sound bottom-up economic construct?


I almost forgot to mention:
[url]http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/376291[/url]



As far as I can tell, being a republican in my life time has always equated with being afraid of black people and all the rhetoric about values and supply-side economics are just thinly veiled testaments to that. Never for a second did I think anyone really believed any of that horseshit. Are you saying you are worried about civil unrest though as it relates to the political climate now? I always get the feeling people talk a lot of shit but they aint really gonna do squat, right or left. Although I for sure am going to Canada if the repugs steal another one.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 26, 2008, 02:17:31 PM
Once Obama is elected, things will settle down. He really isn't anywhere close to that kind of politician. If it makes you feel better, I talked to a friend of my mother's the other day, and she told me in a whisper that she was voting for Obama. She didn't want to tell her husband, and she told me not to tell my mom, but she felt like Obama would be a good leader. What's funny is, it had nothing to do with race. It's about him being a "liberal".

That's been happening for awhile now, long before Obama. Conservatives have been spoonfed that socialism bullshit for about 15 years now, and a lot of them have forgotten that it is only hyperbole. Even that psycho in Pittsburgh that deliberately created a race-baiting scenario... that had less to do with race than with trying to stop "liberals".

I'm not worried personally, though. I dunno if you remember, but a big part of that race speech after Rev. Wright was acknowledging that perhaps some white people had a legitimate reason to be disgruntled over reverse discrimination.That was one of the first things that truly impressed me about Obama, because it was a level of honesty that we don't typically get from our politicians. In a lot of ways, this "liberal" thing is exactly the same type of prejudice. We'll get past it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on October 26, 2008, 02:19:59 PM
It was nice of (Pre-Op Tranny) John Oliver to plug S&W this week.


when was that?


http://www.friendsoftom.com/forum/index.php/topic,3783.msg88236.html#msg88236
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 26, 2008, 02:29:32 PM
Even that psycho in Pittsburgh that deliberately created a race-baiting scenario... that had less to do with race than with trying to stop "liberals".


oh please

let's just ignore the entirety of American history.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on October 26, 2008, 02:53:22 PM
You know what I'd love to see? Trembling Eagle and Raad_Man in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate/Mixed Martial Arts bout set in The Octagon.  Winner: everyone.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 26, 2008, 03:14:04 PM

As far as I can tell, being a republican in my life time has always equated with being afraid of black people and all the rhetoric about values and supply-side economics are just thinly veiled testaments to that. Never for a second did I think anyone really believed any of that horseshit.


I know a gay Republican who is kind of the opposite of scared of big black guys.  And I'm pretty sure he is the kind of guy who read Hayek before going to sleep.  People are complicated.

But I'd say that the Republican establishment and media just about fits that description nowadays.  The National Review's "Corner" blog has replaced the PUMA PAC blog as my daily go-to for sour grapes/panicked ramblings.  Their race-baiting reaction to the Ashley Todd story confirms this.  Either these nutters are going to be in charge of the Republican party after Obama wins or they are going to get kicked out.  Watching them tear themselves apart is going to be very entertaining.

Meanwhile, back in reality, McCain is on record as saying things that are just as "socialist" as Obama ever said. See
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122454768040352279.html?mod=googlenews_wsj . There's also a clip somewhere of McCain saying that it's only fair for people who make more money to pay more in taxes.  Damn Marxist.  

By the way, something like 66% of professional economists are supporting Obama (http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/).  Republicans like to pretend like economics forces you to accept their positions which is, of course, bullshit.  I don't have the figures at hand but most financial professionals and silicon valley entrepreneurs support Obama as well.  Also, about 30 states are net receivers of federal spending, with the rest net payers of federal taxes.  This study is old -- http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF -- but it discusses how the majority of states that actually pay taxes voted for Gore, while the majority of states that suck on the federal teat voted for Bush.  It's the productive parts of the country that support the US economy that tend to be the most "socialist."  Weird.  (It's not really a fair conclusion, because generally cities and suburbs pay taxes which go to support rural areas, and the only difference between red states and blue states tends to be how urban they are-- parts of New Jersey are redder than Alabama and parts of Mississippi are as blue as Berkeley.  But it's a fun counter to Republicans who start to go on about "real America.")
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 26, 2008, 03:16:19 PM
You know what I'd love to see? Trembling Eagle and Raad_Man in a slap fight Lincoln-Douglas style debate/Mixed Martial Arts bout set in The NonaOctagon.  Winner: everyone.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 26, 2008, 03:22:14 PM
My money would be on Trembling Eagle.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 26, 2008, 03:44:18 PM
hate, hate, hate.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 26, 2008, 04:42:35 PM


I know a gay Republican who is kind of the opposite of scared of big black guys.  And I'm pretty sure he is the kind of guy who read Hayek before going to sleep.  People are complicated.




Andrew Sullivan writes well about this particular brand psychological disorder


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 26, 2008, 07:05:51 PM
and :41 secs in the entirety of republican politics for the past 50 years is summed up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF5ZkgNNBQE

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 26, 2008, 07:14:30 PM
Even that psycho in Pittsburgh that deliberately created a race-baiting scenario... that had less to do with race than with trying to stop "liberals".


oh please

let's just ignore the entirety of American history.
Racism was just the vessel. The ultimate goal was to keep liberals from running the country. She didn't give a damn about a black man being President, but a liberal in charge scares the shit out of her and others like her. A man in Tennessee walked into a Unitarian church earlier this year and just started shooting people with a shotgun, and he did it because he thought liberals were destroying the country. I wish I could believe that it was a one-time thing, but I can't.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 26, 2008, 07:27:29 PM
Even that psycho in Pittsburgh that deliberately created a race-baiting scenario... that had less to do with race than with trying to stop "liberals".



oh please

let's just ignore the entirety of American history.

Racism was just the vessel. The ultimate goal was to keep liberals from running the country. She didn't give a damn about a black man being President, but a liberal in charge scares the shit out of her and others like her. A man in Tennessee walked into a Unitarian church earlier this year and just started shooting people with a shotgun, and he did it because he thought liberals were destroying the country. I wish I could believe that it was a one-time thing, but I can't.


to me it's just the cultural decedents of the confederacy (not even kidding)
their goal has always been to take control and dissolve the American Union
and they may get their wish yet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar71V0MS1jg
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 26, 2008, 09:13:17 PM
I know a gay Republican who is kind of the opposite of scared of big black guys.  

This really made me laugh.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 26, 2008, 09:40:16 PM
Even that psycho in Pittsburgh that deliberately created a race-baiting scenario... that had less to do with race than with trying to stop "liberals".



oh please

let's just ignore the entirety of American history.

Racism was just the vessel. The ultimate goal was to keep liberals from running the country. She didn't give a damn about a black man being President, but a liberal in charge scares the shit out of her and others like her. A man in Tennessee walked into a Unitarian church earlier this year and just started shooting people with a shotgun, and he did it because he thought liberals were destroying the country. I wish I could believe that it was a one-time thing, but I can't.


to me it's just the cultural decedents of the confederacy (not even kidding)
their goal has always been to take control and dissolve the American Union
and they may get their wish yet
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar71V0MS1jg[/url]


Okay, that was a little scary. But not all Republicans are like that. However, most of the people I know who are Republicans are not voting this year because they're so pissed about Sarah Palin.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Regular Joe on October 27, 2008, 10:31:11 AM
Okay, that was a little scary. But not all Republicans are like that. However, most of the people I know who are Republicans are not voting this year because they're so pissed about Sarah Palin.

To me, that's the primary scary thing about that video. All the intelligent, sensible republicans are now preparing themselves in a crash position, leaving all the zombies they inspired with their bullshit Regan centric rhetoric to roam the whole airplane, still angry and fear-drenched, but now with no even halfway sensible agenda to guide them. From a people whose modus operandi in the past has mainly been "kill em all and let god sort it out", it's more terrifying than any highly edited "Jaywalking" segment.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 27, 2008, 11:17:21 AM
Ahhh poor Republicans who vote against their own interests. I always like to imagine them at their $9-an-hour ditch-digging job, contemplating their shitty education, no health insurance, no growth potential, no union to improve their standard of living... and they're thinking to themselves, "Socialists are ruining this country."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 11:28:56 AM
hate, hate, hate.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 27, 2008, 11:43:03 AM
Ahhh poor Republicans who vote against their own interests. I always like to imagine them at their $9-an-hour ditch-digging job, contemplating their shitty education, no health insurance, no growth potential, no union to improve their standard of living... and they're thinking to themselves, "Socialists are ruining this country."

Yeah, I always love this.  "They wanna take my money and give it to poor people".

Umm... no offense, but you ARE POOR.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 27, 2008, 11:56:19 AM
Ahhh poor Republicans who vote against their own interests. I always like to imagine them at their $9-an-hour ditch-digging job, contemplating their shitty education, no health insurance, no growth potential, no union to improve their standard of living... and they're thinking to themselves, "Socialists are ruining this country."

Yeah, I always love this.  "They wanna take my money and give it to poor people".

Umm... no offense, but you ARE POOR.


That's the silver-lining to this global economic meltdown, I guess. The same idiots that carried Republicans on their shoulders for the past 25 years are now the ones melting down their gold teeth for grocery money.

I hope their lives get harder and harder and worse and worse and GOD DAMN IT I'M SO ANGRY. FUCK YOU GUYS.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 27, 2008, 12:04:42 PM
"GOING ROGUE"

I hate her, but now I kind of love her ... because she's going against McCain's handlers and doing whatever the hell she wants. She's gonna make sure the ship sinks. She's slashing the tires of the Straight Talk Express. She's a maniac! She don't care!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html

Quote from: article above
"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else".


Wow. Someone in the campaign staff really, really doesn't like her. Throwing in that bit about "her family" ... that's pretty harsh.

Quote from: same article
But this source acknowledged that Palin is trying to take more control of her message, pointing to last week's impromptu news conference on a Colorado tarmac.

Tracey Schmitt, Palin's press secretary, was urgently called over after Palin wandered over to the press and started talking. Schmitt tried several times to end the unscheduled session.


Tee-hee! I love it!

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 27, 2008, 12:08:59 PM
I hope their lives get harder and harder and worse and worse and GOD DAMN IT I'M SO ANGRY. FUCK YOU GUYS.


Let Joe Biden alleviate a little of that anger with his stellar performance here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 27, 2008, 12:10:10 PM
Ahhh poor Republicans who vote against their own interests. I always like to imagine them at their $9-an-hour ditch-digging job, contemplating their shitty education, no health insurance, no growth potential, no union to improve their standard of living... and they're thinking to themselves, "Socialists are ruining this country."

Yeah, I always love this.  "They wanna take my money and give it to poor people".

Umm... no offense, but you ARE POOR.


That's the silver-lining to this global economic meltdown, I guess. The same idiots that carried Republicans on their shoulders for the past 25 years are now the ones melting down their gold teeth for grocery money.

I hope their lives get harder and harder and worse and worse and GOD DAMN IT I'M SO ANGRY. FUCK YOU GUYS.

Those people will NEVER make the connection between their shitty circumstances and the political movement they support, the lacuna of republican politics. I don't know if people are just now getting it because  republican hypocrisy is just so in your face nowadays (150K on clothes) but I said years ago to be a republican you either have to be dumb and/or evil. Dumb, because you just don't know, sad as that is we can all be lied to or be ignorant of facts. Evil, are the ones that are fully aware of their fucked up policies and become apologists for it. I just don't see a principled reason for following the GOP. Not to say one can't be conservative in ideals of culture of fiscal matters, but the modern GOP is neither of these in anything but rhetoric.

 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 27, 2008, 01:00:49 PM
Who is that awful woman?  And did she also ask him when he stopped beating his wife?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 27, 2008, 01:01:57 PM
I hope their lives get harder and harder and worse and worse and GOD DAMN IT I'M SO ANGRY. FUCK YOU GUYS.


Let Joe Biden alleviate a little of that anger with his stellar performance here:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM[/url]



She's married to a GOP consultant or something.  I'd say this was an audition for Fox, but she didn't interrupt him enough.  
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 27, 2008, 01:08:38 PM
hate, hate, hate.

Is this a cheer or like a tsk tsk tsk.

I picture it like a cheer.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 27, 2008, 01:21:30 PM
Definitely tsk tsk tsk, right Andy?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 27, 2008, 01:41:31 PM
Awww since when is Andy anti-hate?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 01:48:32 PM
I'm not, I just don't like misdirected hate.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 27, 2008, 01:53:47 PM
I agree with you Andy. It's not fair to blame a guy who digs a ditch for 9 bucks an hour for the state of his party.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 27, 2008, 02:05:17 PM
It's misdirected to blame a guy for voting against his own best interest?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 27, 2008, 02:06:21 PM
My point was that Republicans always seem to blame non-existent enemies like socialists or people worse off than them instead of directing their anger at people who are actually in power. And it just hurts themselves and their bottom-rung compatriots.

I'm mad at them for their stupidity, but the lion's share of my hate is directed to the scumbags at the top.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 27, 2008, 02:08:46 PM
There are enough people pandering to misinformed voters like Joe the Plumber as it is.  At some point someone needs to just come out and tell the man he's an idiot.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 27, 2008, 02:13:05 PM
I agree with you Andy. It's not fair to blame a guy who digs a ditch for 9 bucks an hour for the state of his party.

The world needs... those guys too.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 02:16:17 PM
It's misdirected to blame a guy for voting against his own best interest?

it depends on his motives.  in your simple world, the answer is probably yes.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 02:18:41 PM
My point was that Republicans always seem to blame non-existent enemies like socialists or people worse off than them instead of directing their anger at people who are actually in power. And it just hurts themselves and their bottom-rung compatriots.

I'm mad at them for their stupidity, but the lion's share of my hate is directed to the scumbags at the top.

sound like it:
Ahhh poor Republicans who vote against their own interests. I always like to imagine them at their $9-an-hour ditch-digging job, contemplating their shitty education, no health insurance, no growth potential, no union to improve their standard of living... and they're thinking to themselves, "Socialists are ruining this country."

just in case there is anyone who wants to be reasonable: the only reasonable answer I can see is that both sides are full of scumbags and you're really just picking the lesser of two evils. anyone championing either side is kidding themself.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on October 27, 2008, 02:25:38 PM
It's misdirected to blame a guy for voting against his own best interest?

it depends on his motives.  in your simple world, the answer is probably yes.

*cough*bullshit*cough*
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 02:27:16 PM
It's misdirected to blame a guy for voting against his own best interest?

it depends on his motives.  in your simple world, the answer is probably yes.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

good point.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 27, 2008, 02:30:22 PM
My point was that Republicans always seem to blame non-existent enemies like socialists or people worse off than them instead of directing their anger at people who are actually in power. And it just hurts themselves and their bottom-rung compatriots.

I'm mad at them for their stupidity, but the lion's share of my hate is directed to the scumbags at the top.

sound like it:
Ahhh poor Republicans who vote against their own interests. I always like to imagine them at their $9-an-hour ditch-digging job, contemplating their shitty education, no health insurance, no growth potential, no union to improve their standard of living... and they're thinking to themselves, "Socialists are ruining this country."

just in case there is anyone who wants to be reasonable: the only reasonable answer I can see is that both sides are full of scumbags and you're really just picking the lesser of two evils. anyone championing either side is kidding themself.

Well, uh, I guess if you focus on that one post as the sole measure of my seething hatred (and ignore my other 20 replies in this thread), you might think I'm throwing all the blame on the slobs. Buuuuuuuuuut that would be pretty myopic and stupid.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 27, 2008, 02:35:07 PM
Living in such a rural part of the country, I know a lot of the guys/ladies who are dead-set on McCain/Palin. And they are kind, decent people who have been brainwashed by rhetoric of the right. The left does it too. I've met people who think Barack Obama will start some kind of revolution or something( I believe that he'll be a decent president, but I don't think he's going to save the world). And how about all of the LGBT groups that are endorsing the Obama/Biden ticket, even though both men are staunchly anti-gay marriage? Talk about voting against your own interests. In general, people vote with the party they have always voted with because they feel secure about it, and it's really not something new or something they should be blamed for.


just in case there is anyone who wants to be reasonable: the only reasonable answer I can see is that both sides are full of scumbags and you're really just picking the lesser of two evils. anyone championing either side is kidding themself.

