Page 5 of 8

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Aug 07 20:42
by Uji
Thanks 10thFO. I tend to hyperbole anyway. A vice I'm trying to give up.

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Aug 09 18:15
by fangz1956
Obsidian Wings wrote:Tire Gauges by hilzoy

It's hard to convey how depressing it is to return from ten days away and find that the Big Story in politics involves tire gauges. So let's march through the facts. Obama said this a few days ago:

"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy. Making sure your tires are properly inflated -- simple thing -- but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much."

To which McCain replied:

"“He suggested we put air in our tires to save on gas,” Mr. McCain said. “My friends, let’s do that, but do you think that’s enough to break our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? I don’t think so."

I don't think inflating your tires is enough to break our dependence on Middle Eastern oil either. And if Obama had said that it was, I'd be right out there criticizing him. But that's not what he said at all. Likewise, if inflating tires was in fact the whole of Obama's Energy Plan, he'd be nuts. But it isn't, any more than it's true that "Senator Obama's solution to high gas prices is telling Americans to make sure their tires are inflated." And saying that Obama "thinks we can inflate our way out of [a supply crisis]", or that "properly inflated tires will almost completely solve our automobile energy crisis", does not make it so.

So: is it true that we can save as much oil by inflating our tires and getting regular tuneups as "they're talking about getting off drilling"? Yes. I assume that Obama is comparing the oil saved by inflating tires and getting tuneups to the amount of oil we could get by drilling offshore in currently restricted areas. I haven't been able to find a transcript or a video of the context of his remarks (if anyone can find one, let me know), but it seems logical to assume that the "they" who are "talking about getting" oil from drilling are the McCain campaign, and that Obama is referring to the proposal McCain has been hammering at every opportunity.

ABC's Jake Tapper has consulted the Director of CSIS, who estimates that inflating tires and getting tuneups could save around 800,000 barrels of oil a day. For some reason, he compares this to current output from offshore drilling, not to the projected gains from lifting restrictions on offshore drilling. Luckily, the government's Energy Information Administration has estimates on the effects of lifting those restrictions: it would raise domestic oil production by 1.6% over the years 2012-2030, and by 3% in 2030. Doing the math using their figures, the highest level of additional oil that lifting offshore drilling would produce would be a little over 200,000 barrels per day (in 2025-2028.)

Last time I checked, 800,000 was greater than 200,000. Moreover, we could achieve those gains now, while lifting the limits on offshore drilling wouldn't produce any new oil for a decade.

McCain could not have made an issue out of this without misrepresenting Obama's position and saying that he thinks that inflating your tires, all by itself, will solve the problem of high gas prices, or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Had he stuck to what Obama said, he would have been in the ludicrous position of criticizing a pretty anodyne suggestion about energy conservation, and one that all sorts of people besides Obama have made. So he chose to lie.

When politicians lie about what their opponents say, they degrade our democracy and disrespect voters. If they were to represent their opponents accurately -- if we knew that while they might not present all the arguments in favor of their opponents' positions, they would not lie about them -- then we could simply listen to both candidates and make up our minds on the merits. A candidate who lies about his opponent's position is not willing to let us do that. Instead, he puts us in the position of having to go prowling around on the web if we want to have any idea whether or not what he says is true.

When the McCain campaign says that "Senator Obama's solution to high gas prices is telling Americans to make sure their tires are inflated", and when McCain himself suggests that Obama thinks that inflating tires is "enough to break our dependence on Middle Eastern oil", it's as though they were saying: we are going to adopt a strategy that will force you, the voters, to spend hours of your lives checking each and every one of our statements for accuracy. We have no respect for the value of your time. Nor do we respect your intellect or your civic engagement: if we did, we wouldn't adopt a strategy that can only work if voters are too apathetic to notice that what we're saying is false. If you don't like it -- if you have better things to do with your lives than to fact-check our every utterance -- then that's just too bad.

It's a curious strategy for someone who claims to put country first, and to care about honor.


Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Aug 12 12:27
by Uji
Yeah, Fangz, why the great animus towards Obama? I don't get it.

