VOTE OBAMA

What I like the most about him is he would be a huge change from the Bush/Clinton circle jerk  we've had for the last 20 years now. But is change for the sake of change worth it?

http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/videos/20138/Cobra_Commander_Runs_for_President.html?videoCategory_key=2

And PF that's fine, I understand your reluctance.  And he may not be able to change EVERYTHING, but I think his heart is in the right place, and I have more hope and faith in him doing SOMETHING then any other candidate.  Only time will tell, but anybody after Bush will probably look like a saint.  Label me hesitantly optimistic.  And I think if he brought up some of those subjects you just mentioned it could be very tricky how to handle it, and he could run the risk of alienating voters.  You don't hear him talking about abortion either.  But I'm very happy to hear he has your vote.

Honestly, I don't like the idea of a "Vote For X!" thread. This is not a lobbying group. You guys all know where I stand on things, and I purposely wait till things are brought up before I throw them out there. Look at the way Dennis' Pro-bama thread was, informative about Super Tues, then about who he was supporting and why. I won't bother talking about why Obama's not a good choice (if the deomcrats are your only option, then I guess). But pimping candidates with their own threads is not the way to go.

Again, it's a free country (not for long), so do what you want. I just think it's a little un-kosher and sets a bad precedent.

I have no problem with pro-Obama threads!

(...or pro-anyone threads for that matter. Equal voices for all, I say.

Obama has emphatically stated he doesn't support "arbitrary" invasions. He would put security first, through diplomacy. If all else failed and we needed to act on an imminent threat, then yes, he would invade. And if he wouldn't, I wouldn't want him as president. Besides, if someone invades the US, our government will be well armed from the guns they take from Giggan.

Also, I knew it wouldn't be long before the parody videos started:

.com/

If you want to look for a candidate of change than look to Ron Paul not Obama. Ron Paul is the only candidate out there who doesn't flood the airwaves with feel-good, meaningless campaign garbage and instead proposes solutions to America's problems and a plan for the way things should be run according to our Constitution.

Shouldn't the concept of free speech apply here too giggan?

Giggan,

As Richard stated, this is the politics and current affairs board. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE it if people were showing an interest in their country and government by actively discussing candidates and topics. I hate it that people only get interested in government once every four years. I think having your voice as well as those of other political persuasions could encourage thought, research, and might actually inspire people to become citizens rather than civilians. I think as long as trolls don't start attacking the threads and people exchange ideas, it's all good. If it turns into a Hannity-style "I'm right, LalalalalalaIcan'thearYoulalalalla" fest, then yes, by all means, kill the thread.

Where was the insinuation that it didn't? Giggan is the reason I read more about Ron Paul in the first place. Any candidate that can inspire that much fervency in aperson, and do so without the use of "push" issues (fear-based politics, race/sexual orientation politics) must have somehting good to say. And he did. He wiped the floor with the Repubs at every single debate (when he was allowed to speak). It's a travesty that more conservatives didn't follow his message. Their movement is mired in the whole Limbaugh/FoxNews/lock-step mentality right now. When they get their act together after the sacrificial offering of McCain (or who knows, maybe they'll rally around him) - then Paul's voice might resonate louder.

Another thought - Paul, like Obama, is inspiring young voters. In elections, and in particular with conservative/Republicans, their base is old and very set in their way of thinking. They're not big on radical change (and there are positive aspects to that as well). So Paul was pushing his Boulder uphill right out of the gate.

The simple answer on delegates (and super delegates and the electoral college) is this:

Make Americans think they have a voice in society while controlling the poolitical process as much as possible.

What really confuses me is why Republicans only need 1100 or so to win their nomination, but Dems require 2000+.

.

Did I say to ban this thread? Did I say suggest it be deleted? Or did I say, it's a freecountry (for now) but I don't think these threads are a good idea. My opinion, my free speech. No action suggested, jsh.

If there is a good place to post it, this is it. It's not the substance I'm against, its the idea of a thread being used to promote a particular candidate. I'm probably not as opposed to this thread as you guys think, I'm just rendering my opinion. We all share this board, and I respect anyone's right to post anything.