Yes. The main reason I'm voting for Obama rather than a third party person is to keep Palin out. She made the other side a little more evil.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 27, 2008, 02:38:55 PM
I'm against gay marriage, too.  But that's just because I'm against marriage in general.  Buncha saps, all of yez.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 27, 2008, 03:16:53 PM
That whole "poor Republicans are stupid because they vote against their own interests" angle is ridiculous.  I haven't read "What's the Matter with Kansas" so I don't know how nuanced Thomas Frank is, but I'd hope he is more sophisticated than claiming that unless you vote yourself more government entitlements, you're stupid. The same line of thinking would also say that rich people are supposed to vote against aid to the poor, otherwise they're stupid, because it's against their self interest.

(If you really believe in free markets and economic liberalism, then the problem for you should really be that Republicans haven't delivered, given that they're the party that likes to pretend like "helping particular powerful industries and companies" is the same as "helping capitalism.")

I could just as easily reframe the issue as "Look at those noble Republicans, voting in the best interest of their country rather in their own narrow self interest."  Or, "Look at how they vote for their own long-term interests rather than for short-term gain." I wouldn't vote for a "give me a free pony" platform even though I want a pony.  Of course, if you believe whatever it is the Republicans are saying, you might believe that you *are* voting in your self interest.  Republicans have been very successful at selling the myth of unlimited social mobility.

I support confiscatory inheritance taxes and free education at every level based solely on academic ability and not ability to pay, as well as universal health care and a guaranteed minimum income.  All well to the left of Obama, I might add.  (And I'm sure I'm to the right of him on other issues.) But not because I think it's mostly in the interests of one class or another, but because I think it's what is in the interest of the country.  And I try to acknowledge that people who disagree with me might just do so because they think that their ideas are in the best interest of the country, not because they are evil or stupid.  Like Joe Biden says, question people's judgement, but don't be so quick to denigrate their motives.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 03:31:56 PM
That whole "poor Republicans are stupid because they vote against their own interests" angle is ridiculous.  I haven't read "What's the Matter with Kansas" so I don't know how nuanced Thomas Frank is, but I'd hope he is more sophisticated than claiming that unless you vote yourself more government entitlements, you're stupid. The same line of thinking would also say that rich people are supposed to vote against aid to the poor, otherwise they're stupid, because it's against their self interest.

(If you really believe in free markets and economic liberalism, then the problem for you should really be that Republicans haven't delivered, given that they're the party that likes to pretend like "helping particular powerful industries and companies" is the same as "helping capitalism.")

I could just as easily reframe the issue as "Look at those noble Republicans, voting in the best interest of their country rather in their own narrow self interest."  Or, "Look at how they vote for their own long-term interests rather than for short-term gain." I wouldn't vote for a "give me a free pony" platform even though I want a pony.  Of course, if you believe whatever it is the Republicans are saying, you might believe that you *are* voting in your self interest.  Republicans have been very successful at selling the myth of unlimited social mobility.

I support confiscatory inheritance taxes and free education at every level based solely on academic ability and not ability to pay, as well as universal health care and a guaranteed minimum income.  All well to the left of Obama, I might add.  (And I'm sure I'm to the right of him on other issues.) But not because I think it's mostly in the interests of one class or another, but because I think it's what is in the interest of the country.  And I try to acknowledge that people who disagree with me might just do so because they think that their ideas are in the best interest of the country, not because they are evil or stupid.  Like Joe Biden says, question people's judgement, but don't be so quick to denigrate their motives.
I think the proper reply would be:
**raises roof**
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 27, 2008, 03:32:34 PM
That whole "poor Republicans are stupid because they vote against their own interests" angle is ridiculous.  I haven't read "What's the Matter with Kansas" so I don't know how nuanced Thomas Frank is, but I'd hope he is more sophisticated than claiming that unless you vote yourself more government entitlements, you're stupid. The same line of thinking would also say that rich people are supposed to vote against aid to the poor, otherwise they're stupid, because it's against their self interest.

This suggests the only thing Democrats offer poor people over Republicans is government entitlements. Which isn't the case at all.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 27, 2008, 03:48:42 PM
That whole "poor Republicans are stupid because they vote against their own interests" angle is ridiculous.  I haven't read "What's the Matter with Kansas" so I don't know how nuanced Thomas Frank is, but I'd hope he is more sophisticated than claiming that unless you vote yourself more government entitlements, you're stupid. The same line of thinking would also say that rich people are supposed to vote against aid to the poor, otherwise they're stupid, because it's against their self interest.

(If you really believe in free markets and economic liberalism, then the problem for you should really be that Republicans haven't delivered, given that they're the party that likes to pretend like "helping particular powerful industries and companies" is the same as "helping capitalism.")

I could just as easily reframe the issue as "Look at those noble Republicans, voting in the best interest of their country rather in their own narrow self interest."  Or, "Look at how they vote for their own long-term interests rather than for short-term gain." I wouldn't vote for a "give me a free pony" platform even though I want a pony.  Of course, if you believe whatever it is the Republicans are saying, you might believe that you *are* voting in your self interest.  Republicans have been very successful at selling the myth of unlimited social mobility.

I support confiscatory inheritance taxes and free education at every level based solely on academic ability and not ability to pay, as well as universal health care and a guaranteed minimum income.  All well to the left of Obama, I might add.  (And I'm sure I'm to the right of him on other issues.) But not because I think it's mostly in the interests of one class or another, but because I think it's what is in the interest of the country.  And I try to acknowledge that people who disagree with me might just do so because they think that their ideas are in the best interest of the country, not because they are evil or stupid.  Like Joe Biden says, question people's judgement, but don't be so quick to denigrate their motives.

I think the proper reply would be:
**raises roof**



Yes, hear hear.  Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to imply that people were stupid for voting against their own interests, but rather pointing out that it's a common occurrence on both sides of the spectrum, and that people shouldn't be blamed for it. I also think that  an attitude of anger and hatred from liberals toward working class conservative Republicans does nothing except divide Americans and create a general bitterness that we really don't need right now. I know we can't all hold hands right away, but we can at least try to be respectful of each other. To his credit, Obama does appear to be maintaining positivity at rallies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-pelosi/we-dont-need-that---we-ne_b_136527.html
 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-pelosi/we-dont-need-that---we-ne_b_136527.html)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 27, 2008, 03:54:56 PM
That whole "poor Republicans are stupid because they vote against their own interests" angle is ridiculous.  I haven't read "What's the Matter with Kansas" so I don't know how nuanced Thomas Frank is, but I'd hope he is more sophisticated than claiming that unless you vote yourself more government entitlements, you're stupid. The same line of thinking would also say that rich people are supposed to vote against aid to the poor, otherwise they're stupid, because it's against their self interest.

This suggests the only thing Democrats offer poor people over Republicans is government entitlements. Which isn't the case at all.

I agree.  But now you need a really sophisticated argument to justify why your side is right and the other side is wrong.  And frankly, the intellectual firepower on both sides is really high.  When you've got Henry Hazlitt and Friedrich Hayek on one side (not to mention Edmund fucking Burke) you need to bring a little more to the table than, "What's a matter, you?  Don't you see that you're just wrong?  Isn't it obvious?"

As a matter of fact just thinking that one side is self-evidently correct and the other barely worthy of consideration is a symptom of ideology trumping rationality.  Republicans have argued for years that Democratic social programs have increased and worsened poverty.  They have charts and graphs and everything.  At least some of them really honestly believe it.  I think they're wrong, but it's more than just Republicans stupidly voting against their own interests because they're blinded by culture war non-issues.

How the hell to convey all this in the space of a thirty second political ad, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: mike a on October 27, 2008, 03:55:15 PM
I am a moderate.  I trend left on social issues, but also find the left naive on the issue of national defense and don't think either party offers much for the ailing economy.  I suppose I'd vote for a third party if one existed that was not populated by fringe types.  What this means is that, as Howard Devoto suggested decades ago, I'm going to get shot by both sides.

Still, Tom's parting comments really bugged me, and I usually don't mind his political humor.  It's a bit much to explicitly advise one's listeners to either vote Obama or don't vote at all.  If Obama's supposedly got the lead, why worry about the Republican vote if the Dem candidate is going to take it anyway?  If nothing else, having an opponent means you've got to try that much harder to put out a clear message.  Can you imagine the accusations of voter suppression if Irwin or someone said the same thing about McCain?

But I think everyone's a little nutty at this point.  It's been a tough campaign season.  It'll be nice to have the election over and done.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: mike a on October 27, 2008, 03:59:11 PM
How the hell to convey all this in the space of a thirty second political ad, I have no idea.

Well, yeah.  That's a symptom of a general dumbing down in politics.  Read speeches from 50 years ago and you're amazed how much smarter everyone sounds.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 27, 2008, 04:05:11 PM
That whole "poor Republicans are stupid because they vote against their own interests" angle is ridiculous.  I haven't read "What's the Matter with Kansas" so I don't know how nuanced Thomas Frank is, but I'd hope he is more sophisticated than claiming that unless you vote yourself more government entitlements, you're stupid. The same line of thinking would also say that rich people are supposed to vote against aid to the poor, otherwise they're stupid, because it's against their self interest.

This suggests the only thing Democrats offer poor people over Republicans is government entitlements. Which isn't the case at all.

I agree.  But now you need a really sophisticated argument to justify why your side is right and the other side is wrong.  And frankly, the intellectual firepower on both sides is really high.  When you've got Henry Hazlitt and Friedrich Hayek on one side (not to mention Edmund fucking Burke) you need to bring a little more to the table than, "What's a matter, you?  Don't you see that you're just wrong?  Isn't it obvious?"

As a matter of fact just thinking that one side is self-evidently correct and the other barely worthy of consideration is a symptom of ideology trumping rationality.  Republicans have argued for years that Democratic social programs have increased and worsened poverty.  They have charts and graphs and everything.  At least some of them really honestly believe it.  I think they're wrong, but it's more than just Republicans stupidly voting against their own interests because they're blinded by culture war non-issues.

How the hell to convey all this in the space of a thirty second political ad, I have no idea.

I agree with you. But I think this year I'm allowed to be a little more strident. Anyone who says they think Palin is an acceptable Vice Presidential candidate is either stupid or intellectually dishonest, I think. She is truly dangerous and insulting. That has kind of pushed this election from a "disagreement among pals" to a "what the fuck is wrong with you?" situation.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on October 27, 2008, 04:10:08 PM
I agree.  But now you need a really sophisticated argument to justify why your side is right and the other side is wrong.  And frankly, the intellectual firepower on both sides is really high.  When you've got Henry Hazlitt and Friedrich Hayek on one side (not to mention Edmund fucking Burke) you need to bring a little more to the table than, "What's a matter, you?  Don't you see that you're just wrong?  Isn't it obvious?"


Who are some impressive contemporary conservative intellectuals? Anytime I try to read or listen to contemporary conservative thought, it always seems nutty, dumb, mean-spirited or just like a big pack of lies. I know I'm a lefty, and some of my response is just my bias, but the big names that I'm aware of (Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz, David Frum) are just awful.

Surely there are some better thinkers than that?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 27, 2008, 04:19:09 PM
I agree.  But now you need a really sophisticated argument to justify why your side is right and the other side is wrong.  And frankly, the intellectual firepower on both sides is really high.  When you've got Henry Hazlitt and Friedrich Hayek on one side (not to mention Edmund fucking Burke) you need to bring a little more to the table than, "What's a matter, you?  Don't you see that you're just wrong?  Isn't it obvious?"


Who are some impressive contemporary conservative intellectuals? Anytime I try to read or listen to contemporary conservative thought, it always seems nutty, dumb, mean-spirited or just like a big pack of lies. I know I'm a lefty, and some of my response is just my bias, but the big names that I'm aware of (Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz, David Frum) are just awful.

Surely there are some better thinkers than that?

I'm not super-familiar with his stuff, but I hear a lot of people mention George Will. He's a conservative but he's been heavily critical of both George W. Bush and McCain's choice of running mate.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 27, 2008, 04:24:30 PM
You can put that "McCain is the bomb!" video up next to the will.i.am "Yes We Can" video and I can't decide which group of people are more hateful.  Weirdly, both videos are made by Obama supporters. 

I don't see how people can even pretend to legitimately argue that Obama is a socialist when he has declined public funding for his campaign and is running the most pimped out campaign in history.  On this point, Obama is way more free market than McCain.  I assume they're trying to demonize the impulse that a lot of people (like me) are feeling, which is "Actually, socialism doesn't seem so bad".  I honestly don't get how "spread the wealth" all the sudden is supposed to be a scary communist slogan.  It's also weird that Biden (who was awesome in that interview) said something like "we don't want to spread the wealth UP", essentially trying to invert the inversion of meaning of that sound bite. 

Also, WTF is wrong with being like Sweden?

When right wingers try to paint Obama as a scary liberal, it's funny, because they're basically painting a picture of someone like me. And I'm not scary at all. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 27, 2008, 04:27:17 PM
Also, WTF is wrong with being like Sweden?

THANK YOU.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 27, 2008, 04:27:34 PM
The only other thing I can think is that Republicans are more visually sophisticated than people realize and are finally making the connection that those Shepard Fairey posters are in a style that initially parodied socialist/communist propaganda and now are being employed unironically to support Obama, which any graphic designer who actually had a fucking brain in his head would realize is a problematic visual decision, and  republicans are consciously or unconsciously connecting the dots and are like "Charismatic centralizing figure = red revolution!"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on October 27, 2008, 04:31:38 PM
Also, WTF is wrong with being like Sweden?

THANK YOU.

I know! I love how that's always bandied around as a threat. "You don't want the USA to turn into Sweden, do you?"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on October 27, 2008, 04:42:46 PM
Also, WTF is wrong with being like Sweden?

THANK YOU.

So... cold!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 04:42:50 PM
I agree.  But now you need a really sophisticated argument to justify why your side is right and the other side is wrong.  And frankly, the intellectual firepower on both sides is really high.  When you've got Henry Hazlitt and Friedrich Hayek on one side (not to mention Edmund fucking Burke) you need to bring a little more to the table than, "What's a matter, you?  Don't you see that you're just wrong?  Isn't it obvious?"


Who are some impressive contemporary conservative intellectuals? Anytime I try to read or listen to contemporary conservative thought, it always seems nutty, dumb, mean-spirited or just like a big pack of lies. I know I'm a lefty, and some of my response is just my bias, but the big names that I'm aware of (Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz, David Frum) are just awful.

Surely there are some better thinkers than that?
Michael Savage?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 27, 2008, 04:45:37 PM
Also, WTF is wrong with being like Sweden?

THANK YOU.

So... cold!

Good point. But thanks to the wonders of Global Warming, it's just a matter of time til it's like the Mediterranean!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 27, 2008, 04:47:07 PM
I'm not very knowledgeable, but I always liked David Brooks on the NPR segments I've heard. He's a conservative but seems to know his shit.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 04:48:34 PM
also, I was kidding about Michael Savage (obviously)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 27, 2008, 05:34:36 PM
Surely there are some better thinkers than that?


I guess from the values/traditionalist side, Theodore Dalrymple.  I used to respect Victor Davis Hanson but he lost his mind.  Mark Helprin is responsible for the great quote: "Modern literature is all cool and detached, even though a lot of modern writers are passionate about their politics. To me, passion should be for literature, and reason and detachment for politics."  John McWhorter is good when he talks about language.  (Popular linguist  Mario Pei was also an arch-conservative on the side.)

The problem with those guys I think is that they have devoted their life to defeating a bogey-man:  their invented notion that the left is dedicated to burning and destroying all that's good about western civilization.  But I like their pessimism and misanthropy.

Richard Posner is brilliant, but he's so politically weird.  He's really, really not a conservative in the least.  He's more like Richard Rorty's evil twin.

Defenders of unfettered capitalism are more likely to be found among the libertarians.  I like reading Reason magazine.  But I'd have to note that most of them have turned on the Republicans (for instance, "Why the Republicans Must Lose"--  http://reason.com/news/show/129599.html).  Their thinking on stuff like health care is pretty awful but they're to be commended for opposing the Iraq war.

I try not to read too many "pundits" even though it is hard in this election.  So I tend to be out of date.  Richard Weaver?  Uhhhh.... T.S. Eliot?  David Mamet (http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/374064)?

To be fair, I wouldn't put Markos Moulitsas or even Paul Krugman up against John Rawls or John Kenneth Galbraith.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 27, 2008, 05:48:43 PM
I'm not very knowledgeable, but I always liked David Brooks on the NPR segments I've heard. He's a conservative but seems to know his shit.

