Your Election May Last more than 4 Hours

[Coondog]

"You can fool some of the people all of the time....."

Yes! It's unfortunate that so many people are willing to exert so much effort to mislead
others into believing almost any malicious lie.....and even more unfortunate that so many are
prone to believing it. It's gotten so everything you read has to be checked on snopes.com
for verasity.

Speaking of which, a quick search of the snopes site reveals a number of the sort of items
you were refering to. There may be some insight gained from the number and focus of those
items. The search revealed a total of 24 'legends' of varying mendacity concerning Obama -
15 of which were false, 2 true, 5 of 'multiple truth values' and 2 undetermined. McCain's
list was significantly shorter; 4 citations - 3 true, 1 undetermined.

A recent poll, I feel, may give some insight into why a substantially larger volume of falsehoods
tend to target the democrat:

One-quarter of all registered voters say Obama lacks patriotism, according to the poll.
That breaks down to 10 percent of Democrats, 29 percent of independents and 40 percent
of Republicans who say Obama lacks patriotism. But it's likely the issue will not have a
significant impact this fall.
"Strategically speaking, the question is not how many people consider Obama unpatriotic,
it's how many people consider Obama unpatriotic who would have voted for him otherwise,
" Holland said "Most of the respondents who think Obama is unpatriotic are Republicans.
That indicates that Obama may not have lost a lot of votes -- so far -- on this matter."
McCain, a former Navy pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam, is viewed as being patriotic
by 90 percent of all registered voters. The poll, conducted June 26-29, surveyed 906
registered voters and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Now, clearly, anyone who seriously questions the patriotism of a presidential candidate has to be
either grossly misinformed or missing a screw or two. Interestingly, the 25% of all registered voters
who question Obama's patriotism is the same percentage who think Bush is doing a good job. More
to the point, republicans appear to be overwhelmingly more suceptible to erroneous hogwash than
either democrats or independents. The 10% who question McCain's patriotism are frighteningly
nieve (probably democrats - although I'd have thought there would be more of them).

The saddest part of this scenario is that.......it works! And that is a sorry reflection on the intellect
of the American Voter.

Coondog

I know you missed me!

[Wise One]

Well, as I live and breathe. Welcome back, Coondog ... you were indeed missed. Your first posting in this new era is so on-point, and lucid, that I've moved my stuff below from another Forum section to here.

I just returned from a super vacation and see that I have a mountain of grumblings to tilt at elsewhere on this Forum, which I'll do when I have time.

Meanwhile, this letter in the News-Gazette is a shining example of what we should aspire to in our postings, standing in stark contrast to some of the barbs that have been aimed in my direction!

I applaud Elinor Wright’s letter asking for a more thorough investigation of our presidential candidates. I write to ask that we, in addition, exhibit critical judgment and sound reason in the evaluation of such investigations. The job of our president, after all, is to support and defend the Constitution. A debate on presidential candidates should evince no less a goal.

If we would know a candidate, we need know his or her public accomplishments and failures, the views he or she currently professes, and the vision he or she offers for the future. To evaluate these, we need ask two questions: Is he or she telling the truth as he or she knows it? And, do his or her views align with the facts as they are known?

The first concerns the character of the candidate. The second concerns the soundness of his or her views and the extent to which those views correspond to reality. A candidate may score high on each count and yet we may still disagree with the policies he oe she promotes. Public issues are complex and potential solutions varied.

In Ms. Wright’s letter we find neither reasons to question Sen. Obama’s or Sen. Clinton’s character nor reasons to prefer Sen. McCain’s views over the views of either. Rather, by innuendo it propagates three fallacies fatal to sound civil debate and contrary to principles laid down in our Constitution.

Guilt By Accusation
We are innocent until proven guilty, says the Constitution. And we are not proven guilty until tried, nor tried until indicted, nor indicted until a prosecutor convinces a grand jury of probable guilt. To say that a prosecutor “considered indicting” Sen. Clinton is to say the prosecutor considered there to be insufficient evidence to convince a grand jury of guilt. This should — to a reasonable person adherent to our Constitution — point towards probable innocence. A view to the contrary is irrational, contrary to law, and detrimental to civil discourse.