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Aug 12 14:46
by fangz1956
After much reading and research of ALL of the candidates during the primaries, Obama doesn't fit the bill for me and my beliefs as to what this country needs. The one person I dislike more is McCain. As you don't really know me, I have never tended to vote by party lines and more often than not, vote Libertarian. None of the candidates, Obama included, strike me as Constitutionalists. I think he proved that when he voted for the new FISA legislation.

My father taught me many years ago to vote for the man and not for the party.......and that is what I do. This is the first year in many, many years of voting that I ever considered voting Republican and actually did during the primary when I cast my vote for Ron Paul. To some degree, my father must have been rolling over in his grave when I did that. I was raised in a blue-collar, labor union family and I carry much of those lessons and ideals with me today. Neither of the major party candidates fits those ideals and principles.

I posted the above article because it highlights the absurd goofiness and stupidity of wasn't put there to make Obama look good, that's for dang sure. McCain is so very far out of touch and Obama strikes me as arrogantly superior to the working class. Even though the masses are jumping on his bandwagon of "CHANGE", I do not believe he will do anything in long run except maintain the status quo and it will be politics as usual. Therefore, once again this election season, my vote will go to a third party candidate.......even if that means a write-in vote. it's time for all of this strategic "game playing" to cease and desist. It is time we got back to basics when the voice of the people is truly heard and not over-ridden by conventions and the Electoral College (which needs to scrapped, IMHO). That is the ONLY way real change will ever come about in this country......................unity of the people, for the people.


Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Aug 13 10:38
by Uji
Thanks for that, Fangz. I at least feel like I know where you are coming from.

But I still don't understand why you would never consider voting for Obama--the way that you suggest that you just might hold your nose and vote for McCain.

Look at Obama's recent issue-statement on the economy.
( ... nnel=10112)

Here, for the first time, is someone who has offered a real action-plan for this messed up special-interest driven economy. If you read anything serious about what has happend to this economy (GOP's Kevin Phillip's Bad Money, or Dem's Soros's new book (can't remember the name), or a non-partisan The Trillion-Dollar Meltdown), they all say the same thing: This has been an unregulated, gun-fight-at-the-OK-Coral, unprincipaled, insane, binge by a bunch of money-hungry investment wonks, all made possible by Reagonomics and the de-regulation of everything. Created the perfect environment for the giant Ponzi scheme that is now busting.

The blue-collar voters have voted GOP for the last 10-15 years and what has it gotten them? This is the first recovery (1990s) in recorded history where the middle-class ended it worse than they started. All of the gains went to that top 1 percent. The next recovery (if it every comes) will leave them back in the under-class.

Obama's vote for FISA is regrettable. If the courts won't uphold civil-rights, then it is up to the legislature to pass laws that require them to. But if that is evidence of Obama's disregard for the Constitution, I would say that his vote against authorizing the war is much stronger evidence for his courageous support of it.

Not the thread to go into Libertarian ideology, but I wonder how you square voting Libertarian (who would do away with all social safety-net programs, all government interference in private affairs) with those great New Deal programs and federally-funded social safety nets that have pulled the blue-collar into the middle-class?

PS -- 10thFO I'm way beyond your 34 cut-off age, and I don't have the faintest idea what Middle-Eastern history you are talking about -- the one that makes sense of our invasion of Iraq.

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Aug 13 11:28
by fangz1956
I fail to understand why a large segment of the blue collar world continues to vote Republican. The Reps can talk a good game but giving them vote is akin to slashing your own throat if you happen to be blue collar. And, it is with a resounding NO!! that I say I will not hold my nose and vote for McCain. At this point in time, I am not overly thrilled with the Libertarians choice for a candidate in this race but I haven't had enough time to thoroughly research the guy yet. If I absolutely had to vote today, I would be writing in the name of Ron Paul. Yes, I know he is a Republican....and from Texas, no less. But, the man is a strict Constitutionalist. We have too many things in place that the Founding Fathers warned us against, not the least of which is a Central Bank known as the Federal Reserve.

Just a brief note on Libertarian ideals: Much of what the Feds have their fingers needs to be turned over to the states and localities. History also points us in the direction of abolishing the IRS since there is documented proof that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified by Congress.....and this law was never meant to tax income to begin with, only capital gains. With a change such as that, we might just see the "need" for government hand-out programs disappear. I don't know that I agree with your view that the blue collar segment has been pulled to the middle class thanks to the Feds. Labor unions went a long way in vastly improving the life of the blue collar worker without the aid of government programs. OK.......enough of that for now. It might be best to carry on this discussion in a new or different thread.


Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Aug 13 17:34
by Uji
Thanks for that Fangz.

Yeah, it would be nice to vote for someone we really are enthusiastic about, rather than select from the pair offered us by the Dems and Reps. But does that really make sense? I mean, in everything else in our life, it's a compromise. I wish they had barnyard chickens in the states -- the sort you can get in a lot of European countries -- that actually have some taste. But you can't; so your buy Purdue, become a vegetarian, or raise your own. I wish I could afford a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon, but I can't -- so I compromise by figuring I'm doing more for the environment by driving my clunker into the ground rather than buy a new one.

Life's a compromise; and every compromise is, in part anyway, a rationalization. Why should politics be any different? That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to make it better. But I don't see the in point making perfection the enemy of improvement.

I don't think people vote straight Rep or Dem because they don't have another choice; I think they do it because it's easier. You don't have to think about it -- I'm red and they're blue, and that's the end of it. But when the choice is between red or blue, I don't think this lets thoughtful people off of having to make the decision, even if it is between the lesser of two evils. My vote for Nader in 2000 was really just a punt; a way of staying "pure" -- not dirtyng myself with a real choice. Because Nader wasn't really a choice -- that, I think, was the illusion.

But, as you say, it's our own selves we gotta live with -- and sometimes it's probably better to have the satisfaction of making a statement than actually having an influence on the outcome. For me, that doesn't hold true any more. Perhaps I'm just getting old.

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 06 07:00
by fangz1956
This is just too good not to share. From funny man Bill Maher writing at Salon:

Bill Maher at wrote: Republicans, stop calling Obama elitist

:laugho: :laugho: :laugho: :laugho:

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 06 07:40
by resigned

Virginia is Important

Posted: 2008 Sep 23 01:42
by Wise One
Virginia will be very important to this election. It has been dependably racist Dixiecrat or ultraconservative Republican for about a hundred years, with only temporary deviations.

This time around, Virginia is crucial, could go either way, and so our votes and our actions have real leverage. That is why I just did something that I almost never do -- send money to a presidential candidate. Barack Obama offers the best promise of helping turn us from a course that will surely destroy America. I hope my meager dollars will help to rebut the mounting attacks, slurs and distractions that the Republican lie machine is churning out.

Sadly, broad and persistent racism in Virginia, often camouflaged, may be the small but significant margin that will defeat Obama. I'm working with my friends, colleagues and organizations to prevail over bigotry, and urge you to vote for Obama/Biden. Their policies, record, education, and people are better than available alternatives.

The chickens are coming home to roost, big-time, from 8 years of Republican looting, incompetence and destruction. McCain/Palin offer only the certainty of more of the same, or worse. They opposed necessary regulations, allowing banks & corporations to loot the public. New schemes would give a single Republican sole power, without appeal or controls, to transfer nearly an additional $ Trillion of your money to failed financial institutions and their corrupt officers. So the looting continues.

Republicans have created a system wherein obscene revenues go to corporate executives regardless of performance, and losses go to the taxpayer. This style of authoritarian government, where the executive power of the State allies itself with the executive power of Corporations, to the detriment of citizens, has a name - Fascism.

Jacob Weisbert wrote:If Obama Loses, Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 23 09:09
by fangz1956
Kudos to you, Wise One. I admire the fact that you are engaged and encouraging others to do the same. I spent quite a bit of time over the weekend engaged in letter writing.................and mailed those letters to as many newspaper editors as possible as well as to my elected representatives in Washington.

Your point on the race card is valid and I fail to understand why a lot of people don't see that yet......and perhaps they never will. I think our greatest hope will be to engage the young voters who live in a society where prejudice, race, and lifestyles have far less impact than they do in our generation. I am talking about people like my 23 year old son......the color blind generation where skin color doesn't matter one whit. They only see the person....or at least that happens to be the case with my children and their friends.

I certainly think that of the two MAJOR party candidates, Obama is the best choice......just not my choice. Race is not a factor here. I am looking at candidates that have sound monetary policies and wish to reign in the likes of The Fed and Wall Street.