I was going to mention him sarcastically.  :(
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 27, 2008, 05:53:29 PM
I just woke up from a nap and read my favorite erratic alcoholic lunatic:

http://slate.com/id/2203120

which reminded me of the fact that a lot of republicans really are idiots who deserve to be mocked.  Not for their misguided views on economics and the role of the state, but for their religion and fear of science.  So carry on todd.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on October 27, 2008, 05:57:34 PM
I'm not very knowledgeable, but I always liked David Brooks on the NPR segments I've heard. He's a conservative but seems to know his shit.

I was going to mention him sarcastically.  :(

He could be an idiot, I'm really really not very smart when it comes to this stuff. I just know when he's on NPR he doesn't seem to tow the party line nonstop.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cron on October 27, 2008, 08:40:47 PM
I agree.  But now you need a really sophisticated argument to justify why your side is right and the other side is wrong.  And frankly, the intellectual firepower on both sides is really high.  When you've got Henry Hazlitt and Friedrich Hayek on one side (not to mention Edmund fucking Burke) you need to bring a little more to the table than, "What's a matter, you?  Don't you see that you're just wrong?  Isn't it obvious?"



Who are some impressive contemporary conservative intellectuals? Anytime I try to read or listen to contemporary conservative thought, it always seems nutty, dumb, mean-spirited or just like a big pack of lies. I know I'm a lefty, and some of my response is just my bias, but the big names that I'm aware of (Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz, David Frum) are just awful.

Surely there are some better thinkers than that?


I'm basically a bleeding-heart liberal, but I stumbled upon and have been reading Daniel Larison's blog almost daily, and I think he's one of the most intelligent and thoughtful folks around of any political stripe.  He's a "paleo-con" however, meaning that he's completely opposed to a huge chunk of what the Republican party currently stands for, especially foreign policy.  People like Goldberg, Horowitz and Frum would probably consider him a heretic or something.  Definately recommended if you're interested in someone coming from a different perspective who's far from being a partisan hack.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/

David Brooks is obviously really smart, but what bugs me about him is that I don't think he's very honest.  If you contrast what he says on TV panels and on the radio with his New York Times columns, he comes across as much more open and unguarded in the former, while his columns are much more partisan in tone and even frequently contradict things he says on those talking head shows.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 27, 2008, 08:49:54 PM
You can put that "McCain is the bomb!" video up next to the will.i.am "Yes We Can" video and I can't decide which group of people are more hateful. 

Oh yeah the video of the nut threatening physical harm to Obama if he "took our jobsss" is the same thing as the goofy rap video.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gilly on October 27, 2008, 08:52:00 PM
Sweden has a state church and only 2% actually attend. I wouldn't want to see that in America.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 27, 2008, 08:52:25 PM
You can put that "McCain is the bomb!" video up next to the will.i.am "Yes We Can" video and I can't decide which group of people are more hateful. 

Oh yeah the video of the nut threatening physical harm to Obama if he "took our jobsss" is the same thing as the goofy rap video.

I'm not judging them as real people, but as characters in low-memory, small-screen entertainments.  And as such they both make me want to murder somebody (not obama, though).
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 27, 2008, 09:13:40 PM
Sweden has a state church and only 2% actually attend. I wouldn't want to see that in America.

That is true. However, since 2000 we have separation between church and state.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Stan on October 27, 2008, 09:17:07 PM
Sweden has a state church and only 2% actually attend. I wouldn't want to see that in America.

That is true. However, since 2000 we have separation between church and state.

 We used to have that.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 27, 2008, 09:19:06 PM
The problem with looking for conservative intellectuals is that many of the people who espouse genuinely conservative ideals have long ago given up the fight. People like Goldberg, Krauthammer and Kristol have hijacked the conservative intellectual hemisphere with their brand of neoconservativism, which is actually far closer to both liberalism and fascism than Goldberg would like to admit. And in doing so, they completely intertwined themselves with the absolute worst sort of people, people like Pat Robertson, William Bennett or James Dobson who call themselves social conservatives because it sounds better than fear-mongering profiteer. To see someone like Bill Kristol so strongly championing someone like Sarah Palin is just fascinating in its implications. The only sane logic behind it is that he honestly believes that his party is either too stupid or too indifferent to demand serious or honest leaders. He thinks all they need is a gun and a cross and they'll fall in line. She is his Manchurian candidate, and she will drive him into oblivion.

The other conservative voices listed here are great. I like Andrew Sullivan, too, as eyebrow-raising as he can be. But if you are looking for intelligent, reasonable commentary from anyone who would still claim that the last eight years were in the right direction, you're dreaming.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 27, 2008, 09:28:40 PM
There are no principled republicans.

if any violence befalls Obama I place the blame squarely on McCain-Palin and their puppet masters.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 27, 2008, 09:37:02 PM
There are no principled republicans.


How about Chuck Hagel, Republican and likely Obama appointee as Secretary of Defense?

Oh, never mind.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Josh on October 27, 2008, 09:49:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW5X1eaozxQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px8EJwEm654

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7oS3W7vRAs
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Dan B on October 27, 2008, 10:38:46 PM
"people with hats, people with funny hats"

"While Omari was waiting, he got hungry and ate the string of his press pass."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Regular Joe on October 27, 2008, 11:34:29 PM
"people with hats, people with funny hats"

"While Omari was waiting, he got hungry and ate the string of his press pass."

"I forgot to turn my mic on. Now I'll always remember to turn my mic on."

These are great!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 11:52:02 PM
it's totally obvious who that little kid is voting for.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on October 28, 2008, 07:52:49 AM
Damon Weaver has pulled miles ahead of the Olberman/Matthews fight as my favorite election coverage moment of 2008.  I love that kid.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 28, 2008, 08:04:21 AM
My only complaint?  He needs to say his own name more clearly.  Otherwise, I hope he never changes.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 28, 2008, 11:28:22 AM
I love it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Emily on October 28, 2008, 12:19:59 PM
It would be amusing if people confused "Senator" with "Governor" -

McCain Says Alaska Senator Should Resign (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/us/politics/29stevens.html?hp)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steeley Chris on October 28, 2008, 01:18:46 PM
it's totally obvious who that little kid is voting for.
Because little kids can vote.

My question is when did the lead singer of Everclear become governor of Florida?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 28, 2008, 01:29:06 PM
it's totally obvious who that little kid is voting for.
Because little kids can vote.

did you think I was being serious?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on October 28, 2008, 01:41:36 PM
Ummm look at your avatar, Andy. How could we think you were being anything but serious?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 28, 2008, 02:35:12 PM
Is it me or is post-fotchan Andy a more bullshit-walks kinda guy?  I like it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Spoony on October 28, 2008, 03:05:50 PM
Andy has no outlet! Two-fisted, Serious Cat posting!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 28, 2008, 03:14:29 PM
seriously, fotchan was an outlet for a lot of my snarkiness.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on October 28, 2008, 03:31:33 PM
Coldcut sums up the election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Lz264wOAg

Somewhat heavy-handed, but I'm a sucker for their video collages.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on October 28, 2008, 09:22:59 PM
theres a new sign o the crosstown here in okc.  a billboard with a pic of mccain saluting and the text "patriotism matters: google obama salute for more info".  it appears to be purchased by a pac or something.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 28, 2008, 09:28:33 PM
This sounds like a terrible, horrible, awful idea.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 29, 2008, 06:38:30 AM
I can't wait for next Wednesday.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 29, 2008, 01:54:54 PM
I can't wait for next Wednesday.

I'm literally losing sleep over this election. I've never been so on edge.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 29, 2008, 02:08:31 PM
What do I do in my dreams lately?  Watch MSNBC. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 29, 2008, 02:19:08 PM
I remarked at a meeting yesterday that I felt like everything in the world is in stasis until the election is over. But that's just silly. It's just due to the fact that we've been way too fixated on it for weeks now, really months. Plenty of things in the world are still going on:

1. Shitty weather
2. Psychotic financial markets
3. The U.S. (possibly world) recession
4. A new Nickelback release coming soon
5. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
6. Widespread job losses
7. Global warming

My advice to everyone I meet is to keep things in perspective. Don't be so negative! Things could be a lot worse. For example, inflation could be high.

Title: I haven't read all 62 pages of this thread
Post by: JP on October 29, 2008, 03:27:28 PM
But my dad was all "did you see how close the poll was on drudge" (he's a mccain man) and I was all "yes but the electoral college"

I think things are going to be just fine:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Anyway I'm looking forward to it all being signed and sealed, but I think Obama has this baby:

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=409933


Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: JP on October 29, 2008, 03:53:11 PM

3. The U.S. (possibly world) recession


I'm not disagreeing with you or even starting a dialogue with you, but this point reminded me of something I wanted to write.  I think the myth that politics and the economy are so related really has to be dispelled at this point.

For example, many of europe's stock markets beat the US markets over the past ten years.  So right-wingers who think the left leaners are going to destroy things don't really have much basis for their argument, since europe is more left that we were.  But likewise, I had so many clients in the Bay Area where I am who thought the US was going to hell and that international markets were going to be a place of refuge and that is proving to be colossally untrue - that's assuming down markets are a leading indicator of a recession. 

Anyway.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 29, 2008, 06:54:03 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8OBA6_62kI[/youtube]

Obviously Trembling Eagle is the first person that comes to mind after seeing this video.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 29, 2008, 07:30:31 PM
[youtube][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8OBA6_62kI[/url][/youtube]

Obviously Trembling Eagle is the first person that comes to mind after seeing this video.


Didn't he or someone else already post this?  Or a version of this with less stellar production values?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 29, 2008, 08:16:56 PM
[youtube][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8OBA6_62kI[/url][/youtube]

Obviously Trembling Eagle is the first person that comes to mind after seeing this video.


Didn't he or someone else already post this?  Or a version of this with less stellar production values?


Could be, I haven't looked at all the videos that have been posted.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 29, 2008, 08:55:36 PM
yeah I posted back when it was just a mp3 leak. The young man did well! I've been humming that chorus to myself for at least a month. He managed to even get a message in there without being preachy ("part of God's plan?/ ask the kids in the coffin"). Overall, fun, I like it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 30, 2008, 03:55:22 PM
The Economist endorsed Obama today.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12511171&fsrc=rss
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 30, 2008, 05:09:32 PM
 Joe the NO SHOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1TT7gt5F0w


This is such an awkward moment. I cringed at the end when he says

"You're all Joe the Plumber, so GET UP AND SAY..................I thank you."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 30, 2008, 05:25:51 PM
Joe has an agent now. I dread every day the prospect of popping open Huffington Post and seeing those erotic trading cards.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on October 30, 2008, 05:34:22 PM
Plumber no-show wasn't the funniest clip of the day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCaOCWYpPk4

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: TacoSmith on October 30, 2008, 05:38:02 PM
[youtube][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8OBA6_62kI[/url][/youtube]

Obviously Trembling Eagle is the first person that comes to mind after seeing this video.

Holy shit, that's John Brown from The White Rapper Show! He got robbed. HALLELUJAH HOLLA BACK!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on October 30, 2008, 05:39:31 PM

Obviously Trembling Eagle is the first person that comes to mind after seeing this video.
Holy shit, that's John Brown from The White Rapper Show! He got robbed. HALLELUJAH HOLLA BACK!

Yes, I was very excited that his ghetto revival is still in effect.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 30, 2008, 06:58:25 PM
Plumber no-show wasn't the funniest clip of the day.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCaOCWYpPk4[/url]




Who is the number two anti-Semite? I'm left to think that he can't name one.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 30, 2008, 07:14:50 PM
Plumber no-show wasn't the funniest clip of the day.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCaOCWYpPk4[/url]




Who is the number two anti-Semite? I'm left to think that he can't name one.


Hitler? 

Why did that guy tell Goldfarb he really appreciated him coming by?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 30, 2008, 07:36:16 PM
The #2 Anti-Semite he is referring to is Jeremiah Wright. But if he says the name, he immediately gets his campaign in trouble for bringing up something they swore they wouldn't. Rick Sanchez completely knew what was happening and was being very, very mean. But funny.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 30, 2008, 08:26:17 PM
The #2 Anti-Semite he is referring to is Jeremiah Wright. But if he says the name, he immediately gets his campaign in trouble for bringing up something they swore they wouldn't. Rick Sanchez completely knew what was happening and was being very, very mean. But funny.
::)

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Come on, Jason on October 30, 2008, 09:33:22 PM
Watching Barack Obama on Rachel Maddow's show tonight renewed my faith both in American Politics and in American Journalism. 
(http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2008/mayjun/images/pc/PC-MADDOW.jpg)
MSNBC kicks ass, am I right, sheeple?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 30, 2008, 09:43:16 PM
Khaldi himself isn't anti-Semitic, he just has the audacity to say it would be nice if Israel stopped murdering Palestinians willy nilly
it is so insane unless you swear allegiance to the state of Israel unquestioningly you are anti-Semitic

not to put too fine a point on it but Arabs are themselves Semitic peoples!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on October 30, 2008, 09:51:54 PM
I like you, Trembling Eagle.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 30, 2008, 10:05:28 PM
I like you, Trembling Eagle.

with u & my mom that makes two
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on October 30, 2008, 10:24:29 PM
[youtube][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8OBA6_62kI[/url][/youtube]

Obviously Trembling Eagle is the first person that comes to mind after seeing this video.

Holy shit, that's John Brown from The White Rapper Show! He got robbed. HALLELUJAH HOLLA BACK!


King of the Burbs!  Bask in the Hate!

Yeah, good to see he's still doin' his thing.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 30, 2008, 11:44:25 PM
Watching Barack Obama on Rachel Maddow's show tonight renewed my faith both in American Politics and in American Journalism. 
([url]http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2008/mayjun/images/pc/PC-MADDOW.jpg[/url])
MSNBC kicks ass, am I right, sheeple?


Maddow and Olberman kick ass
NBC just sells ad space for GE
who makes light bulbs and bombs

btw is it ok to be attracted to butch looking women?

 ???
*does pushups*

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on October 31, 2008, 12:20:04 AM
Maddow and Olberman kick ass
NBC just sells ad space for GE
who makes light bulbs and bombs

btw is it ok to be attracted to butch looking women?

 ???
*does pushups*



It's okay, TE.  She's just not attracted to you just like every other woman.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 31, 2008, 12:28:30 AM


It's okay, TE.  She's just not attracted to you just like every other woman.



oh...I don't know about that
*heh*

nudge nudge

(http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/nudge_nudge2.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 31, 2008, 12:38:53 AM
The ABA Journal lists Richard Danzig as a potential Secretary of Defense nominee under Obama.

I really, really hope we end up with a Secretary of Defense Danzig.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on October 31, 2008, 04:31:38 AM
The #2 Anti-Semite he is referring to is Jeremiah Wright. But if he says the name, he immediately gets his campaign in trouble for bringing up something they swore they wouldn't. Rick Sanchez completely knew what was happening and was being very, very mean. But funny.

Noooow I get it. I suspected Wright (who else?) but didn't understand why the guy didn't say anything.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 31, 2008, 04:37:35 AM
The #2 Anti-Semite he is referring to is Jeremiah Wright. But if he says the name, he immediately gets his campaign in trouble for bringing up something they swore they wouldn't. Rick Sanchez completely knew what was happening and was being very, very mean. But funny.

Noooow I get it. I suspected Wright (who else?) but didn't understand why the guy didn't say anything.
It's pretty fucking stupid.  That just seems to suggest that McCain's control over his own campaign is totally tenuous and symbolic at best. 

Anti-Israel and Anti-Semite really do need to be separated with more rigor.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 31, 2008, 06:29:33 AM
Watching Barack Obama on Rachel Maddow's show tonight renewed my faith both in American Politics and in American Journalism. 
([url]http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2008/mayjun/images/pc/PC-MADDOW.jpg[/url])
MSNBC kicks ass, am I right, sheeple?


Maddow and Olberman kick ass
NBC just sells ad space for GE
who makes light bulbs and bombs

btw is it ok to be attracted to butch looking women?

 ???
*does pushups*




I totally have a crush on Rachel Maddow.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on October 31, 2008, 06:35:11 AM


Who is the number two anti-Semite? I'm left to think that he can't name one.

Joe Lieberman?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: theyellowchair on October 31, 2008, 09:43:05 AM
"I don't want my money going to people on welfare."

"People are only voting for [Obama] because it's the latest trend. Same thing with this whole interracial thing. You gotta hear these parents who say, 'My interracial baby is going to be beautiful.'"