I got the opportunity to talk to Peter Christ at the NH Liberty Forum in January, he's one of the pioneers of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of LE officers focused on ending the 'drug' war because they see the struggle as causing more harm then good, and are not in it because they believe in promoting drugs or recommend using them. He said to me (paraphrasing) 'every person has a point in their life they look back on as their biggest mistake and says, 'seemed like a great idea.'' An idea, more often than not, is a mistake that's already been made that the decision maker is unaware of. While that may seem to be a pessimist view, I don't consider myself a pessimist, but that is a reality we must face. I encourage you to look deeper than face value.

My libertarian/anarchist ideologies have nothing to do with whether or not Obama would make a good/bad pres. THIS is my country, I swear my allegience, just as Thomas Jefferson has, before the altar of God, eternal hostility against tyranny over the mind of man. I will not run to another country, with less rights and blessings than this nation, for the sake of allowing unconstitutional majority rule to take over. I don't run, I stand. I stand firmly for peace, justice, and liberty. I sit for nothing less.

Sorry, emotion driven outburst there, point being, my country, my opinion, my word. You are entitled to yours, and I respect that, and I believe you are well intentioned. I also believe Barack Obama is wrong in how he wishes to implement these things. The means never justifies the ends.

Don't take this the wrong way, but Adolf Hitler was one of the most motivating political speakers of history. Doesn't mean anything.

Intending no disrespect, you don't follow politics very much, do you? A socialist taking a libertarian as their running mate is like...I don't even know what that's like, but they're polar opposites. They're two radically different extremes, though they may have similar foreign policy, leaving our neighbors alone unless they attack us, etc. Their domestic policies however are night and day.

It's like, 50% false.

Not all lies, but...

Bingo.

He means more chapters in the IRS code, which there is no law saying we must abide by anyways...yet we're imprisoned if we don't. There's a million and one ways around taxes, none of them make any sense, unless you pay 10k to an accountant each year, which us middle classers can't afford. There's a major erosion of the middle class, propelled through inflation, to make just two classes. The haves and have-nots. Why must we work two jobs to survive if our economy is supposedly so great? Why is our buying power failing...these all tie back to the federal reserve.

He's talking about making the current confusing tax system more progressive.

EDIT: To clarify, progressive tax means as amount goes up, percentage goes up. Regressive=amount goes down, percentage goes up. Flat=same percentage throughout.

Karl Marx had the same idea. Bush's first tax cuts de-progressivized major taxes on the rich. (While no taxes are 'fair', percentages should not go up because amount goes up). That's not a tax cut, thats a taxing equalization. Granted, the rich know how to play games with the tax code, but those games shouldnt exist. No should the income tax. But if it must, I say no games. Flat, simple tax.

The dems, especially Kerry when he was running talked about abolishing Bush's tax cuts 'for the rich'. My mom's a high school teacher. They don't exactly rake the dough in. She saw an extra 3 grand with the tax cut. It wasn't just for the rich. The political system is so complicated that unless you literally spend more time than is healthy within it, nothing makes sense from the outside. That needs to change.

It's all good, nobody does. The parties themselves (independent of govt) determine how each state party (indy of govt) computes their delegates. It's like an electoral college, it doesn't exactly make sense, but its just the way it is. Why I prefer the electoral college to majority rule, I'd be more in favor of a vote quota, like a president needs to get, 60% for example, to win. Without that, no fuerer, yay!

Again, if I came across that way, I apologize. My intent is not to stiffle your opinion. It is just my personal opinion that there are better ways of presenting it.

I realize when I talk about anarchy-esque ideas, those who don't already agree with me probably roll their eyes, (why do I do it then?!?) but getting back to the basics, what should be the first lesson in civics in all schools...why we have a govt to begin with. Thats what every citizen should be able to answer for themselves, and then research the philosophy, etc. (I prefer Lockean philosophy) Everyone I know know thats an anarchist is in the closet about it. And in public, I am too, I wouldn't want reps on a committee to know that, I'd never be able to persuade them of anything.