As of this writing, I still stand on my convictions and stand by my choice to write-in at the polls in November. And here is an excellent reason to say NO to the two MAJOR party candidates:

On September 22, 2008, The Guardian wrote:Obama backs the Bush plan in principle but said in return for the mammoth public investment, financial firms should submit to oversight and regulation.

McCain backs a "very tight, targeted bill" without the provisions sought by the Democrats, his economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin told the Wall Street Journal.

Both of these stances read like maintaining the status quo to me.

P.S. You are spot on with issue of Fascism. :clap:

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 23 11:35
by Uji
"Oversight and regulation" ain't the status quo. We've had just the opposite for the last 30 years -- thanks, in part, to McCain. Whether Obama would have the guts (or ability) to do much more than tweak the status quo, I don't know. But of the two options -- and they are the only two viable options -- I don't think it is accurate to suggest that they are somehow the same. The records of the two guys are so different.

There is NO reason to think that McCain would do anything substantively different than other Republican presidents; there is SOME reason for thinking Obama would. And there is NO reason to think that any other candidate (Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, etc.) will ever get the chance.

So -- you gonna vote for SOME chance or NO chance? For me, that's a no-brainer. But then, I am, very likely, without a brain. (I've been accused by reasonable people of worse.)

Ron Paul may have been right on about the economy, but he's dead wrong (IMHO) about just about everything else. I, for one, would not want to live in a libertarian society; in fact, I think "libertarian society" is an oxymoron. Sure, I could smoke all the pot I wanted, I could do whatever-the-hell I want with that little plot of the earth I stuck my claim to -- but that's poor compensation for all that would be lost.

Libertarians arrive at some of the same views as progressives on many issues, but I think that is misleading. Government regulation and supervision is necessary and beneficial in almost every aspect of our lives; we just tend to ignore that when we want to rail against the Feds and taxes.

This might be worth having a conversation about. I'd like to understand better why someone would not opt to vote for one of the viable (however flawed) options possible. I, quite sincerely, don't understand why one would do that. A failure of imagination on my part, I guess.

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 23 11:58
by Wise One
fangz1956 wrote:As of this writing, I still stand on my convictions and stand by my choice to write-in at the polls in November.

Thanks, fangz, but I must join Uji in urging you not to let an inflexible demand for unattainable perfection be the enemy of probable improvement.

While neither candidate has my list of perfect attributes, Obama is light-years ahead of McCain. He'll likely prevent at least some of the Republican excesses that are sure to be delivered by McCain.

I cannot tell you how many people I've met who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 because they found both Gore and Bush flawed, and now intensely regret that choice. Bush Republicans have grievously wounded the country. In that super-close election, a first choice for Nader was horribly worse than swallowing hard and voting for second-choice Gore, because that small number of votes effectively elected Bush.

In this Virginia election, a vote for any third party candidate is, in practical terms, a vote for McCain/Palin. Republicans will not be splitting their votes and, unless you favor Republicans, neither should you.

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 23 15:14
by Coondog
I agree!

A protest vote at this time only serves as a vote for ............them! matter how much we'd prefer someone with demonstratable integrity, the reality is that it's either democrat or republican, as is the congress and as is most of the cockeyed world.

I must, as in '04' take a stand and vote against somebody......... and that somebody is McCain and Giuliani in Drag.

Coondog :cool:

Obama is half black. Palin is completely nuts!

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 23 15:58
by fangz1956
Thanks for the food for thought folks. You've not changed my mind........yet. I would be a closed-minded person indeed if I fail to take your words and not give them some meaningful thought. After all, November isn't here yet and a lot can still happen between now and then.

A couple of things to point out here. George Bush was NEVER elected. He was essentially APPOINTED in 2000 after the Florida fiasco. He stole it in 2004 through vote rigging. All one has to do is take a good look at the voting statistics for places like Ghanna in Ohio. So, neither of those elections IMHO had a damn thing to do with votes cast for third party candidates. Both of those elections (and I use that term loosely) had a whole lot to do with corrupt politics and vote rigging. Had the election been a fair and honest one, Bush would not have been in the White House and we might have had somebody there that may have been able to avert this massive mess we find ourselves in today. Until this country makes a move and uses voting machines with auditable trails (like the TruVote), we will see more of the same and it really won't matter who we vote for.......the results will be what the party operatives want it to be and we will have been screwed yet again.