"Obama's gonna f-$@ over the white people."

"Do you see any black people voting for McCain?!?!?"

"I'll f(#%*%^ kill Obama, he wants to take my money."

-Some whoppers I've heard over the last few days of election discussions in HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. Yes, America's original melting pot. A place I call home and treasure for its ethnic and ideological diversity. I just didn't expect such ignorance.

Sorry, I had to let this out somewhere.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on October 31, 2008, 10:24:16 AM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv6lvACMJBo[/youtube]

Tito the Builder speaks to Hannity & Colmes wearing some bitchin' sunglasses. When the campaign actually begins to feature a character that calls himself Tito the Builder, at what point do we have to rename this thread? And is it too late to start a write-in mayubernatorial campaign for Tito?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: JP on October 31, 2008, 12:01:44 PM
Watching Barack Obama on Rachel Maddow's show tonight renewed my faith both in American Politics and in American Journalism. 
MSNBC kicks ass, am I right, sheeple?

I'm all for Barack, but I had a small problem with Maddow when she was on that panel during the primaries with some of her insensitivity about Mormonism (re: Romney.)  I can certainly understand being against Romney, but maybe I'm just too sensitive about that Mormon issue.

One other minor issue:

"Maddow did not own a television before starting the show"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on October 31, 2008, 01:09:24 PM
Watching Barack Obama on Rachel Maddow's show tonight renewed my faith both in American Politics and in American Journalism. 
([url]http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2008/mayjun/images/pc/PC-MADDOW.jpg[/url])
MSNBC kicks ass, am I right, sheeple?


Maddow and Olberman kick ass
NBC just sells ad space for GE
who makes light bulbs and bombs

btw is it ok to be attracted to butch looking women?

 ???
*does pushups*




I totally have a crush on Rachel Maddow.


I'm 100% in love with her.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 31, 2008, 02:30:41 PM
Yeah, I like Rachel Maddow a lot more than Keith Older Man. Did you read her mini-interview in the NY Times Magazine?  (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/magazine/19wwln-domains-t.html?scp=1&sq=rachel%20maddow&st=cse)


Keith is better at thundering denunciations, though.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on October 31, 2008, 04:32:33 PM
Republicans are using an American Idol approach to their campaign.  This Tito The Builder guy is like a fucking cartoon character.  Why don't they just cgi some kind of mascot character made out of oil and tax breaks to go around and call Obama the Antichrist.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 31, 2008, 04:38:31 PM
I just think the Republicans need to get some sweet jingles.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va5Btg4kkUE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nplm1G7t5UE&feature=related
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: JP on October 31, 2008, 05:45:50 PM
I just think the Republicans need to get some sweet jingles.



Those were marathon political commercials back in nem days; much better than the political commercials now.

And I guess if the Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy song has to have the line "to be elected president no matter what his creed" then Mormon's and Muslim's probably have a looooong way to go.

JP
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on October 31, 2008, 07:51:46 PM

And I guess if the Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy song has to have the line "to be elected president no matter what his creed" then Mormon's and Muslim's probably have a looooong way to go.


The first Catholic presidential nominee Al Smith was met with burning crosses across America in the 1920s.

Fast forward 85 or so years and Opus Dei (in conjunction with Skull & Bones, Jewish bankers, and reverse vampires) controls America!  So there's hope.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on October 31, 2008, 08:58:14 PM
Watching Barack Obama on Rachel Maddow's show tonight renewed my faith both in American Politics and in American Journalism. 
MSNBC kicks ass, am I right, sheeple?

I'm all for Barack, but I had a small problem with Maddow when she was on that panel during the primaries with some of her insensitivity about Mormonism (re: Romney.)  I can certainly understand being against Romney, but maybe I'm just too sensitive about that Mormon issue.

One other minor issue:

"Maddow did not own a television before starting the show"

Prior to 1975 the official LDS position was that blacks couldn't hold positions in their clergy and couldn't get to heaven because they were descendants of Ham and/or the devil. Just like Scientology you can have your nutty beliefs but expect to be called on them, by me anyway.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on October 31, 2008, 09:14:44 PM
Watching Barack Obama on Rachel Maddow's show tonight renewed my faith both in American Politics and in American Journalism. 
MSNBC kicks ass, am I right, sheeple?

I'm all for Barack, but I had a small problem with Maddow when she was on that panel during the primaries with some of her insensitivity about Mormonism (re: Romney.)  I can certainly understand being against Romney, but maybe I'm just too sensitive about that Mormon issue.

One other minor issue:

"Maddow did not own a television before starting the show"

Prior to 1975 the official LDS position was that blacks couldn't hold positions in their clergy and couldn't get to heaven because they were descendants of Ham and/or the devil. Just like Scientology you can have your nutty beliefs but expect to be called on them, by me anyway.


Mmm... ham.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on October 31, 2008, 09:50:17 PM
Yeah, I like Rachel Maddow a lot more than Keith Older Man. Did you read her mini-interview in the NY Times Magazine?  ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/magazine/19wwln-domains-t.html?scp=1&sq=rachel%20maddow&st=cse[/url])


Keith is better at thundering denunciations, though.


His special comment about Joe the Plumber the other night made me crack up.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Josh on October 31, 2008, 10:06:57 PM
it's totally obvious who that little kid is voting for.
[url]http://youtube.com/?v=nVl0FRzldxI[/url]




Here are some more:
http://youtube.com/?v=A-pW7qjG7f4
http://youtube.com/?v=oVUyONXzFpU
http://youtube.com/?v=S_SliWNgVZE
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: A.M. Thomas on October 31, 2008, 11:59:25 PM
it's totally obvious who that little kid is voting for.
[url]http://youtube.com/?v=nVl0FRzldxI[/url]


It's a shame there wasn't a Best Show on Tuesday.  If there were, maybe Damon Weaver would have thrown his little microphone into the ring for the 2008 Newbridge Mayubernatorial Election.  He would've had my vote.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: JP on November 01, 2008, 01:24:37 AM
Quote

Prior to 1975 the official LDS position was that blacks couldn't hold positions in their clergy and couldn't get to heaven because they were descendants of Ham and/or the devil. Just like Scientology you can have your nutty beliefs but expect to be called on them, by me anyway.


OK, to clarify what you're saying:

1.  That mormons are on par with scientologists in terms of irrational beliefs? 
2.  That mormons have a racist past?
3.  That you would write off any mormon politician based on your (limited) understanding
of items 1. and 2. ?

Anyway, I've heard it all before, but you show the insensitivity / intolerance / ignorance that mormons will probably face for a long time.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 01, 2008, 02:25:40 AM
Quote

Prior to 1975 the official LDS position was that blacks couldn't hold positions in their clergy and couldn't get to heaven because they were descendants of Ham and/or the devil. Just like Scientology you can have your nutty beliefs but expect to be called on them, by me anyway.



OK, to clarify what you're saying:

1.  That mormons are on par with scientologists in terms of irrational beliefs? 
2.  That mormons have a racist past?
3.  That you would write off any mormon politician based on your (limited) understanding
of items 1. and 2. ?

Anyway, I've heard it all before, but you show the insensitivity / intolerance / ignorance that mormons will probably face for a long time.


1. yes, of course with the planets and the female and male Gods even the origin with the golden tablets, native Americans as Jews. shit is wacky.

2. This isn't even a point of contention, it's recent history. The only real question is to what degree prominent Mormons like Romney disavow the churches old policy and teachings. *video of him doing some careful sidestepping of the issue*

3. I don't care much about peoples religious beliefs in regards to politics UNLESS they use their beliefs to inform their policies. Then it's fair game. For example if someone is opposed to gay marriage, women's reproductive rights, banning sex ed or condoms, teaching creationism solely on some religious authority.....then they are more than fair game. The second your pretend world starts to hurt people it becomes a huge issue.


Yeah, well poor Mormons my heart weeps. Being an offshoot of protestant Christianity I'm sure they relish being persecuted.

******
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcw0woPX5VY
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on November 01, 2008, 02:48:47 AM
Quote

Prior to 1975 the official LDS position was that blacks couldn't hold positions in their clergy and couldn't get to heaven because they were descendants of Ham and/or the devil. Just like Scientology you can have your nutty beliefs but expect to be called on them, by me anyway.


OK, to clarify what you're saying:

1.  That mormons are on par with scientologists in terms of irrational beliefs? 
2.  That mormons have a racist past?
3.  That you would write off any mormon politician based on your (limited) understanding
of items 1. and 2. ?

Anyway, I've heard it all before, but you show the insensitivity / intolerance / ignorance that mormons will probably face for a long time.

Not sure what was insensitive, ignorant, or intolerant of bringing up the year this stuff went down.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 01, 2008, 07:39:59 AM
God, I hate religion.

Question:  I've never understood Ronald Reagan's appeal and now am especially mystified by the widespread claims that he was a great president.  Would one of you knowledgeable types explain to me what he is supposed to have done that is so great? 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on November 01, 2008, 08:48:39 AM
Question:  I've never understood Ronald Reagan's appeal and now am especially mystified by the widespread claims that he was a great president.  Would one of you knowledgeable types explain to me what he is supposed to have done that is so great? 

He's purported to have brought down the "Evil Empire" with his profligate military spending and aggressive diplomatic stance. I also think having an articulate, avuncular movie star president gave 80's America a big self-esteem boost.  But then again, Jimmy Carter wasn't exactly a hard act to follow.

Come to think of it, I could definitely see Obama as a Democrat Reagan at the end of his term.  The parallels are there: hapless predecessor, faltering economy, eloquent speaker. There were also hints of "It's Morning in America" in his infomercial Wednesday night.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 01, 2008, 10:27:54 AM
So you're saying pretty much what I've been thinking, and it's really as simple-minded as that:  his current reputation is based on his supposed role in ending the Cold War.  Apparently, people choose to forget about his irresponsible and destructive economic policies, as well as all the other noxious shit that happened during his presidency. 

By the way, I think Ronald Reagan as a speaker was far more like Sarah Palin than Barack Obama.  He was not eloquent but slick, folksy, and dumb-enough-seeming to make people feel comfy.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on November 01, 2008, 11:02:29 AM
By the way, I think Ronald Reagan as a speaker was far more like Sarah Palin than Barack Obama.  He was not eloquent but slick, folksy, and dumb-enough-seeming to make people feel comfy.

Yeah, it seems like he was kind of the start of the whole idea that smarter does not equal better in politics. Say what you will about Jimmy Carter's presidency, but he was a very intelligent man. In fact, Reagan did something during their debate that Palin tried to do in her debate with Biden (though he was successful and she wasn't) - when Carter was giving facts and figures, Reagan shook his head and said "There you go again" (or something to that effect). Lee Atwater deserves a lot of the credit/blame for the success of this sort of thinking - he really sold the folksy/simple man stuff and sort of created what is now thought of as the Republican base.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on November 01, 2008, 11:53:20 AM
Reagan is also given credit for the 80s economic boom. It makes as little sense to give him credit for that, as it does to blame Bush for the bubble-creating policies which started with Greenspan under Clinton, but that's how it goes.

Trick or treaters should not flashily display their cleavage: an observation.

I think Reagan's Challenger speech was pretty good. If Obama wins (insha' Allah) I hope he drops some literary references into his speeches. I'd really hope he takes FDR's Madison square gardens speech as a model but that's not gonna happen.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on November 01, 2008, 01:27:08 PM
I'd really hope he takes FDR's Madison square gardens speech as a model but that's not gonna happen.

That's the one where he said "If it wasn't for people like you, there could never be people like us," right?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 01, 2008, 01:30:03 PM
People love Reagan because he filled their streets with colorful shizophrenic "characters" that were formerly relegated to mental health hospitals where their folksy charm was wasted on dour nurses and cold, unfeeling psychiatrists.


I'd like to suggest that, if this Mormonism discussion continue, it be the flagship issue on a new Humorless Religion Thread.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on November 01, 2008, 01:51:12 PM
I'd really hope he takes FDR's Madison square gardens speech as a model but that's not gonna happen.

That's the one where he said "If it wasn't for people like you, there could never be people like us," right?

Yeah, and it's where he coined the phrase "My friends."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 01, 2008, 02:56:57 PM
People love Reagan because he filled their streets with colorful shizophrenic "characters" that were formerly relegated to mental health hospitals where their folksy charm was wasted on dour nurses and cold, unfeeling psychiatrists.

Ah yes, how well I remember those days.  All of a sudden the streets of Boston overflowed with damaged people with rosy cheeks.  A side-effect of certain antipsychotic drugs, it conferred a certain Santalike cheer on their distracted visages.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 01, 2008, 03:18:07 PM
This is regarding Palin in New Port Richey:

Quote
"Joe Biden calls taxes patriotic," Palin said with disdain, punctuated with boos from the audience.

"Doggone, government is the problem, not the solution," Palin said.

Obama and Democrats had been spreading fear that Republicans might try to cut Medicare. "We will not cut a single Medicare benefit," Palin said.

This is a funny couple of lines, cause it's like

 "Boo!  Taxes"

"Government is the Problem Not the Solution!"

"...except when it's the solution and that solution is paid for by taxes.  We're not going to cut any of the solutions the government offers that are paid for by taxes but we are going to cut as many taxes as we can.  GOT IT?"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: JP on November 01, 2008, 04:41:05 PM


Quote

Not sure what was insensitive, ignorant, or intolerant of bringing up the year this stuff went down.

Nobody said bringing up the "year [it] went" down was any of those things.  I was referring to the the "nutty" and "scientology" parts.  Did "shit is wacky" add any weight to my argument?

I just hopped that fellow free thinking people would begin to have shown a progressive attitude on religious issues. Mormons are just too easy to bully I guess because in the US they appear fairly well enfranchised, but a bit (or a lot as you may see it) "different."  I just know more restraint is shown by liberal thinkers for Sikhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Vodou, Hinduism, Budhism, most forms of Animism, or other "different" ideas.

Anyway. I don't think anybody actually wants a religion thread so I'm willing to drop it, but in the off chance anyone is interested, they can PM me.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 01, 2008, 05:15:24 PM


Quote

Not sure what was insensitive, ignorant, or intolerant of bringing up the year this stuff went down.

Nobody said bringing up the "year [it] went" down was any of those things.  I was referring to the the "nutty" and "scientology" parts.  Did "shit is wacky" add any weight to my argument?

I just hopped that fellow free thinking people would begin to have shown a progressive attitude on religious issues. Mormons are just too easy to bully I guess because in the US they appear fairly well enfranchised, but a bit (or a lot as you may see it) "different."  I just know more restraint is shown by liberal thinkers for Sikhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Vodou, Hinduism, Budhism, most forms of Animism, or other "different" ideas.

Anyway. I don't think anybody actually wants a religion thread so I'm willing to drop it, but in the off chance anyone is interested, they can PM me.

You like Romney are skirting the essential issue which is it was the policy of the LDS church that blacks were (are?) subhuman decedents of the biblical character Ham and as such were unfit to serve in the clergy and couldn't (can't?) go to heaven.

Neat little mental Jiu-Jitsu there painting someone who criticizes an organization with ideas like this as the small minded one.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on November 01, 2008, 05:24:57 PM
McCain and Palin did a great job of motivating me to get off my ass and do some volunteer work for the Obama campaign, anyway.

Big night-n-day difference between what you see at the Palin rallies and what you see at Obama campaign HQ.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on November 01, 2008, 05:52:09 PM


Quote

Not sure what was insensitive, ignorant, or intolerant of bringing up the year this stuff went down.

Nobody said bringing up the "year [it] went" down was any of those things.  I was referring to the the "nutty" and "scientology" parts.  Did "shit is wacky" add any weight to my argument?

I just hopped that fellow free thinking people would begin to have shown a progressive attitude on religious issues. Mormons are just too easy to bully I guess because in the US they appear fairly well enfranchised, but a bit (or a lot as you may see it) "different."  I just know more restraint is shown by liberal thinkers for Sikhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Vodou, Hinduism, Budhism, most forms of Animism, or other "different" ideas.

Anyway. I don't think anybody actually wants a religion thread so I'm willing to drop it, but in the off chance anyone is interested, they can PM me.

You like Romney are skirting the essential issue which is it was the policy of the LDS church that blacks were (are?) subhuman decedents of the biblical character Ham and as such were unfit to serve in the clergy and couldn't (can't?) go to heaven.