You guys want my opinion (on philosophy of gov't, why we have it), I'll be happy to offer it. John Locke inspired ideology. Gov't itself is not bad, when it's sole purpose is protection of life, liberty, and property. That's seldom the case.

Well put man. You're right on.

When n my undergrad I took a government course, with some long ridiculous name but was called "Anarchy 101," as it was constructed of some fo the greatest libertarian and anarchist thinkers and philosophers and theorists around.  Locke was never held in high regard, or so it seemed.  We read a good deal of his stuff, discussed it extensively, and then read a bunch of theorists who ripped him apart in ever so convincing ways.  However it was 5 years ago and I wish I could remember more of the authors but I cant and to try and articulately express much else from it would be erroneous and misleading on ym part.  And I only remember the Locke thing because I had read all of his stuff the prior semester in a different class, but in that class we did not read any of the criticism against it, and the result was a different opinion.  Granted, we were all 19 year old hot heads with easily adaptable and exciteable minds.  The professor, for both of these classes, who was a 50+ white woman, I am sure had an entirely different opinion on all it than we did.

Calling Obama a socialist, is, I think a bit harsh, if for no other reason than that Socialism is such a stigmatized identity and ideology, and while he has socialist leanings, (Which I agree with, for the most part) I still think it unfair to label him a flat out socialist.  A lot of his ideas have libertarian roots as well as socialist root.  Some have democratic roots as well, though not all of them.  Though seeing as how the categories of democrats and republicans are moot nowadays, I dont suppose it matters. 

I think the major difference between obama and paul is not their policy differences (which are in many cases very very different) but rather their presentations as well as how much they are willing to pander to the current political milieu.  Paul is extreme in his views (well, extreme when compared to the neo-cons who have been running the republican party for two or so decades, at least).  But he doesnt temper his opinions or his policies, he has his ideas and he puts them out there, balls to the wall.  Obama, on the other hand, who I think has many equally progressive and extreme ideas, then allows those ideas to be tempered by the political process and by the current accepted political machine.  most of his policy statements and ideas still push the boundaries of what the democratic party has come to expect for the last decade in bullshit partisan politics, but they are not fully representative, i believe, of the heart of many of his ideologies.  So, you could say that paul is being more honest to himself, and not allowing himself to be malleable in anyway, or diluted, and obama is allowing just that to happen.  However, look at the result.  Sure, ron paul has a larger than expected following, mostly consisting not of republicans but of 17 - 24 males with libertarian tendencies who are tired of being told what to do and jsut want to essentially have free reign (not making a judgment but an empirical observation, please dont read into it).  While his supporters are, for the most part, very vocal, their numbers are still not even close to being high enough to make him a viable candidate.  Obama, on the other hand, "sold out" if you will.  He saw the gap between his views and the current views, and instead of going balls out was content to push the envelope enough to assert himself as out there but not so much as to seem a hopeless radical who cannot achieve anything.  the result is that, not counting superdelegates, he is now ahead in the democratic delegate race and expecting some more important wins in weeks to come.   am i saying one should sell out?  no.  and do i think that obama has entirely sold out, or compromised himself?  No, not entirely.  But he has allowed political realities to temper his views into manageable, realistic pieces.  He plays well with others, while Paul runs with scissors.  You can criticize either one of them as a result of this: obama for not sticking to his morals because he wants to be electable or paul for being so antisocial and triumphalist that he refuses to see the forest for the trees.  likewise, you can praise both of them: obama recognizes that the only way to affect true change is to be a part of the system, and the only way he can become part of the system involved tempering his views into acceptable, bite-sized pieces, so, without giving up his vigor or motivations, he is willing to make concessions because he would rather be in the white house affecting some change than outside affecting none.  Paul has string political ideologies and is not allowing himself to be corrupted, influenced or diluted by his popularity or electability, he is being honest and true, all the way through.  So, the point of this, I think they are similar in as much as they both are representatives of the progressive edge of their party, or of what their respective parties have become, at the very least.  The difference is how they present that progressiveness to the political world.  But would they ever be running mates?  Hell, no.  Basically everythign paul supports obama decries, and vice versa.  Sure, not entirely, but in quite a large part.  I wouldnt call them polar opposites, as the twinkle of a libertarianism is in obama's eye, but certainly far apart on the spectrum. 