Guilt By Association
“We are known by the friends we keep.” Perhaps, but certainly not by the people we meet. Just as our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, it assures freedom of association. Guilt by association often accompanies guilt by accusation; together they are hallmark of the witch hunt. If we call into question one’s fitness for office by virtue of books read, individuals met, or homes visited, we hunt witches and deny our most precious Constitutional freedom.

Ad Hominum Fallacy
Questions of character are important, but only in so far as they address a candidate’s veracity, and commitment to defense of the Constitution. Whether or not the candidate kicks his dog is irrelevant. A candidate may kick his dog and still have sound views on, say, health care. Conversely, a candidate of impeccable character may be dangerously deluded on any number of issues.

A Debate On The Issues
Rational discourse and freedom of thought are at the root of this republic. This is the view of the Founders — both those of the left like Jefferson, and those of the right like Adams. If we fail to tend this root, our republic withers. And so does our public discourse.

Let us celebrate our hard earned freedom of thought and of association. Let us decry fallacies of guilt by association or accusation. Let us shun innuendo and witch hunts. Let us be citizens worthy of our founders and our Constitution. Let us debate the issues.

[Coondog]

You'll probably not hear me making an abundance of positive comments about either presumptive
candidate. I dont believe anything anyone says about much of anything. Any time I hear one of
them say they will "make sure" of something, I can be fairly certain they won't.

The surrogate sector has been most entertaining, though. Phil Gramm is 'whining' about being
misunderstood. Jesse Jackson appears to have gone.........'nuts'! McCain himself can't 'keep up'
with his opinion on Viagra without checking back on his voting record. Meanwhile, Obama is
'courting' women in Virginia (ain't that what got Clinton in trouble?)

I'm still not counting Hillary out!

On a personal note........I been gone because I got caught by Animal Control. No tag! Got thrown
in the Pound. Rescued by a nice fellow named Vick. Got turned loose when he found out that
Coondog is a lover....not a fighter! Such is life!

Coondog

[Wise One]

[Coondog]

I watched Bush's Press Conference today!

Why? I wanted to look into his eyes. See his soul, as it were. As it turned out, there is more
evident soul in the eye of a potato. Yet, I was struck with one comment on the economy.

When questioned whether he would suggest measures to deal with the current economic situation,
specifically the cost of gas, he said that the American public is smart....knows when to conserve...
...like when their wallets dictate it. Clearly the concept of leadership has completely escaped this poor man.

But it serves to illustrate that, as long as this administration, or any remnants thereof, remain in control
...............we are completely on our own!

His answer to so many issues is - Blame it on the democrats in congress for not coming up with
viable legislation to fix the terrible mess he's gotten us into, while threatening a veto of anything that
doesn't maintain his status quo. The squandered prosperity, the shameful waste of our resources to
cockeyed ideological theories, the deminishment of our influence and reputation throughout the globe,
the lack of a workable energy policy, falling income, falling stock, failing banks, crabgrass, the horror
............all someone else's fault for not taking the initiative.

But wait, we did get tax cuts for the filthy rich. That was his own initiative. Uh.....how has that worked out?
Apparently, the results have been so overwhelmingly positive, we should make them permanent.

How could a supposedly enlightened, technologically superior, ideologically unparalleled populace have ever
elected this guy.....twice? Frankly, I'm embarassed!

Coondog

[Coondog]

Unfortunately, the restaurant owner needed to raise prices in order to afford the accelerated
mortgage payment on his 3 year ARM. Because he cut the price, he went out of business and
all eleven of them eventually starved to death. The abandoned restaurant fell down because
the poor people who used to maintain it died. The Mortgage Company went bankrupt. The
Chinese took over and built a rickshaw factory.

I can make up even stupider stuff.

Coondog

[fangz1956]

Things I learned today about democracy

[Uji]

Thanks for the interesting essay. The question I have is,what do we get from this sort of thinking besides paranoia? So "real" progressives are victims, too. Great, we all have the satisfaction of being a mis-understood minority.