I'm generally sympathetic to charges of discrimination on the basis of religion, which is something that usually sucks. But of course plenty of religious groups practice discrimination themselves or worse.

Regarding Mormons, I just don't get terribly sympathetic feelings when charges of anti-Mormon discrimination are bandied about. I tend to think about all the gay kids who have grown up in Mormon homes and been made to feel like they are diseased and less than worthy human beings. That's just wrong. Also I remember that my cousin (who is not Mormon), while she lived in a predominantly Mormon town in Wyoming, really felt ostracized. There are worse things than that I suppose, but it's effectively the same kind of religious discrimination.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on November 01, 2008, 06:01:31 PM
If Obama wins (insha' Allah) I hope he drops some literary references into his speeches.

I got a big kick out the inshallah thing, yesno.  I'd like to hear literary references but I'll settle for great eloquence. I'm greatly looking forward to (the possibility of, inshallah) an Obama presidency for that reason but concerned about how he'd fare in practically every other respect, given how f-ed up things are now.

Question: has Bush-as-crappy-president managed to lower expectations dramatically for the next president?


Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 01, 2008, 06:03:47 PM


Question: has Bush-as-crappy-president managed to lower expectations dramatically for the next president?




for sure McCain or Obama will get a year or more I think
not from Fox News if it's Obama but real media I think is going to be somewhat forgiving.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on November 02, 2008, 09:14:33 AM
I just now HULU'd McCain's SNL appearance. Amazing. He essentially gave his defeat speech three nights early.

Cold open with "Tina Faylin": You know what I sensed in McCain? I saw a palpable sense of relief that pretty soon he's gonna be allowed to start acting like a human being again.

Weekend Update appearance: That was a pretty good Darell Hammond impression.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 02, 2008, 09:47:40 AM
a palpable sense of relief that pretty soon he's gonna be allowed to start acting like a human being again.

This, I think, also accounts for the marked improvement in his mood on the campaign trail.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 02, 2008, 09:53:36 AM
a palpable sense of relief that pretty soon he's gonna be allowed to start acting like a human being again.

This, I think, also accounts for the marked improvement in his mood on the campaign trail.


How has it felt to have the name "Sarah" become so ubiquitous the past month?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 02, 2008, 10:08:30 AM
Terrible.  I was talking about it to another Sarah just yesterday.  We both agreed that we'd feel better if at least Ms. Palin's first name had no final "h."  Also too, though, since each of us can see a foreign country from her house, we figured we're as qualified as she is.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 02, 2008, 12:14:15 PM
Terrible.  I was talking about it to another Sarah just yesterday.  We both agreed that we'd feel better if at least Ms. Palin's first name had no final "h."  Also too, though, since each of us can see a foreign country from her house, we figured we're as qualified as she is.


what about her sartorial style?
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/46761/thumbs/s-PALIN-large.jpg)
win or lose
I hope that look takes off
*crosses fingers*
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: WavyGravy on November 02, 2008, 12:37:32 PM
Yo TE, It's not her style.  They bought the clothes.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 02, 2008, 12:44:00 PM
Yo TE, It's not her style.  They bought the clothes.

I dunno but I realised I'm really into dangle-ly stuff: shiny earrings and bangles that clank together.

It's bizarre I find that appealing I wonder if there is some evolutionary significance to it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 02, 2008, 01:05:42 PM
Babies are powerfully attracted to shiny, dangly jewelry, TE.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 02, 2008, 01:21:48 PM
It's bizarre I find that appealing I wonder if there is some evolutionary significance to it.

No.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 02, 2008, 01:31:22 PM
Babies are powerfully attracted to shiny, dangly jewelry, TE.

intriguing... 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on November 02, 2008, 02:17:32 PM
So are monkeys. (And me as well...)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on November 02, 2008, 02:59:15 PM
It's bizarre I find that appealing I wonder if there is some evolutionary significance to it.

HAHAHAHAHA
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on November 02, 2008, 05:22:01 PM
Terrible.  I was talking about it to another Sarah just yesterday.  We both agreed that we'd feel better if at least Ms. Palin's first name had no final "h."  Also too, though, since each of us can see a foreign country from her house, we figured we're as qualified as she is.

From reading your many posts, you're far more qualified than Palin is.

I expect our vice president to be at least as smart as I am. That's not asking much.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on November 02, 2008, 08:18:43 PM
Terrible.  I was talking about it to another Sarah just yesterday.  We both agreed that we'd feel better if at least Ms. Palin's first name had no final "h."  Also too, though, since each of us can see a foreign country from her house, we figured we're as qualified as she is.

From reading your many posts, you're far more qualified than Palin is.

I expect our vice president to be at least as smart as I am. That's not asking much.

But the reason I like her is because she's just like me and my friends!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Come on, Jason on November 04, 2008, 01:01:48 AM
(http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/images/usa/virginia.jpg)

You're Welcome!

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 04, 2008, 01:57:25 AM
In California, Prop 8 would essentially repeal the right for gay couples to marry in the state. 

Et tu, instantrimshot.com?! 
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/3001383189_51ff9ac954_o.jpg)

get off my bookmarks bar!!


Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 04, 2008, 02:49:59 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=32216

and the LDS is the main backer of the Prop 8, I can't think of one time that organization has been so wrong on a social issue.....oh, wait.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 04, 2008, 03:04:18 AM
[url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=32216[/url]

and the LDS is the main backer of the Prop 8, I can't think of one time that organization has been so wrong on a social issue.....oh, wait.


Christian sect is anti-gay = yesterday's papers.

Weird novelty gag website is anti-gay = perplexing and creepy.

NOW... novelty gag website invented by anti-gay Christian sect in order to get people hooked on their novelty product while occasionally slipping in anti-gay stuff around election time = believable yet dumb conspiracy theory I just came up with = interesting for five seconds.  To me.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: AllisonLeGnome on November 04, 2008, 03:13:03 AM
In the last few days I've seen a number of different sites post disclaimers that "Yes on Prop 8" ads are generated by whatever ad service they use, which the owner of the site doesn't control. I'm guessing that's the case here.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 04, 2008, 04:02:32 AM
That's just what they want you to think, man...
 :P


Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 04, 2008, 04:03:48 AM
In the last few days I've seen a number of different sites post disclaimers that "Yes on Prop 8" ads are generated by whatever ad service they use, which the owner of the site doesn't control. I'm guessing that's the case here.

Sort of like those ads I get on fivethirtyeight.com prompting me to "Invest in Victory" (McCain) despite the fact the site mathematically outlines the improbability of McCain's campaign heading anywhere near victory.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on November 04, 2008, 09:33:44 AM
Saw this mural a couple of blocks from my house:

(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/506/ush2384160418a9134589tn2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on November 04, 2008, 10:26:13 AM
Saw this mural a couple of blocks from my house:

([url]http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/506/ush2384160418a9134589tn2.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://imageshack.us[/url])



Uh, Bush don't leave til January. FACT CHECK'D!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cutout on November 04, 2008, 10:34:11 AM
Bush is just keeping the seat warm for President McKinney -

(http://iusbvision.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/cynthia_mckinney.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trotskie on November 04, 2008, 10:53:48 AM
it just took me any easy hour to vote in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.  I learned a couple of things in the process:

-know your voting district.  the first line you encounter will probably be the information line to find out you district if you don't know it.  if you know the district you can skip that line an go straight to district check in.

-at the district area there might be a couple of lines.  one for checking in, which might be split in two alphabetically by last name.  check to make sure you are in the right one.

-once you check in, you'll get a card with a number in the upper right.  they may not be handed out sequentially.  once you get in line, try to order yourself correctly with the people around you.  you have to vote in numerical order, and if a number can't be found it causes 10 minutes of chaos and shouting. 

-by the time you get there, people are probably going to be pretty testy.  I found that figuring out the system and spreading the word to the friendlier seeming people around you helped things move better.  (telling people what line to stand, etc.)

-remember, the only thing better than a casino fight is a poll worker fight.  be prepared to be entertained.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Satchmo Mask on November 04, 2008, 10:56:32 AM
I cut in line.  8) :P :-X ;) :D

Edit - according to Wikipedia it was a covert cut, which is "usually more acceptable". So it was okay.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on November 04, 2008, 11:02:29 AM
I want to know about the Robin Hood .jpg on your desktop, Junk.

Looks like Instant Rimshot is going to have to be one of my guilty pleasures, like Starbucks, or shopping at Target.  I'm not about to give it up.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 04, 2008, 12:36:51 PM
Saw this mural a couple of blocks from my house:

([url]http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/506/ush2384160418a9134589tn2.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://imageshack.us[/url])



I love it!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: puar on November 04, 2008, 12:46:51 PM
We early voted on Saturday at the court house here in Tallahassee, the line was ridiculously long but it was worth it!  :D

Such an exciting election!


Florida is also trying to pass a stupid amendment that hurts gay and non-married couples. You should consider voting NO on 2 if you live in this State. http://votenoon2.com/ (http://votenoon2.com/)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on November 04, 2008, 01:44:17 PM
By the way - anyone else in NY (city or state) who is concerned about their vote making a difference can vote for Obama on Row E, the Working Families line.  It still counts just as much.  Because of a loophole in NY (and about 10 other states), candidates can run on fusion tickets - both Giuliani and Bloomberg got significant chunks of their victory margins from 3rd parties.  The WF party isn't perfect, but they're mostly good hardhat types who press NY Democrats towards progressive stances on quality-of-life issues.

Also, in case anyone needed anything else to keep them awake at night, Bush just authorized training for a US Army unit to operate on US soil - The Army Times says they might be used to put down civil unrest.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/7/us_army_denies_unit_will_be
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Come on, Jason on November 04, 2008, 02:33:23 PM
Time it took to vote in Springfield, VA:  4 minutes
Time it took to get free Starbucks coffee afterwards: 8 minutes
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on November 04, 2008, 02:38:10 PM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/04/rove-predicts-obama-landslide/

When I see Karl Rove predict that Obama will win in a 338-200 landslide, it makes me think it's all part of a big plot to lull Obama supporters into not voting.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 04, 2008, 02:55:14 PM
I want to know about the Robin Hood .jpg on your desktop, Junk.



It's research.  Not very interesting:
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g268/clickerman/robin_hood_films.jpg)

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 04, 2008, 11:45:15 PM
"Why The Dems Might Lose" thread, officially DEAD.

GOOD GUYS WIN
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on November 05, 2008, 12:51:34 AM
this rules.  But who won the Mayubinatorial election?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 05, 2008, 05:14:32 AM
"Why The Dems Might Lose" thread, officially DEAD.

GOOD GUYS WIN


YAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 05, 2008, 06:43:15 AM
Now I can start worrying in earnest.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on November 05, 2008, 10:01:16 AM
Yeesh.  Proud of America and ashamed of this guy.  It's like the inverse of 2000!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Wes on November 05, 2008, 10:20:14 AM
(http://blogs.nypost.com/popwrap/photos/CNN%27s-hologram.jpg)

When I saw this, I finally knew what Oppenheimer and the rest of the Manhattan Project must have felt when they watched that atomic bomb go off in Alamogordo. So fascinating, so horrifying. It was like being one of the Nazis at the end of Raiders, staring at the beautiful spirits in wonder, then seeing them turn into the awesome, destructive, face-melting terror of a holographic dude from the Black Eyed Peas.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on November 05, 2008, 10:34:12 AM
([url]http://blogs.nypost.com/popwrap/photos/CNN%27s-hologram.jpg[/url])

When I saw this, I finally knew what Oppenheimer and the rest of the Manhattan Project must have felt when they watched that atomic bomb go off in Alamogordo. So fascinating, so horrifying. It was like being one of the Nazis at the end of Raiders, staring at the beautiful spirits in wonder, then seeing them turn into the awesome, destructive, face-melting terror of a holographic dude from the Black Eyed Peas.


You said it. After that interview, Anderson Cooper assured his viewers: "Lots more holograms coming up..." Dear god, I hope this becomes the MAIN way they interview people on CNN.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 11:14:40 AM
I'm really hoping the holograms spread past the news, although I'm not sure in what capacity.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 05, 2008, 11:23:48 AM
Maybe I'll go to the record fair yet.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on November 05, 2008, 12:42:54 PM
Although there is much to be happy about today, I'd just like to say BOOO on the Proposition 8 approval. What the fuck.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on November 05, 2008, 12:49:53 PM
Here's one for TE:

Palin Once Greeted McCain Staff Wearing Only A Towel (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-once-greeted-mccain_n_141394.html)

As some already have pointed out, the GOP tries to put a lot of blame on Palin (which is weird if you consider her a future presidential candidate). About her shopping spree:

Quote
An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.


Let the self-destruction begin!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 05, 2008, 12:55:51 PM
Here's one for TE:

Palin Once Greeted McCain Staff Wearing Only A Towel ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-once-greeted-mccain_n_141394.html[/url])

As some already have pointed out, the GOP tries to put a lot of blame on Palin (which is weird if you consider her a future presidential candidate). About her shopping spree:

Quote
An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.


Let the self-destruction begin!


ah man I just posted that

I think people were a little delusional planning for her future
everything coming out shows she needs a HELL of a lot more seasoning
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on November 05, 2008, 01:01:05 PM
Although there is much to be happy about today, I'd just like to say BOOO on the Proposition 8 approval. What the fuck.

Lots of Obama supporters must have voted for it.  People are really hung up on the word "marriage," but seem willing to give gay couples all of the legal rights that attend marriage.  Voodoo thinking.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on November 05, 2008, 01:13:20 PM
sad ron paul needs a puppy.


(http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5751/1225890455052st0.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Big Plastic Head on November 05, 2008, 01:20:00 PM
([url]http://blogs.nypost.com/popwrap/photos/CNN%27s-hologram.jpg[/url])

When I saw this, I finally knew what Oppenheimer and the rest of the Manhattan Project must have felt when they watched that atomic bomb go off in Alamogordo. So fascinating, so horrifying. It was like being one of the Nazis at the end of Raiders, staring at the beautiful spirits in wonder, then seeing them turn into the awesome, destructive, face-melting terror of a holographic dude from the Black Eyed Peas.


You said it. After that interview, Anderson Cooper assured his viewers: "Lots more holograms coming up..." Dear god, I hope this becomes the MAIN way they interview people on CNN.


"Performer & Obama Supporter"


AND A FUCKING HOLOGRAM!!!1!

Wil.I.(Hologr)am
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on November 05, 2008, 01:45:28 PM
Although there is much to be happy about today, I'd just like to say BOOO on the Proposition 8 approval. What the fuck.

Lots of Obama supporters must have voted for it.  People are really hung up on the word "marriage," but seem willing to give gay couples all of the legal rights that attend marriage.  Voodoo thinking.

Every silver lining needs a dark cloud. Somehow, I'm optimistic. Must be the Obama effect.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 05, 2008, 02:33:13 PM
Hangovers at work really suck.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 05, 2008, 02:47:25 PM
Yeesh.  Proud of America and ashamed of this guy.  It's like the inverse of 2000!

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo[/url]


Seriously Nader, what the hell.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Dan B on November 05, 2008, 04:30:31 PM
Now that it's all over
I rarely see you any longer
I plug myself in
I am a hologram a hologram a hologram a hologram
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on November 05, 2008, 04:41:04 PM
sad ron paul needs a puppy.


([url]http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5751/1225890455052st0.jpg[/url])


Look at the shoes! What the fuck, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trotskie on November 05, 2008, 05:41:16 PM

[/quote]

Look at the shoes! What the fuck, in my opinion.
[/quote]

I think those are orthopedic shoes. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on November 05, 2008, 05:45:58 PM
Yeesh.  Proud of America and ashamed of this guy.  It's like the inverse of 2000!

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo[/url]


Oh Ralphie ... you've hit your nadir. Brilliant man, and I wouldn't say that he's destroyed his legacy because of one stupid statement. But still ... jesus fucking christ, this guy is totally tone-deaf when it comes to interacting with other humans. If you want to be a politician, part of the job is being good with people. And having some fucking sensitivity about other people's feelings. Ralph scores 0 out of 100 on that one.

He should be working behind the scenes, working up position papers and plotting campaign strategy for a candidate who won't depress the hell out of everybody. I don't wanna see his sad-sack face on TV anymore.

There's a phrase I've seen in biographical sketches of Woodrow Wilson and other historical figures: "He loved humanity, but he hated people". That's Ralph. If you're in politics you have to have at least a little bit of the common touch, some good bedside manner. George W. was sort of a retarded caricature of the common touch but ... you know what I mean. Right?