What is firghtening and hilarious to me now is that Lieberman is looking like he is the frontrunner to be McCain's VP, though nothing official has come through.  He has quite publicly supported McCain this whole time, though.  God, I loathe Lieberman.  I LOATHE him.  Most likely because I lived in CT when he pulled his slippery little trick, and because I think he makes a mockery of our political system, I dont know...

I would love to hear more, Giggan, about why you support the electoral college.  I personally dislike it, I think one person=one vote.  However, I know that at the time of the last election I had a friend try to explain to me why the electoral college actually exists to protect the political minority, and protect America againtst mob rule, and his argument was somewhat compelling, but i dont remember it entirely.  I know that in the end I didnt buy it, because it still made my vote less important than someone's vote in Ohio, which is essentially un-American to me, but it at least made some resemblance of sense...

But, easily more messed up than the electoral college is the ridiculous confines of our two party system, which is a mess.  I dont have a viable, realistic alternative.  But the whole two party things just doesnt work, especially since the original distinction was really a small-govt (rep) vs. big govt (dem) distinction and now it is about almost everything else.  tax cuts do not equal small govt, they equal less support for americans that need it.  patriot act does not equal small government.  domestic spying, CIA and selling 1/3 of our national debt to china do not equal small government.  banning gay marriage and appealing women's right do not equal small government.  jesus does not equal small government.  the party distinctions are a messed up joke, and this is best exemplified in ron paul.  i have made it clear i dislike him and dont want him on a national ballot, though i dont have much conern if the outcome if he were to get on one.  but the point is, he should not be running against romney or mccain.  thats ridiculous.  he is a pseduo-libertarian republican, and much more of a traditional republican than those fools, but making him run against them in a primary is unfair to him and them.  And then, of course, the end result of this whole two party system culminates into often (aka 2004) but not always choosing the lesser of two evils, or throwing away your vote on a green or rainbow party candidate that 98% of the country has never heard of and who is there essentially in name only.  And then the whole thing culminates in the electoral college, making my vote as a massachusetts resident meaningless in the general election, because the state will go blue with or without me (yeah, i know, that kind of logic, when applied by all, results in the opposite, so it is still my duty to vote, blah blah blah).  this is why my primary vote was more important to me than my general election vote will be.  and this is why, although i like obama more, i, for a moment, thought about who was more electable in a general election clinton or obama, because while i dislike clinton she is better than any of the other non-obama candidates.  i only entertained the thought for a moment because the strongest protest we have against the corrupt system is not to fall victim to its ways and not let its corruptness effect your vote, (and then hopefully try to change it during the 4 yeasr you get off before you have to vote again.)

Oh, and Giggan: "Don't take this the wrong way, but Adolf Hitler was one of the most motivating political speakers of history. Doesn't mean anything."  Of course it means something.  If it "didnt mean anything" you would not have said it.  You said it to be reactionary, edgy and argumentative.  You said it for a specific reason, dont try to annul it by saying it doesnt mean anything.  The fact of its existence proves otherwise.  And, try as you like, you are never going to win anyone besides folks who already agree with you that using Hitler and ANY democratic candidate in the same sentence is ever justified.  And for that matter most republican candidates.  You are saying it for effect, only, and the only ones that wil take it as a serious recognition of the obama's or anyone else's character is already making the same reactionary, fruitless statements.  So give it up.  The rest of your post proved people should at least listen to you, whether they disagree or not.  Dont ruin that.  (And as a total non-sequitur, I would be willing to bet money that your "50%" and "Bingo!" responses to MM are based in conservative/republican/neo-con/big money rhetoric, and not grounded in facts.  I agree MM uses muscle tactics and ingenious editing, and also that not everything is as dire or as wonderful as he presents it in his films.  But your reaction is typical of folks who dont like him or the threat he poses and as such say things like "it is all half truths" without actually knowing that to be true at all and without having evidence to support it.  At least you are in good, well, large, company in this regard).

Maybe someday the Chuck Meister will run!!

Dude, I wish Obama was a socialist.  It would make me happy.

I love the contrast. In the Finnish political system even Obama would most likely be considered a right-wing conservative. Hillary would be a real neo-con, a corporate b*tch so to say, and I won't even get into the Republicans. But yeah, I don't think America is ready for a "real change" yet. Obama's victory (I'd vote for him) would be a nice, gentle step towards it, though. Your society is naturally very different from ours, in my view much more conservative and less liberal and what's sad is that the gap has lately even been widening with all those terrorism laws of yours.

(Although lately we've had some very doubtful development here as well: more pre-censorship and other hints here and there of a slow movement towards a police state! But that unfortunately seems to be a fairly global direction for many countries, especially in Europe.)

I think the American election system is in two words fucked up. The fact that you need to be a multimillionare in order to stand even a relative chance is plain sad. What's more, I don't think many people even know about your third-party candidates, which is just another symptom of this money-led media circus that used to symbolize democracy and the freedom to choose. Having two almost identical parties (feel free to argue) is in the end the same as having just one party, which is basically the system they have in Russia, our dear neighbor. (Note the sarcasm!)

So, hurray indeed for the land of the free.

great stuff guys, wow, really intense - thanks

I could spend the day listing all the shiite I know Michael Moore either misrepresented or lied about in Bowling for Columbine and The Big One (only flicks of his I've seen), but that, I feel, would be getting a little off topic.

Well, before dismissing MM, you need to see his more current films, such as F911 and especially SICKO, which is the least political and/or biased of the bunch.  Until then, I don't think you can criticize or dismiss him as a nutjob.  And if 50% of his film is false, misleading, or exaggerated, then look for the 50% that is true, accurate, and on point.  If nothing else, he calls attention to subject matter that needs attention - guns, american cars, 911, and US healthcare.  So go rent at LEAST SICKO today, watch it tonight, and post up tomorrow.  I'd love to hear what you have to say.  There is a lot of room for improvement in the US.  Maybe we can learn from some other countries that are doing it well or better.

I mean, imagine - you don't have to pay for education (no 40-400,000 debt) or qualify for healhcare - there is a way to make it all work.

Hi Oberon,

In your discussion on civil unions and lack or rights gays and lesbians have as couples, I think a legal way to beat this would be to contact an attorney and appoint them as medical power of attorney.  I don't know if being medical power of attorney allows you visitation rights, but I should check this out.

I see you guys have new stuff, which I've skimmed, but I just came across this article and figured I'd throw it out here...

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02151.shtml

When ripping it apart (if anyone cares to) don't address the criticisms at me, since I'm just linking it. If you have contrast with something in it (which I'm sure most of you will) feel free to post, I just ask that I'm not treated as though I wrote the thing :)

I'll try and respond to the new stuff that's up later today, enjoy.

Having read the article, it seems exactly like what you (and many others) accuse Michael Moore of.  It seems like he has taken a few random facts and then created a whole lot of speculation and half-truths by manipulating those facts into the story he wants to tell.

And Saul Mendelson was amazing, he did incredible things for community organizing and the like, his theories and methods of social organizing have helped many communities create better and safer neighborhoods for themselves and their children.  Of course Obama would speak at his funeral, socialist or not.

The other thing to keep in mind is that to most of those far left liberals, like myself, calling Obama a socialist isnt all that slanderous, although it is untrue.  It is only slanderous to the folk in the middle of the road who do not really know or care much about the goals of socialism but rather know the historical precedents associated with it.  So good for Cliff Kincaid, the article doesnt bother me much, and besides, it is on the GOP website, he is preaching to the choir.  Are there members of the Republican party who are on the fence about Obama, and need guidance?  I doubt it....

Also, Giggan, I came across a Clinton epithet in the op-eds today