Why waste time railing against this sort of stuff? Sure, the Dems in power are as paranoid about maintaining their power as were the GOPs when they had it. So, what do we do about it? That's the question. That article seems (IMHO) to just wallow in self-satisfaction at being misused and misunderstood.

What it fails to acknowledge is the lesson all progessives should have learned during the Bush years: If you let the ideal become enemy of the possible, you end up with Dick Cheney.

We gotta work with what we got. So, though I recognize the truth of what this guy says, I just want to grab him by the scruff of neck and say, "Stop whining. Get out there and do something!" But he probably is. I just wish he'd suggest some positive direction for action.

[fangz1956]

We gotta work with what we got. So, though I recognize the truth of what this guy says, I just want to grab him by the scruff of neck and say, "Stop whining. Get out there and do something!" But he probably is. I just wish he'd suggest some positive direction for action.

Excellent thought and suggestion. Since I subscribe to the newsletter in which this essay was contained, and said newsletter contains a link to Mr. Greenwald's e-mail, I'll drop him a line and pose that very question. I'll come back and post whatever reply or suggestions come about as a result of that inquiry.

[resigned]

From the Center for Responsive Politics which is a non partisian center have said that the collapse of Lehman Brothers is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two huge mortgage banks just received a federal bailout within the past several weeks. It’s interesting to note that in order to keep regulators from creating problems for them they used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions.

The Center for Responsive Politics has kept track of which politicians have received Fannie and Freddie political contributions. Get this, the top three US senators getting big Fannie and Freddie kick backs were Democraps and No. 1 is Senator Barack Obama. How did he get this special treatment after being in the Senate for only four years. He took around $165,000. He is even ahead of John Kerry and Chris Dodd who by the way is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Yet Obama can attack McCain for all the financial problems in the country and he has been taking money and lots of money from Fannie and Freedie. He also attacks McCain for toddying up to the lobists and McCain only received $20,000 over a period of 20 years. He was 24 on the list. Check it out for yourselves.

On another subject I have a real problem with the sex education bill in Illinois that Obama voted to put in schools which included subjects that should be taught in higher level education rather than in the lower grades. John McCain's add on this subject is correct. And the major newspapers that have made statements that McCain is incorrect have failed to read the bill.

Now what is going on with Charlie Wrangle. That’s another story I guess.

[fangz1956]

Patrick Wood writes in August Review:

If you follow financial news, you will have noticed that Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke are appearing together in public on a continual basis these days– joint testimony before the Congress, joint press conferences, meetings at the White House, etc.

Headlines like these have been hot and heavy: “Paulson, Bernanke call on Congress to act”, “Bernanke, Paulson Push for New Regulatory Powers”, “Paulson, Bernanke Say Housing Woes May Last”, and “Paulson Meets with Bernanke, Fannie, Freddie Chiefs”.

Interesting. It never used to be this way.

On March 31, 2008, Paulson quietly released a 200 page document titled, “Blueprint for a Modernized Regulatory Structure,” that he and Bernanke are now actively pushing Congress to adopt. It basically calls for the complete restructuring of U.S. markets and their regulatory structures to meet new “global standards”. After all, our regulatory bodies have been created over the last 75 years and are not compatible with today’s financial challenges.

In addition, the Blueprint calls for much more self-regulation by the banking/securities industry itself. The very people who brought us this financial chaos in the first place, want us to let them do whatever is in their self-perceived best interest to protect and increase their profits.

Meanwhile, Paulson recently demanded and received from Congress a blank check for the bailout of Fannie and Freddie. The alternative, he boldly claimed, was the further meltdown of the U.S. housing market and likely destruction of the economy.

Does this appear like a bankruptcy proceeding?

The banker and the CFO (Paulson) make autocratic decisions
The bankrupt company gets reorganized
New capital or financing is secured to pay off creditors
If this is even remotely close to the mark, then we can expect to see more bold ultimatums and actions by both Bernanke and Paulson. We can also expect that those who are getting protection for their investments are the global banks and investment houses, not the American people.

The Implications

U.S. citizens are getting hosed while banks, brokerages, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, wealthy investors, etc., are saved from trillions of dollars in well-deserved losses.