Noam Chomsky also. Brilliant man, but what a cold fish. Has there ever been a colder fish than Noam Chomsky?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cutout on November 05, 2008, 06:34:45 PM
Johnny Ramone?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 05, 2008, 08:17:43 PM
Yeesh.  Proud of America and ashamed of this guy.  It's like the inverse of 2000!

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo[/url]


Seriously Nader, what the hell.



That was not only a dumb thing to say on the obvious level, it barely makes sense when you think about.  It's like the choice of wording in that is completely structured around him being able to say "Uncle Tom".  He's using the figure of Uncle Sam like as if people actually have positive associations with it.  The only thing people affiliate Uncle Sam with is that "uncle sam wants YOU" poster, which is barely positive.  It's like nader's ability to win any battles is so far in the past that he just says stupid shit like this and does videos with obama girl.  He's become a total joke.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Beth on November 05, 2008, 08:39:04 PM
Yeesh.  Proud of America and ashamed of this guy.  It's like the inverse of 2000!

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo[/url]


Seriously Nader, what the hell.



That was not only a dumb thing to say on the obvious level, it barely makes sense when you think about.  It's like the choice of wording in that is completely structured around him being able to say "Uncle Tom".  He's using the figure of Uncle Sam like as if people actually have positive associations with it.  The only thing people affiliate Uncle Sam with is that "uncle sam wants YOU" poster, which is barely positive.  It's like nader's ability to win any battles is so far in the past that he just says stupid shit like this and does videos with obama girl.  He's become a total joke.


This and the "talking white" comment. He's just using racially charged language to get attention from the media.  I didn't even know about the Obama girl video but I just watched and was cringing.

 I've really lost so much respect for Nader over the past 8 years.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 05, 2008, 08:57:24 PM
The gift that keeps giving
Palin didn't know Africa is a continent


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on November 05, 2008, 09:09:33 PM
The gift that keeps giving
Palin didn't know Africa is a continent


[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html[/url]



I thought it was a state of mind.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on November 05, 2008, 11:07:28 PM
These are the counties that voted *more* for McCain than for Bush in 2004.

McCain himself is no hardcore social conservative, having called the religious right "agents of intolerance."

I wonder why, then, these areas voted for McCain at levels greater than their support for Bush.  Like Matthew Yglesias said, "You can see why John McCain’s principled stand against higher taxes on the wealthy would have a special resonance in this region. Liberals who thought race had something to do with those appeals should be ashamed of themselves."

(http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mccain.jpg)


Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Trembling Eagle on November 05, 2008, 11:46:28 PM


([url]http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mccain.jpg[/url])





aka places I don't want my car to break down in
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on November 06, 2008, 12:40:07 AM
The gift that keeps giving
Palin didn't know Africa is a continent


[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html[/url]


Insane. Just mindblowing.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: senorcorazon on November 06, 2008, 08:57:46 AM


([url]http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mccain.jpg[/url])





aka places I don't want my car to break down in


AKA A lot of Hurricane country. It's sad, a part of the country that has basically been screwed by the Republicans repeatedly and then every 4 years gets whipped in a frenzy by Rove nonsense about abortion and gay marriage so they can get screwed a bit more.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 06, 2008, 09:04:12 AM
Re Palin, I love that O'Reilly and others always said, "Oh, she can learn--she's not a dumb woman," when confronted with evidence of Palin's lack of knowledge.  The fact is if you still don't know at the age of forty-two that Africa is a continent, you're quite possibly dumb and at the least guilty of willing ignorance.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: moonshake on November 06, 2008, 10:05:43 AM
(http://images.newsmax.com/headline_vertical/bought(2).jpg)
Source: newsmax.com
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: moonshake on November 06, 2008, 10:15:42 AM
Joe the Plumber's not over yet.

Quote
Asked if he still plans to buy a plumbing business, as he originally stated, or to run for elected office, Joe said he could “better serve my fellow man by working with a new watchdog group I’m coming up with,” called Secure Our Dream.com, “that essentially will hold politicians accountable and make them remember that they actually got into this business to serve their fellow man, and not themselves.”

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/joe_the_plumber/2008/11/05/148122.html

Pre-order his not-yet-written book at http://www.secureourdream.com/index.html
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Emily on November 06, 2008, 10:34:30 AM
Re Palin, I love that O'Reilly and others always said, "Oh, she can learn--she's not a dumb woman," when confronted with evidence of Palin's lack of knowledge.  The fact is if you still don't know at the age of forty-two that Africa is a continent, you're quite possibly dumb and at the least guilty of willing ignorance.

In all fairness, Africa isn't visible from the coast of Alaska, so that's probably why she didn't know about it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Come on, Jason on November 06, 2008, 12:02:17 PM
I bet the manager of the Johannesburg Neiman Marcus is disappointed.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: daveB from Oakland on November 06, 2008, 12:17:56 PM
I think she should start dressing up in dashikis as an act of contrition.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Emily on November 06, 2008, 12:21:48 PM
Or she should give birth to her next baby in Ghana.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on November 06, 2008, 12:25:42 PM
adopting from Malawi is also quite cool.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 06, 2008, 01:04:12 PM


([url]http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mccain.jpg[/url])





aka places I don't want my car to break down in


AKA A lot of Hurricane country. It's sad, a part of the country that has basically been screwed by the Republicans repeatedly and then every 4 years gets whipped in a frenzy by Rove nonsense about abortion and gay marriage so they can get screwed a bit more.


That isn't really hurricane country so much ~ it is the heart of the Bible Belt.  I don't think it has so much to do with McCain specifically though as it does with the trends in the GOP towards batshit insane. 

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on November 06, 2008, 02:25:29 PM
Is it wrong for me to be annoyed by the woman in the cubicle next to me shopping for "clever" anti-Bush merchandise with only 2.5 months left?  I should probably add that she's reading them all out loud and saying "that is so funny because it is so true".
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on November 06, 2008, 02:52:39 PM


([url]http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mccain.jpg[/url])







aka places I don't want my car to break down in


AKA A lot of Hurricane country. It's sad, a part of the country that has basically been screwed by the Republicans repeatedly and then every 4 years gets whipped in a frenzy by Rove nonsense about abortion and gay marriage so they can get screwed a bit more.


That isn't really hurricane country so much ~ it is the heart of the Bible Belt.  I don't think it has so much to do with McCain specifically though as it does with the trends in the GOP towards batshit insane. 




my reaction was, it looks like the intersection of hillbilly country and Appalachia.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 06, 2008, 02:58:46 PM
Don't get me wrong.  I'm going to Arkansas next month to visit my dad, who is also a firm Republican and who I love dearly.  The people there are nice (to me).  I just have trouble relating to them and wish they'd come to their senses.

(There are counties down there where you can't even buy a beer, for crying out loud.)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: JP on November 06, 2008, 03:04:09 PM


([url]http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mccain.jpg[/url])





aka places I don't want my car to break down in


AKA A lot of Hurricane country. It's sad, a part of the country that has basically been screwed by the Republicans repeatedly and then every 4 years gets whipped in a frenzy by Rove nonsense about abortion and gay marriage so they can get screwed a bit more.


I'm very surprised.  Utah, Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Wyoming are *very* anti gay marriage and anti abortion so I don't think that explains it.  Also, mccain is a "western states republican" whereas bush was a "southern states republican." 

I wonder if race was an issue for people in that southern part of the country?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 06, 2008, 03:04:55 PM
What a daring proposition.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on November 06, 2008, 03:21:29 PM
Quote
And interviewing a hologram? How cool was that? As the great Canadian director Guy Maddin just e-mailed me: "Even Will.I.Am appeared confused tonight when Anderson told him he was a hologram. It's only going to get better with future elections -- the best reason reason to live to 106!"


I love the fact that Ebert and Maddin were just as excited about the holograms as the rest of the nation.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/okay_okay_already_i_wont_watch.html#more
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 06, 2008, 03:29:20 PM
Wow, Ebert's post is pretty amusing!  And I do think the CNN holograms are a mild national emergency.  Sort of like the discovery of alien lifeforms amongst us.  OH DAMN, A HOLOGRAM!!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Gilly on November 06, 2008, 03:34:08 PM
With another VP, I think McCain would have won Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina and who knows what might have happened in other battleground states. A lot of Neo-cons are looking at this as a death blow and I do hope the party gets back to classic conservatism, but things might have been a lot different with another VP... neo-conservatism is still very strong IMO.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on November 06, 2008, 03:57:24 PM
Newsweek just posted a further description of the "towel incident" (to be said [or not] with Olbermann-like relish).

Quote
At the convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys'-club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Schmidt and Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. "I'll be just a minute," she said. Salter tried to strike up a conversation. He knew that Todd was half native Alaskan and a championship snow-machine racer.

"So what's the difference between a snowmobile and a snow machine, anyway?" Salter asked. "They're the same thing," Todd replied. "Right, so why not call it a snowmobile?" Salter joshed. "Because it's a snow machine," came the reply.

Later, Schmidt and Salter went outside so that Salter could have a cigarette. "So how about the Eskimo? Is he on the level?" Schmidt asked. Salter just shrugged and took another drag.


"Because it's a snow machine.  Why?"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on November 06, 2008, 03:58:59 PM
Quote
her laconic husband, Todd

I love this.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 06, 2008, 04:19:06 PM
The dirt coming out about the McCain campaign is hilarious and terrifying considering this level of undisciplined chaos and incompetence came as close to power as it did.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on November 06, 2008, 04:47:20 PM
The dirt coming out about the McCain campaign is hilarious and terrifying considering this level of undisciplined chaos and incompetence came as close to power as it did.


True. Who knows what could have happened if a corrupt and incompetent administration took over the White House!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on November 06, 2008, 05:18:19 PM
The dirt coming out about the McCain campaign is hilarious and terrifying considering this level of undisciplined chaos and incompetence came as close to power as it did.



True. Who knows what could have happened if a corrupt and incompetent administration took over the White House! ([url]http://www.instantrimshot.com[/url])


Fixed!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 06, 2008, 05:22:20 PM
I'm totally buying this issue of Newsweek when it comes out.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Stupornaut on November 06, 2008, 05:34:19 PM
The book(s) about the McCain/Palin campaign will be absolutely spectacular. It'll be like the last couple chapters of every "massive success followed by hubris" biography, only it'll be 500 pages of "here's where it went wrong" instead of the last 80. Like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls if it was entirely about 'The Last Movie' and 'Sorceror'.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on November 06, 2008, 05:47:00 PM
I would point out that Arkansas, Tennessee and especially Oklahoma are only kind of Southern.  For the most part, the Southeastern states did right in this election, considering where they were 30, 20 and even 4 years ago.  Virginia, Florida and North Carolina for Obama.  Mary Landrieu in Louisiana.  New Democratic Senators in Virginia and North Carolina.

Having grown up with Jesse Helms as my Senator, I couldn't be prouder of my state, which just turned out the reprehensible Elizabeth Dole, electing a woman in her place; elected it's first female governor ever; and casting its electoral votes for a black man for President.

I don't want to hear anyone talking about Klan meetings in North Carolina.  We represented strong.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on November 06, 2008, 07:10:59 PM
I'm proud of North Carolina. Indiana too. Maybe we can even invite Indiana back into the Midwest again.  :)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: masterofsparks on November 06, 2008, 07:53:20 PM
The book(s) about the McCain/Palin campaign will be absolutely spectacular. It'll be like the last couple chapters of every "massive success followed by hubris" biography, only it'll be 500 pages of "here's where it went wrong" instead of the last 80. Like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls if it was entirely about 'The Last Movie' and 'Sorceror'.


I want to read this (http://pattonoswalt.com/index.cfm?page=spew&id=90) book about McCain. Who's gonna write it?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 06, 2008, 08:13:10 PM


I'm totally in agreement that Prop 8 is basically "Prop Hate".  I'm not trying to defend it.  And I certainly don't want to defend anyone who initiated it, but in the same way that we continue to consider ourselves americans and participate in elections even after the u.s. government has been historically, and recently, proven to be behind and/or cool with slavery, torture, imperialism, genocide, etc., we still call ourselves americans and don't equate people like ourselves with people that are ignorant, or who advocate for "nuke 'em all, let god sort 'em out" bullshit.  Why we would hold our own selves to this standard in our relationship to our belief in the Democratic system ad the United States government, but then lump all Catholics or Mormons into one lumpen mass and assume they all share the same views as what are in fact their most marginal or extreme members is beyond me.  There's a total double standard at work here and it's irritating.  Stop trying to scapegoat "The Religious".  The majority voted yes on this proposition, so the majority are against gay marriage, and if the majority of californians are crazy, frothing LDS and Catholic child rapists, then I'll retract my entire argument. Maybe the institution of marriage itself needs to be re-thought.  Something that people associate with ceremonies at churches, synagogues, etc. is always going to summon up the least progressive reactions from people. 

I'm sorry if I'm pissing people off. 


Gobama!!


Nevermind.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: samir on November 06, 2008, 08:21:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQVP2BV9LP0

Humorless?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Regular Joe on November 06, 2008, 08:47:42 PM
Quote
And interviewing a hologram? How cool was that? As the great Canadian director Guy Maddin just e-mailed me: "Even Will.I.Am appeared confused tonight when Anderson told him he was a hologram. It's only going to get better with future elections -- the best reason reason to live to 106!"


I love the fact that Ebert and Maddin were just as excited about the holograms as the rest of the nation.

[url]http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/okay_okay_already_i_wont_watch.html#more[/url]


It's neither humorless or political, but who'dathought that Ebert would make such a hilarious blogger? His piece on rice cookers had me laughing out loud. For example:

Quote
The eternal dilemma: Which rice? Minute Rice cooks fine in the Pot, if you will but follow the exact instructions on the box. Later, I will instruct you not to read instructions. That's further down. For now, read the Minute Rice box! It is called Minute Rice for a reason. If you let it Cook or Warm for half an hour, you are going to be poking around your Pot looking for your rice. Minute Rice is for when you're in a big hurry and nutrition be damned. Minute Rice has been painstakingly deprived of its vitamins and things, which are fed to boars and captive chickens. Use real rice. Brown rice is good for you. Basmati is nice. Don't overlook other grains and pastas. [Note: Someone wrote in saying oh, oh, I can't eat this or that kind of rice! I'm allergic! Then don't eat it. Do you think I want to give you the hives?]
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on November 06, 2008, 09:04:26 PM
I'm proud of North Carolina. Indiana too. Maybe we can even invite Indiana back into the Midwest again.  :)

Yeah man, we turned Indiana blue.

Big respect to Fla, NC and Ohio, too.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on November 10, 2008, 11:24:49 AM
John Cusack is moved to verse (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/real-shock-and-awe_b_141536.html) by Obama's victory:

More powerful than was imaginable,
We are almost in a state of collective shock/awe.
The promise -- Antigone before the king comes to mind -- wonderfully hard to process.
He looked as a man with providence; the opposite mirror of Bush.
There was humility inside it.
He was even careful not to get too frenzied -- gave a soft landing.
Sober, reflective, determined... emotional beyond words.
The world looked to America... we showed our best.
For one night at least, the world was sane.
The planet sighs in relief and deserves a righteous party.
We have beaten back the worst in ourselves, the old and inevitable forces of cynicism and greed.
No more patriotic primates to rule the roost.
Real change will take sacrifice, vigilance and will.
The bailout of Wall Street, the wars and the final gorge of the right wing must be stopped now, a return to Keynesian balance.
Bottom up instead of top down.
The gold standard that every human has value -- be awarded respect, dignity and opportunity --
The currency of grace.
A wave of renewal and possibility.
And now the real work begins.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on November 10, 2008, 11:48:32 AM
I didn't realize the bailout of wall street was strictly a right wing thing.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on November 10, 2008, 11:55:17 AM
John Cusack is moved to verse ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/real-shock-and-awe_b_141536.html[/url]) by Obama's victory:

More powerful than was imaginable,
We are almost in a state of collective shock/awe.
The promise -- Antigone before the king comes to mind -- wonderfully hard to process.
He looked as a man with providence; the opposite mirror of Bush.
There was humility inside it.
He was even careful not to get too frenzied -- gave a soft landing.
Sober, reflective, determined... emotional beyond words.
The world looked to America... we showed our best.
For one night at least, the world was sane.
The planet sighs in relief and deserves a righteous party.
We have beaten back the worst in ourselves, the old and inevitable forces of cynicism and greed.
No more patriotic primates to rule the roost.
Real change will take sacrifice, vigilance and will.
The bailout of Wall Street, the wars and the final gorge of the right wing must be stopped now, a return to Keynesian balance.
Bottom up instead of top down.
The gold standard that every human has value -- be awarded respect, dignity and opportunity --
The currency of grace.
A wave of renewal and possibility.
And now the real work begins.