Ron Paul wasn't......and isn't a "perfect" candidate. None of them are. He does make some good sense on issues of monetary policy and the limitations on the power and reach of government. I want the government OUT of my bedroom, my examining room at the doctor's office, textbook printing for the schools, and a few other things that they have absolutely no business being involved in. The thing that disturbs me about Obama in what I wrote in my previous post is his backing of the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke plan in principle. THAT reads like maintaining the status quo and just a shade too close to Congressional capitulation yet again in my book. This bailout plan is just plain WRONG!!!! The only principle I can see in the plan as originally written is "welfare for the rich" and yes.....pick up your golden parachute on the way out the door. NO! NO! NO! Oversight and regulation? How much and by whom? Would that be by the likes of Chris Dodd who is in bed with the bankers?

One last thought on this and I welcome your feedback with an open mind: If we continue to play this game of politics by voting for SOME CHANCE or NO CHANCE or the "lesser of two evils" (for lack of a better term at the moment), then how will we ever change the game to a fair and truly democratic one? Aren't we the voters maintaining the very status quo we rail against by continuing to the play the game by their rules and on their terms?


Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 23 18:18
by Coondog
Dear Fangz!

Your concerns are well founded, so I will make only a few observations from my personal experience:

I didn't vote for Clinton the first time. I voted for Perot. I could not have imagined the high regard to which I hold the Clinton Presidency now. I have similar gut feeling reservations about Obama, today. Maybe he's all yack and no shack, but he is occasionally inspirational, at least in comparison to the dullards we have become accustomed to. Polititions seldom make realistic promises, much less keep them.....but there is always, in renewed excitement......hope!

I won't profess to know any more about the current economic situation than the experts who have been testifying before congress, which is next to nothing. But, it appears that the dike has sprung a serious leak and someone needs to stick a very large finger in it. And that finger is us! I'll not oppose a remedy that at least invests in our own country (and not some foreign hell hole). The acquiring of tangible assets, regardless of their present worth, is, at least acquiring something beyond ideological nonsense and the distain of onlookers.

We just have to make sure Bush doesn't leave office with them the way the Clintons did with the place settings. I don't begrudge the Clinton's the perks, but Seven Hundred Billion is way too much of a severence gift for George.

Coondog :tongue8:

It's all only on paper, anyway, eh?

Throwing away your vote...

Posted: 2008 Sep 24 11:48
by Uji
First, Fangz, thanks for staying in the game. I was afraid you might feel like you'd been piled-on. And though I, too, still disagree with you, I'm listening to you. (And I'd still like a Libertarian thread here; I'm interested in what attracts you to Ron Paul, for instance. Maybe after Novemeber....)

You asked:
If we continue to play this game of politics by voting for SOME CHANCE or NO CHANCE or the "lesser of two evils" (for lack of a better term at the moment), then how will we ever change the game to a fair and truly democratic one? Aren't we the voters maintaining the very status quo we rail against by continuing to the play the game by their rules and on their terms?

Q: How do we change this vicious circle?
A: Incrementally. And I think that's as good an answer as we can hope for.

There aint gonna be a savior, a strong president who's gonna do it, because he can't do it. But that does not mean there is no difference between the candidates, that each represents the status quo. I bought that in 2000, and it is just not true. 8 years of Gore would have been significantly different and would have left of us in a much better position than we are today. He wouldn't have solved all the problems, nor even most of them; but, suppose for the last 8 years we'd had a president who had not taken us into Iraq, would have addressed Global Warming, and would have presented a more progressive attitude toward the economy? What a difference it would have made.

So let's don't pretend that there's no difference between Obama and McCain -- if anything, it's a bigger difference than between Bush/Gore.

So here is the choice: We can vote for the best of viable (electable) alternatives and move incrementally in the direction that we want, or we can vote for a quantum-leap candidate that has no chance of getting elected. The result of the latter is that you give up the chance for even incremental motion forward.

But, if we do that, how do we ever change this process?

Personally, I don't think that we do. I don't believe that people vote for the main party candidates because they have no alternative. I think most people vote Dem or Rep (rather than write in, say) for the same reasons that they buy "Tide" instead of the store brand -- even though the store brand costs less and contains the same ingredients (says so on the box). They (we?) want to belong to a group, don't want to be "outside" the main-stream, and want to attach themselves to someone/something that provides them an image of themselves to which they aspire. This sounds elitist or condescending, I know, but I don't think it is; it is simply a description of the way a consumer society operates.