By assuming the debts of Fannie and Freddie, the national debt virtually doubles overnight. Even worse, the government risks a downgrade to our existing debt, potentially pushing borrowing costs up by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

Americans can and should demand that Congress let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail like any other grossly mismanaged company. And in the process, they ought to investigate their senior management for malfeasance and cooking the books to cover it up.

Let the free market provide new lenders who perhaps won’t be so greedy and ill-principled.

If a few more commercial or investment banks succumb in the process because of such action, let it serve as a warning to those survivors that they had better shape up or risk losing everything.

If there are any more ultimatums delivered, it should be us telling them to “Get out!” “Hit the road!” “Don’t come back!”

Allowing Bernanke and Paulson to administrate our financial crisis is like giving an ax and frying pan to the foxes who were left in charge of the hen house.

Hmmm..........last time I checked, the foxes in charge of the hen house are BUSH appointees. Yep....they had to be confirmed by Congress but it was a done deal and I think that those confirmation hearings were purely for public show.
Who's running us into the ground? The two idiots in charge of that private central bank known as the Federal Reserve!!!

[Uji]

Right on, Fangz. Again!

I'd just add, that I don't think it's the Federal Reserve that's the problem; it's just a symptom. 30 years of laisez-faire deregulation is what has created this mess. (Whether you read Bad Money by a Republican Strategist, The Trillion-Dollar Meltdown by a "non-partisan" financier, or Soros's new left-of-center book on the economy -- they all agree on this point.) Bush's 8 years of irresponsible economic management has simply driven a stake through the heart of a already dying monster.

So what does this tell us about the presidential candidates?

Two-years ago Obama introduced a Senate bill requiring tighter oversight/regulation of the mortgage industry; John McCain and the rest of the senate didn't let it see the light of day. Six months ago Obama published a detailed economic plan for an Obama administration: it highlighted more oversight and regulation of financial instruments. Today, Obama, quite rightly was able to say: Not only did I tell you so, I tried to do something about it.

John McCain not only did nothing to prevent this disaster, he has frequently, publicly, and consistently declared that he is for less regulation of financial markets -- that very philosophy that is at the route of the problem. McCain just yesterday (15 September 2008) as the stock market plummeted 300 points, declared that "the fundamentals of the economy are still sound" -- the mantra he's parroted for the last year. (It's been the same line Bush has been using.) Today, though, he's of a different mind. And on what grounds would anyone believe that McCain has actually changed his mind about the economy? He has, consistently held the same, anything-goes view of the economy for the last 30 years, supporting the Republican (top 1/2%) trickle-down theory since he went to Washington. Now, today(16 September 2008 !!!!), he's changed his mind? Yet he still offers no detailed or even coherent plan about the economy -- certainly nothing comparable to what Obama has offered in the public domain.

Remember, as of his 2000 campaign, McCain was publicly pro-choice; now he's all for the rights of the "unborn." In 2002 he publicly stated that he thought that the invasion of Iraq would be unproblematic and quick; today he claims to have known from the beginning that it would be hard and arduous. He's the man that declared that Hilary's health-care proposals was "pig with lipstick" and now considers that metaphor deeply offensive to his essentially feminist sensibilities. He was against the Bush tax-cuts, and now he's for them -- or was he for them and now against them... Does anyone really know? And there's Palin's demonstrably false claim that she opposed the famous bridge... Another case of being for it before she was against it?

Isn't this what you Reps used to call flip-flopping? Not flip-flopping this time? And that's because...?

[resigned]

Stretching with Biden

[Uji]

Thanks for that Beckonwood -- and for the Rev.Wright article on the other link. Looks like Biden has been over the top and the Rev. Wright was often beyond the Pale.

I'd like to suggest a common-sense distinction between a candidate (Biden) who exaggerates and one who lies (Palin). To say that McCain thought something "too generous" when he (McCain) did in fact offer something less (just didn't use those words when he did it), is one thing. To lie, as does Palin, by saying that she opposed the bridge, is another.

To stand by and listen to extremist views and then, under the pressure of public scrutiny, to reject them (Obama/Wright) is a far cry from supporting extremist views for 30 years (McCain support of financial de-regulation) and then declaring that he was for regulation all along -- just good regulation.

Do you think that an unfair comparison? I ask you: Which has done more harm to our country, Obama's passive attitude towards Wright's Rants, or John McCain political attitude towards the economy?

No matter what you might think about Obama's secret thoughts, the fact is that he never publicly (nor privately, as far as we know) agreed with -- much less promoted Rev. Wright's ideas. McCain, on the other hand, has actively supported and promoted the very ideas on the economy ("I'm always for deregulation," he told the WSJ), the war ('Iraq will be a relatively easy, brief operation" - 2002 - video on YouTube) that have created the disaster we are in today.

Both are flawed individuals. They appear almost human. So our job, as voters, has to be more than just pointing out their failings. We have to judge which flaws we can live with, and which might be dangerous to the country.

[Wise One]

Thanks, Uji ... here's an even scarier McCain video.

(Knowing the facts, I am astounded that anybody would consider voting for McCain/Palin clowns. But as Jonathan Haidt explains, there seem be two mental models of our human universe - orthogonal to each other so that communication is very difficult.)

[youtube]PdJUCU1UH2w[/youtube]

[Coondog]

OK! I'm scared now!

There are those who speak and act out of fear. Fear of terrorists. Fear of Communists. Fear of Liberals. Their affliction, in compensation, leads to tough talk and agressive behavior.....like a cornered raccoon or a startled cocatoo. Likely, they would see this film in a different light....as reinforcement of their fears, beliefs and attitudes. Likely they would put someone like themselves in authority. Someone equally hawkish who would not be the least bit sheepish about lashing out before considering the results or consequenses. Someone like Bush. Dick Cheney. John McCain. Sarah God Help Us Palin. Pitbulls with A-bombs! Porcupines with Lipstick! Loudmouths with the temperment of Godzilla and the brains of a newt. There are a lot of animals involved here.

But, that's a frightening video with some very scarry cats in it! They do scare me! I want to vote for Scott Ritter! He seems like he's got some horse sense!

Coondog

Oh, yeah...........and spiders! Spiders give me the willies!

[fangz1956]

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/18/l ... epublicans

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/18/h ... recedented

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158392

Hmmm......what was that I said elsewhere about the KKK being alive and well? Seems that Jim Crow might be, too.

Are the Republicans trying to turn the clock all the way back? Who will they try to exclude from the polls next? Women? Gays? People whose last name ends with the letters I or Z?

[Wise One]

It is easy to understand this. Republicans are exactly the same as the Dixiecrats of two generations ago, in fact they are the same people, those who bolted the Democratic Party in the South when it finally rejected racism as a basis for its policies.

Republicans will do anything (that doesn't get them arrested) to limit the size of the electorate, under a maniacal belief that a proper electorate consists only of rich, white, landowners. (If it were not now against the law, they'd include blacks, Jews , foreign-born and females from voting.)

In every election you will see Republican operatives sally forth with evil schemes to limit and exclude from voting the poor, the homeless, those of foreign ancestry, and those in difficulties of nearly any kind.

The poll tax was the Dixiecrat's favorite mechanism for doing this. Since that is now unconstitutional, Republicans invent new schemes every year to accomplish the same purpose. For example, burdensome "Voter ID" laws are just the same thing, dressed up to serve a "purpose" that solves a fictional problem.

One man, one vote... so long as you look and vote exactly like me.

[Uji]

I'm afraid I got one of those phone-line connections. (Remember modems?) And I can't download YouTube videos without tying up my line for 3-4 hours.

Anyone give me a summary of the above McCain video?

[Wise One]

It's an artfully edited montage of clips from the Bush/Cheney era, with John McCain's reinforcing echoes and extrapolations toward even more extreme positions. Nice quotes by Scott Ritter, too.

We really need to solve this high-speed internet access problem for people living in Rockbridge County.

Wait. Maybe we should just go with the flow. Let's also ban those living in the more remote parts of the County from using other essential infrastructure, like the interstate highways, electric power, etc.

Yeah, that's the ticket.