Whoever has me as their secret santa this year is getting this on a plaque. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: erika on November 10, 2008, 11:56:24 AM
Are we doing Secret Santa this year?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on November 10, 2008, 11:56:50 AM
I didn't realize the bailout of wall street was strictly a right wing thing.

I don't think he said it was.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on November 10, 2008, 12:04:12 PM
he implied it if he didn't come right out and say it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on November 10, 2008, 12:08:03 PM
he implied it if he didn't come right out and say it.

if you can decipher the subtext of this poetic disaster, you're a far better reader than I
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Chris L on November 10, 2008, 12:14:43 PM
if you can decipher the subtext of this poetic disaster, you're a far better reader than I

You poetic primate.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on November 10, 2008, 01:00:46 PM
he implied it if he didn't come right out and say it.

He also doesn't appear to understand what "Keynesian" means.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on November 10, 2008, 01:16:19 PM
Are we doing Secret Santa this year?

I sure hope so. I'm in this year, that should get people all excited and shit.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on November 10, 2008, 09:16:51 PM
John Cusack is moved to verse ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/real-shock-and-awe_b_141536.html[/url]) by Obama's victory:

More powerful than was imaginable,
We are almost in a state of collective shock/awe.
The promise -- Antigone before the king comes to mind -- wonderfully hard to process.
He looked as a man with providence; the opposite mirror of Bush.
There was humility inside it.
He was even careful not to get too frenzied -- gave a soft landing.
Sober, reflective, determined... emotional beyond words.
The world looked to America... we showed our best.
For one night at least, the world was sane.
The planet sighs in relief and deserves a righteous party.
We have beaten back the worst in ourselves, the old and inevitable forces of cynicism and greed.
No more patriotic primates to rule the roost.
Real change will take sacrifice, vigilance and will.
The bailout of Wall Street, the wars and the final gorge of the right wing must be stopped now, a return to Keynesian balance.
Bottom up instead of top down.
The gold standard that every human has value -- be awarded respect, dignity and opportunity --
The currency of grace.
A wave of renewal and possibility.
And now the real work begins.



Whoever has me as their secret santa this year is getting this on a plaque. 


Haha.

I wonder if his poetry is like his acting, like he used to write good poems in the 1980s and 90s and just suddenly and mysteriously got awful.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cutout on November 10, 2008, 10:58:35 PM
Old Crazy Eyes (Mike Huckabee) shows a bit of class -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449425,00.html

Or maybe like so many other right-wing pundits he's distancing himself from Bush in spastic fashion and supporting the Smart Multiracial President, lest he get caught on the wrong side of history.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on November 11, 2008, 01:36:28 AM
(http://img3.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/598/486/22935641.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 11, 2008, 01:39:12 AM
([url]http://img3.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/598/486/22935641.jpg[/url])


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRLwV2xafpk
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 11, 2008, 02:13:04 AM
([url]http://img3.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/598/486/22935641.jpg[/url])


Now we just have to tell them to stop smoking weed for a couple hours and/or log out of World of Warcraft for an hour once a year and get off their apathetic butts and vote.   :D
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on November 11, 2008, 08:43:01 AM
WTF Oklahoma?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on November 11, 2008, 09:48:58 AM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRLwV2xafpk[/url]


Has anyone seen this movie? Could it possibly be as awesome as it looks?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 11, 2008, 12:10:01 PM
Of course I've seen it.  More than once.  It's very silly--indeed, was so when it came out--and entertaining.  I'd like to see it again. 
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: <<<<< on November 11, 2008, 12:30:44 PM
WTF Oklahoma?

I think the OKC Bombing left them paranoid about... everything??
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 11, 2008, 12:36:45 PM
A seventy-five-year-old friend of mine who was born in Oklahoma and keeps in touch with friends and family there assures me that it was and continues to be one of the most racist states in which he's ever lived--and he's lived in many.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on November 11, 2008, 12:47:44 PM
A seventy-five-year-old friend of mine who was born in Oklahoma and keeps in touch with friends and family there assures me that it was and continues to be one of the most racist states in which he's ever lived--and he's lived in many.
all that means is that your friend's family and friends are racists.   
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 11, 2008, 12:55:25 PM
No, it also means that he found the town where he grew up in the thirties and forties to be generally racist and further found Oklahoma City to be the same when he worked there in the seventies.  Don't be so damn touchy, Andy.  (Or perhaps I'm being touchy, in which case, apologies.)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: todd on November 11, 2008, 02:24:37 PM
No, it also means that he found the town where he grew up in the thirties and forties to be generally racist and further found Oklahoma City to be the same when he worked there in the seventies.  Don't be so damn touchy, Andy.  (Or perhaps I'm being touchy, in which case, apologies.)

Racist or not, they vote like shit and are thus DEAD TO ME. Join 51% of Missouri in my hate pit, Okie scum!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: John Junk 2.0 on November 11, 2008, 02:37:59 PM
Wild In The Streets is kinda great but also extremely poorly acted.  That trailer pretty much sums up the whole thing.  It has also inspired people like conceptual artist Dan Graham, who made a puppet show musical version of it in collaboration with Tony Oursler, Paul McCarthy, Rodney Graham, Japanther, Kim Gordon, and Thurston Moore.  Also, Ian Svenonius covered a song from it in the David Candy album.  Highly reccomended viewing.  Definitely over the top.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on November 11, 2008, 04:26:42 PM
"Fifteen or fight!"
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on November 12, 2008, 12:39:30 AM
Missouri is the new purple. I call that progress.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: theyellowchair on November 28, 2008, 02:33:28 PM
While listening to the first Kenny Dupree call, I stumbled across THIS:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6353033&page=1
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: jbissell on November 28, 2008, 03:59:45 PM
I'm saddened by the news that the dynamic duo of Hannity & Colmes are splitting up.  First Mike & Mad Dog and now this, what's next?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on November 28, 2008, 04:28:51 PM
I'm saddened by the news that the dynamic duo of Hannity & Colmes are splitting up.  First Mike & Mad Dog and now this, what's next?

Goodbye Ken Freedman
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Tor_Hershman on November 29, 2008, 04:38:32 PM
This made moi LOL.
I googled 'tor hershman oh osama' to find the quickest link and this site lists me wee parody as song 666.

http://bandcage.com/trackdetails.html?s=666

Stay on groovin' safari,
:o Tor  :o
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 05, 2009, 11:19:51 AM
Good speech in Cairo, eh?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: nec13 on June 05, 2009, 01:40:50 PM
Good speech in Cairo, eh?

"He's no Ronald Reagan"-Sean Hannity
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 05, 2009, 01:42:08 PM
Thank heaven.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: nec13 on June 05, 2009, 01:48:53 PM
I thought it was an excellent speech. I liked the magnanimous tone of the speech and I don't believe he said anything out of turn.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 05, 2009, 02:44:47 PM
As my sister commented to me, it was awful nice to hear a president say that Iran has a right to pursue peaceful nuclear power (not that I'm a fan of nuclear power, mind, but why shouldn't Iran have it if others do?) and that the Palestinians were entitled to their own state.  Imagine Reagan saying that!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Pidgeon on June 05, 2009, 03:15:59 PM
ಠ_ಠ

Whoa, lotta obamabots in here.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 05, 2009, 03:21:24 PM
As my sister commented to me, it was awful nice to hear a president say that Iran has a right to pursue peaceful nuclear power (not that I'm a fan of nuclear power, mind, but why shouldn't Iran have it if others do?) and that the Palestinians were entitled to their own state.  Imagine Reagan saying that!


I strongly disagree with the first point, and mildly disagree with "are entitled to" in the second.  I'm no neocon, but global politics ain't beanbag.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: nec13 on June 05, 2009, 03:31:47 PM
ಠ_ಠ

Whoa, lotta obamabots in here.

Not me. There are more than a few things that Obama has done that I disagree with. However, I did like the speech yesterday. I think that the U.S. has to take a different tact with regards to its foreign policy. The threats and incendiary rhetoric espoused by prior administrations aren't going to cut it anymore.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 05, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
As my sister commented to me, it was awful nice to hear a president say that Iran has a right to pursue peaceful nuclear power (not that I'm a fan of nuclear power, mind, but why shouldn't Iran have it if others do?) and that the Palestinians were entitled to their own state.  Imagine Reagan saying that!


I strongly disagree with the first point

Hey, I don't think anyone should have nuclear power; I just don't see why Iran can't when we can.

Quote
and mildly disagree with "are entitled to" in the second.

As entitled as the Israelis are, anyway.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Pidgeon on June 05, 2009, 03:53:57 PM
You're not making any sense. Nobody should have nuclear power, but everybody has the right to have it and should?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 05, 2009, 03:57:47 PM
Use your thinking parts, son.  I don't approve of nuclear power, but the technology exists, people use it, and I don't see why some should be allowed to while others aren't.  

Criminy.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: nec13 on June 05, 2009, 03:58:53 PM
You're not making any sense. Nobody should have nuclear power, but everybody has the right to have it and should?

I'm curious, where do you come down on this issue Pidgeon?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on June 05, 2009, 04:00:34 PM
You're not making any sense. Nobody should have nuclear power, but everybody has the right to have it and should?

I'm curious, where do you come down on this issue Pidgeon?

On whichever side he thinks will rile people up. He's outrageous!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Pidgeon on June 05, 2009, 04:01:26 PM
Use your thinking parts, son.  I don't approve of nuclear power, but the technology exists, people use it, and I don't see why some should be allowed to while others aren't.  

Criminy.

So the number of countries with nuclear power should increase, even though you don't approve of it?

Don't give me that smug BS, you know your opinion has holes in it.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: nec13 on June 05, 2009, 04:02:26 PM
I don't like where this is going. Calm down everyone. We all have a right to our own opinion.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: yesno on June 05, 2009, 04:20:22 PM
I don't think anyone has a right to anything.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: nec13 on June 05, 2009, 04:27:31 PM
Use your thinking parts, son.  I don't approve of nuclear power, but the technology exists, people use it, and I don't see why some should be allowed to while others aren't.  

Criminy.

So the number of countries with nuclear power should increase, even though you don't approve of it?

Don't give me that smug BS, you know your opinion has holes in it.

What's your opinion on the matter, Pidgeon?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 05, 2009, 05:15:28 PM
As my sister commented to me, it was awful nice to hear a president say that Iran has a right to pursue peaceful nuclear power (not that I'm a fan of nuclear power, mind, but why shouldn't Iran have it if others do?) and that the Palestinians were entitled to their own state.  Imagine Reagan saying that!


I strongly disagree with the first point

Hey, I don't think anyone should have nuclear power; I just don't see why Iran can't when we can.

Quote
and mildly disagree with "are entitled to" in the second.

As entitled as the Israelis are, anyway.



I'm more of a realpolitikcian.  It goes along with my Utilitarianism.   If you think that Iran is less than or just equally likely to *use* nuclear power in an offensive weapon as, say, France, then I think you're wrong, but I understand your opinion.  If you're couching global issues in terms of "fairness," we might as well quit discussing this now.


I'm going to leave the Israel-Palestine question alone.  I believe there's just no point in discussing that in this forum, period.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 05, 2009, 05:46:52 PM
Yeah, I can't be bothered, either.

Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: J. Garbage on June 05, 2009, 05:56:00 PM
Yeah, I can't be bothered, either.



Why can't you be bothered when I can be bothered whenever stuff that bothers me starts happening? 

It's not fair.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cutout on June 05, 2009, 06:56:27 PM
Maybe Tom can nuke this thread (from orbit).
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: nec13 on June 05, 2009, 07:04:44 PM
Maybe Tom can nuke this thread (from orbit).

I don't know that I would necessarily be opposed to this.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Martin on June 05, 2009, 07:05:23 PM
I love this thread, keep it going  8)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Pidgeon on June 05, 2009, 08:52:19 PM
Ok ok ok, I apologize for whatever.

I still stand by what I said, but I really am not that educated on the matter. I was just going by common sense.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: fonpr on June 05, 2009, 09:16:35 PM
I laughed when I read that the CIA never told anyone about what meetings Cheney attended regarding torture.

Even though he is no longer in office.


What happened to the records of G.W.'s dad's time in office.


Does Iran/Contra ring a bell for anyone but me?





And Alex Jones?

"The illusion of objectivity made Richard Nixon possible"
(Terrible paraphrase of something H.S. Thompson said a while back.)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 06, 2009, 08:20:05 AM
Yeah, I can't be bothered, either.



Why can't you be bothered when I can be bothered whenever stuff that bothers me starts happening? 

It's not fair.

It'll come, don't worry.  Give it a couple or three decades.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Andy on June 06, 2009, 08:52:00 AM
Yeah, I can't be bothered, either.



Why can't you be bothered when I can be bothered whenever stuff that bothers me starts happening? 

It's not fair.

It'll come, don't worry.  Give it a couple or three decades.
boom. in your face, sonny.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 06, 2009, 09:02:26 AM
I meant no slight.  'Twas merely a reference to the numbing effects of age and infirmity.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: cutout on June 06, 2009, 01:38:33 PM

Whoa, lotta obamabots in here.

So the number of countries with nuclear power should increase, even though you don't approve of it?

Ok ok ok, I apologize for whatever.

I still stand by what I said, but I really am not that educated on the matter.

Are you training for the Moron Olympics or something?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Pidgeon on June 06, 2009, 01:54:29 PM

Whoa, lotta obamabots in here.

So the number of countries with nuclear power should increase, even though you don't approve of it?

Ok ok ok, I apologize for whatever.

I still stand by what I said, but I really am not that educated on the matter.

Are you training for the Moron Olympics or something?

Explain to me exactly how I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on June 07, 2009, 05:29:48 PM
We're missing the real story here.

Poor John Junk 2.0 offed his online self!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 07, 2009, 06:10:29 PM
The question of whether Iran should or should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons is not up for debate. Iran is not our 5 year old son, and we can't take away their XBOX and make it better. Ain't one thing we can do that will change the fact that Iran is getting nuclear weapons. Likewise, the question of what they would do with nuclear weapons is also not a point of logical debate. Nobody knows that, perhaps not even the Iranian leaders.

The question up for discussion is what we can actually do. Whether we should start or participate in a preemptive war with Iran in the hopes that we might possibly be able to destroy their ability to get weapons. Whether you think we can make it to that point and still keep the world from collapsing. I doubt that.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 07, 2009, 06:21:24 PM
The question of whether Iran should or should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons is not up for debate. Iran is not our 5 year old son, and we can't take away their XBOX and make it better. Ain't one thing we can do that will change the fact that Iran is getting nuclear weapons. Likewise, the question of what they would do with nuclear weapons is also not a point of logical debate. Nobody knows that, perhaps not even the Iranian leaders.

The question up for discussion is what we can actually do. Whether we should start or participate in a preemptive war with Iran in the hopes that we might possibly be able to destroy their ability to get weapons. Whether you think we can make it to that point and still keep the world from collapsing. I doubt that.



You're wrong about this.  In Iran, and especially North Korea, the United States' technological advantage (and, honestly, Russia's and China's and, wrt Iran, Israel's) is large enough that air strikes would be more than sufficient.  You may call this a "preemptive war," but this type of thing has been done a lot without open or extended wars breaking out.

What's missing is the will to do it, and the international cooperation needed to prevent rogue states (and, if you find Iran and NK's governments and policies are the moral equivalent of other countries, I believe you are misguided) from successfully acquiring nuclear weapons.

I read a fascinating Gwynn Dyer column the other day that suggested that the reason Russia and the United States don't destroy NK's nuclear capability is that China cannot afford to let its people see a totalitarian government fall.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 10, 2009, 08:26:09 AM
You can say we would be able to precisely pinpoint these sites, but I remain extremely doubtful. For one, military strikes are by no means foolproof. And it would be REALLY bad to miss. Secondly, Iran has had a very long time to prepare for these targets to be struck. Unless they're complete and total morons, they've taken action to ensure their work won't be destroyed by strikes on these facilities. This isn't like the Syrian strike that caught everyone off guard. Third, there's no coming back from that kind of thing. It's an act of war. What, they're going to just shake their fists like Dr. Claw and vow that they'll get us back someday? Pakistan is so close to the brink of chaos, is it any better to see an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lead to instantly seeing an actual weapon fall into the hands of extremists somewhere else?