I think a concerned, rational person needs to vote the same way they have to shop here in Rockbridge County: you do the best that you can with what is available. To me, it's become as simple as that. And if more of us are buying the better-than-wonder-bread loaf (even if it isn't what we really want), then maybe the store manager will go out on a limb and stock an even better-quality loaf. (A lousy metaphor, but you get my drift.)

I don't think you make the process more Democratic by voting for someone who can not get elected. You are making it less democratic, in a way, because as a result of your vote for a non-competitive candidate, you help elect a candidate who -- if you restricted yourself to the two viable candidates -- you would not vote for. So -- if you prefer McCain, say, of the two viable candidates, and vote for Ron Paul, you are, in effect, voting for Obama; if you prefer Obama, but vote for Nader, you have, in effect, voted for McCain. It's winner take all -- your vote for Paul/Nader simple denies your vote to the one of the two viable candidates you prefer, in essence, throwing your vote away.

And here in Virginia, if there are enough people who think like you ("I prefer Obama over McCain but I'm gonna vote for [write-in candidate]'), then McCain wins Virginia and that gives McCain the election. My vote for Nader in 2000 probably made no difference; Bush had Virginia in the bag. But if I voted for Nader this time, it would be a straight up vote for McCain.

Do you think that will teach anyone a lesson? Will that get us closer to something better? I sound so un-idealistic, I know. Why not vote your conscience? How can that be wrong? Wouldn't it be better if everyone did? No -- I don't think it would. "Most people's conscience" is what has the government in you bedroom, your examining room, and has books being taken off the library shelves -- not the constitution.

It's the constitution that is gonna save us (if saved we get), not our consciences. This is NOT a deomocracy; it says so write in the constitution. It's not one-wo/man-one vote and the constitution makes damn sure that it's not. I'm all for changing that. But I'm dead against pretending that this is not the case. The Electoral College elects our president. We've got to face that and cast a vote that counts.

And I truly admire your courage in sticking by your guns, Fangz. It's probably that sort of courage and commitment that will actually change something for the better. I just think you are misdirecting your energy here.

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 25 09:18
by fangz1956
This is short and not the entire reply I wish to make on this issue.........but I'm sleepy and need to go to bed right now.

You folks gave me a lot to think about and I can see what you are saying. B-b-b-b-u-t.........I saw the front page of Wednesday's edition of the Roanoke Times while I was work at last night. Hmmmmm......what do you suppose it said? It said that Obama supports granting the Treasury BROAD powers in this bailout plan. Interesting that it also said that there were no other details of his reasoning on this available. Was I reading about the same person for which you all plan to vote? Are you really planning to vote for someone who appears to be behind this march into fascism? For myself (and more than a few other people I know), this stance sounds too much like "more of the same". Uh, could we call that maintaining the status quo? Could we label him as not much better than McCain?

Starting to smell like a Bush/Wall Street lap dog to me.


You know.....the more I think about this and watch this unfold, the more I think that neither candidate has no details available yet because they haven't been told what to say by the power elite yet. Wish I didn't have to work Friday night....this is one debate that might be funnier than an episode of "Soap".

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 25 20:15
by nudgewink
Sarah Silverman's very weird political ad.

Re: Who would you rather?

Posted: 2008 Sep 26 12:41
by Uji
Fangz, Obama has published a great deal about his economic plans. There was a long NYT Sunday supplement article about it a week or two ago. If you feel like you don't know what he wants to do with the economy, then you just haven't looked very hard.

If you don't want to give the Treasury sweeping powers to clean up this mess, how do you propose to do it? This is how it was done in the 30s, it's how Sweden cleaned up their mortgage crisis in the 90s and it seems like a reasonable way to go. The devil is in the details: how much power, to do what, with what supervision, and with what oversight.

I guess we just disagree on all this. But I really do believe that your sweeping generalization about this one and that one being the pocket of this evil entity or that evil entity is not helpful.

But then, I guess we each gotta do what we each gotta do. (Or, as my dad used to say, "You gotta chew what you gotta chew.") :|