I don't like or respect the Iranian government. I would be absolutely thrilled to see it overthrown to create an actual Dem. I don't have any illusions about their intentions either. But a military strike without any actual provocation is irresponsible and short-sighted (much like just about all of Israel's foreign policy). If there's no international political will for a strike beforehand, it definitely won't be there afterwards. Even if all parties involved ARE secretly hoping for it, it still won't prevent them from reacting in an extremely hostile manner. From a pragmatic perspective, our best option is to wait for Israel to do this and then immediately join the rest of the world in condemning it.

If you think I'm wrong, what do you think the consequences of a strike would actually be?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 10, 2009, 10:54:05 AM
Honestly?  I think the effect would be similar to the Libyan airstrikes in the 1980s.  That is, people who only understand the language of the playground will respond to playground behavior by acting like prototypical bullies who get their faces smashed in by even bigger kids.   They only behave outside the acceptable behavior of nations because the rest of the world lets them.

Again, I'm not a neocon.  I don't see every issue in the world as a nail waiting for the American hammer.  Preventing nightmare states from achieving nuclear capability is issue #1 on the things that I think should be addressed.



I respect beliefs to the opposite.  What I find a hard time accepting is the concept that somehow Iran has the same "right" to nuclear capability that "the rest of us" do, as though the nations of the world are somehow analagous to the members of a neighborhood association.







* This thread is becoming even more humorless than its moniker implies.  I'm sorry!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: fonpr on June 10, 2009, 11:05:37 AM

I respect beliefs to the opposite.  What I find a hard time accepting is the concept that somehow Iran has the same "right" to nuclear capability that "the rest of us" do, as though the nations of the world are somehow analagous to the members of a neighborhood association.
* This thread is becoming even more humorless than its moniker implies.  I'm sorry!


Buff,

There is only one country that has used nukes on another country.

Hint: It's not located in the Middle East.

FoNPR
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 10, 2009, 04:13:59 PM

I respect beliefs to the opposite.  What I find a hard time accepting is the concept that somehow Iran has the same "right" to nuclear capability that "the rest of us" do, as though the nations of the world are somehow analagous to the members of a neighborhood association.
* This thread is becoming even more humorless than its moniker implies.  I'm sorry!


Buff,

There is one one country that has used nukes on another country.

Hint: It's not located in the Middle East.

FoNPR


"Blame America First" much?  I think you do!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: fonpr on June 10, 2009, 04:19:28 PM
If the Bomb fits.....
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 10, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
Would you rather the first country to have used nuclear weapons be Germany or Russia? It was a decision that showed everyone the consequences of nuclear weapons and ensured that it would be an eternal threat. Someone was going to use them.

But in response to buffcoat, there's a big big distance between where we stood with the world in the 1980s and where we are now. I'm not worried about how Iran will react, I'm worried about how Russia or China will react. If China is looking for an opportunity to assert themselves as a force to be reckoned with (and they are), they'll have it. That being said, we're clearly more on the same page than I had originally thought. I just think Iraq and Bush not only CAUSED the situation with Iran by empowering the extremists, they made it almost impossible for us to get the support we need to militarily take on a third country in the region (fourth if you count Pakistan).
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: fonpr on June 10, 2009, 11:48:35 PM
Would you rather the first country to have used nuclear weapons be Germany or Russia?

Morally and Karmic-wise I would have to say yes.

Same with torture.

Genocide.

It would make feel more comfortable about us being the country deciding which others can have nukes.

Speaking of which Pakistan has got a few of their own.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on June 11, 2009, 06:41:04 AM
Would you rather the first country to have used nuclear weapons be Germany or Russia?

Morally and Karmic-wise I would have to say yes.

Same with torture.

Genocide.

It would make feel more comfortable about us being the country deciding which others can have nukes.

Speaking of which Pakistan has got a few of their own.

Almost daily I pray China will drop one so we don't have to have that empty all-alone feeling anymore.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 12, 2009, 08:59:17 PM
Modern America is not responsible for genocide. You can bring up what this country did to Native Americans if you want, but it has no real impact on who we are as a people for the last fifty years or so.

And torture isn't the same thing. Dick Cheney and his advisors knew what they were doing. We know the methods of torture and what comes of them. They got exactly what they wanted, confessions. The true effects of the bomb and the implications of what was to come were unknown to all. All I'll say about the bomb is that it's really easy to make a moral choice from sixty years in the future.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 12, 2009, 09:03:10 PM
Modern America is not responsible for genocide. You can bring up what this country did to Native Americans if you want, but it has no real impact on who we are as a people for the last fifty years or so.

And torture isn't the same thing. Dick Cheney and his advisors knew what they were doing. We know the methods of torture and what comes of them. They got exactly what they wanted, confessions. All I'll say about the bomb is that it's really easy to make a moral choice from sixty years in the future.


We definitely agree more than we disagree, wwwes.*



* I got that out of a quote at the back of "Commentary" magazine.



Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: fonpr on June 12, 2009, 09:13:42 PM
Native American death rates soar as most people are living longer
Babies die at a rate 44% higher than decade ago


http://www.seattlepi.com/local/403196_tribes12.html


"In 2004, a Civil Rights Commission report found the government spent more on health care per capita for federal prisoners and Medicaid patients than for Native Americans."


The genocide still continues.
WWWES I wish this wasn't so.  
But once you know, you must speak.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: fonpr on June 12, 2009, 11:21:58 PM
I copied this from Grotefaced Killah elsewhere in this forum and thought it belonged here (I highlighted what I found most apropos) so here it is:

In March 2003, Rumsfeld engaged in a little bit of amateur philosophizing about the relationship between the known and the unknown: "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." What he forgot to add was the crucial fourth term: the "unknown knowns," the things we don't know that we know-which is precisely, the Freudian unconscious, the "knowledge which doesn't know itself," as Lacan used to say.

If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the "unknown unknowns," that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns" - the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values.

Thus, Bush was wrong. What we get when we see the photos of humiliated Iraqi prisoners is precisely a direct insight into "American values," into the core of an obscene enjoyment that sustains the American way of life.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 13, 2009, 08:32:52 AM
I like you, Fred.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 13, 2009, 02:04:53 PM
Love "it" or leave "it."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: chrisfoll577 on June 13, 2009, 03:47:39 PM
I'm going to get all like Bob Dole (http://is.gd/111fc) in this piece and say it was a Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#Presidency_1945.E2.80.931953) who dropped the only Atomic Bombs.

Genocide's also at least 2,000 years old. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Punic_War)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 13, 2009, 04:22:53 PM
From what I can tell, the Native American health problem resembles nothing even remotely related to genocide. It's a problem of healthcare, which affects everyone. Perhaps it affects them more strongly, but to claim that it amounts to genocide would be laughable if it wasn't so awful.

And the torture is not an eye into American values, it's an aberration that we didn't know happened. Did you watch Funny Games last week or something? There is a subculture in America that approves of such actions, but it isn't a majority, it's a dying breed. Most people don't know that Dick Cheney's administration directly instructed the use of the techniques we saw at Abu Ghraib. It just doesn't get reported.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Bryan on June 13, 2009, 08:47:57 PM
I admire your optimism, wwwes, but I strongly disagree with your conclusions.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 14, 2009, 12:30:03 AM
Fair enough. Say, has anyone else heard that Tehran is on fire?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: fonpr on June 14, 2009, 12:52:16 AM
From what I can tell, the Native American health problem resembles nothing even remotely related to genocide. It's a problem of healthcare, which affects everyone. Perhaps it affects them more strongly, but to claim that it amounts to genocide would be laughable if it wasn't so awful.


"We" destroyed an entire nation of people and we never have done enough to correct.  Casinos? Bah.

Indian women are raped regularly and no one investigates.

The rapes are perpetrated primarily by men from outside the reservations and they are rarely (if ever) prosecuted.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12203114
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 14, 2009, 01:05:15 AM
I see a whole lot of convincin' goin' on.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 14, 2009, 02:10:01 AM
Genocide would imply killing a race of people. Last I checked, plenty of Native Americans do not live on a reservation (that by definition is not governed by the majority of our laws) and have integrated into society. We do not hunt them down, round them up or allow other people to beat them indiscriminately.

So no, your use of the term genocide to describe our current relationship with Native Americans is not valid.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: fonpr on June 14, 2009, 10:40:23 AM

 We do not hunt them down, round them up or allow other people to beat them indiscriminately.

So no, your use of the term genocide to describe our current relationship with Native Americans is not valid.

You are either misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I am "trying" to get at.

"We" have committed genocide and the legacy is still with us.

And if you had listened to the NPR piece Native American women are being hunted down and beaten/ raped and our government is doing very little about it.


You're beginning to remind of William "Billy" Kristol, "Wes".
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 14, 2009, 02:11:50 PM
I read that story a long time ago, actually. It's an awful situation. It's a humanitarian disaster and an extreme example of the limits of our current system for putting money where it is most needed. It is also indicative of a political atmosphere where saying you want to give millions more to the Bureau of Indian Affairs will be mocked as wasteful spending because it isn't one of the roughly half-dozen things Republicans think you are "allowed" to spend money on.

But this is what genocide means: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." And this ain't that.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: fonpr on June 14, 2009, 02:17:19 PM
This thread is "living" up to its name.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 14, 2009, 02:26:30 PM
I would suggest we "stop," unless anyone has anything "new" to "say."
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 14, 2009, 05:35:46 PM
Somewhat more positive news from Iran. Democracy is not lying down. Twitter (http://tweetgrid.com/grid?l=0&q1=%23iranelection&an=n) is the only news source with anything to learn about it. Which is just... insane. What happens now, Shaq gets a Pulitzer?
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Matt on June 14, 2009, 06:43:18 PM
Somewhat more positive news from Iran. Democracy is not lying down. Twitter ([url]http://tweetgrid.com/grid?l=0&q1=%23iranelection&an=n[/url]) is the only news source with anything to learn about it. Which is just... insane. What happens now, Shaq gets a Pulitzer?


So I finally get my wardrobe schedule for the month all straightened out, and we're suddenly supposed to wear green tomorrow? No dice, Iran. No dice.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: orator on June 14, 2009, 08:14:49 PM
 It's weird and sad that I've been getting updates about the Iranian riots and election from Twitter last night and this morning instead of from the US media because of how shit it is. Instead, every time I checked CNN or MSNBC there would be Sarah Palin or some bullshit about Bono's relative getting a sex-change.

 And it's not really a testament to how great Twitter is, it was just the only thing that the Iranian government was having trouble blocking.

here are some pics from the riots:

http://twitpic.com/photos/madyar

don't look if you're squeamish with blood and a possible dead student

it's turning more and more violent



 One thing that restores a bit of my faith in humanity was the two instances I've seen of rioters catching a policeman, him being beaten by some with rocks or whatever, and then other rioters shielding the policemen with their own bodies and taking them to safety.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on June 14, 2009, 09:03:58 PM
Bono has never been the same since he ran into that tree.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on June 14, 2009, 09:25:17 PM
It's weird and sad that I've been getting updates about the Iranian riots and election from Twitter last night and this morning instead of from the US media because of how shit it is. Instead, every time I checked CNN or MSNBC there would be Sarah Palin or some bullshit about Bono's relative getting a sex-change.

 And it's not really a testament to how great Twitter is, it was just the only thing that the Iranian government was having trouble blocking.

here are some pics from the riots:

[url]http://twitpic.com/photos/madyar[/url]

don't look if you're squeamish with blood and a possible dead student

it's turning more and more violent



 One thing that restores a bit of my faith in humanity was the two instances I've seen of rioters catching a policeman, him being beaten by some with rocks or whatever, and then other rioters shielding the policemen with their own bodies and taking them to safety.


Where they are hung by their achilles tendons from acid-soaked electrified meat hooks.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: orator on June 14, 2009, 09:30:36 PM
lol

or something
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 14, 2009, 11:52:18 PM
Reports of police riding around on motorcycles and beating people with chains. Tom should have stopped the Gorch when he had the chance.

On a less humorous note, I would be greatly appreciative of our President if he were at least to wear a green tie tomorrow. Or if he thinks he can't, maybe Michelle could do it for him. Frankly, both branches of government should be dressed like leprechauns tomorrow.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Fido on June 15, 2009, 12:13:12 AM
Reports of police riding around on motorcycles and beating people with chains. Tom should have stopped the Gorch when he had the chance.

On a less humorous note, I would be greatly appreciative of our President if he were at least to wear a green tie tomorrow. Or if he thinks he can't, maybe Michelle could do it for him. Frankly, both branches of government should be dressed like leprechauns tomorrow.

Humor has no place in this thread, citizen.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 15, 2009, 07:02:09 AM
<blockquote>And it's not really a testament to how great Twitter is, it was just the only thing that the Iranian government was having trouble blocking.</blockquote>
Actually, that IS a testament to how great Twitter is. The reason they cannot block it is because it is open for use by just about any hardware and any software. There are literally infinite ways one can update their account because all you have to send is 140 characters of text, so any past, present or future technologies that can access a data connection in any way could get a version of a Tweet system. Even the BBS system that existed before the world wide web could handle a site like Twitter.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: orator on June 15, 2009, 04:18:12 PM
actually, the government finally succeeded in blocking twitter during that night

the ones who had used it up till then found glacial slow proxies and used tor servers

 After thinking about it, though, you're right. I was getting my hatred of how 99.999999% of people use Twitter in the way of just looking at it like a tool.


edit: also, the rally is inspiring:

(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201157114ecdd970b-800wi)

 Is that a prosthetic leg crowd surfing in the center right of the pic?

 and people gathering

(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/1619/12542532a1e0b17f35ba2fb.jpg)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: orator on June 15, 2009, 05:10:15 PM
better pic of it:

http://twitpic.com/7h3r5/full

 a BBC reporter supposedly said it's in the millions instead of thousands
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: orator on June 15, 2009, 05:38:03 PM
and CNN just showed a picture of a dead protester who was shot in the head

christ
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Me! on June 16, 2009, 12:41:31 AM
Yeah, that election wasn't rigged or anything.   ::)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: orator on June 16, 2009, 05:04:35 AM
lots of pics

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Sarah on June 16, 2009, 08:17:02 AM
Is that a prosthetic leg crowd surfing in the center right of the pic?

It's one of the facts of life that prosthetic legs know how to have fun.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: wwwes on June 19, 2009, 07:35:48 PM
No words for this: (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/before-the-battle.html)
Quote
"I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I'm listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It's worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I'm two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow's children..."


Meanwhile, in Williamsburg, a group of young people are gathering to do an 8-ball in a public park.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Matt on June 20, 2009, 12:24:15 AM
No words for this: ([url]http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/before-the-battle.html[/url])
Quote
"I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I'm listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It's worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I'm two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow's children..."


Meanwhile, in Williamsburg, a group of young people are gathering to do an 8-ball in a public park.


Which, let's be fair, isn't without its own set of sacrifices. I mean, 8-balls are expensive. And they could get caught!
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: Spoony on June 20, 2009, 12:46:42 AM
I had a teacher berate our class for not doing enough to keep Bush from getting elected for Round 2. I think I said something smart-assed like "what, and risk getting arrested and missing this class?"

I thought that guy was an asshole, but after looking at these pictures of Iranian protests, I'm feeling pretty stupid.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: orator on June 20, 2009, 01:59:56 AM
An Iranian girl talking over the rooftop chanting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZfmYq7O0WU
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: dave from knoxville on August 01, 2009, 08:56:01 AM
The puppeteers have spoken

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/media/01feud.html?_r=1&hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/media/01feud.html?_r=1&hp)
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: buffcoat on August 01, 2009, 11:37:56 AM
No words for this: ([url]http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/before-the-battle.html[/url])
Quote
"I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I'm listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It's worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I'm two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow's children..."


Meanwhile, in Williamsburg, a group of young people are gathering to do an 8-ball in a public park.


Which, let's be fair, isn't without its own set of sacrifices. I mean, 8-balls are expensive. And they could get caught!



I remember when an eight ball was 1) a pool ball 2) a crappy mid-70s novelty fortune teller and 3) a bottle of a specific malt liquor.

The times they are a-changin'.  Back.
Title: Re: Humorless Politics Thread
Post by: