Perhaps someone can tell me which of the following two sites is a site peddling hate:

http://sockpoliticians.googlepages.com/index.html

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

Is there anyone out there who believes if Obama becomes president there will somehow be equality in standards of free speech? I know for a certainty, given the constant stream of criticism a U.S. president receives, many of these issues will be flushed into the open and people will be able to move on.

What we really need is someone who respects the Constitution.

I don't think Obama is the man for the job.

Neither is McCain.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I'm a little confused why there's so much animosity toward Obama suddenly? I understand the spirit of competition and all, but it seems like over the past few weeks, it's been picking up a lot. The thing is, Obama isn't perfect, and in a perfect world, he wouldn't get the job. There would be millions of better people not only lined up for it, but with access to all levels of democracy. But it's not a perfect world.

After 8 years of GWB, Idi Amin would be an improvement. Obama by comparison (to Bush) is downright intelligent. There are people more qualified than him, but he's on the right side of the bell curve. If we managed to survive 8 years of debatably the worst president in US history, Barack Obama will only be an improvement.

I agree that "When you choose the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil," but, at this late hour, I'm not aware of an alternative.

I won't waste the time debating Bush's value or lack thereof. That said, even if everything you say about Bush is true, Idi Amin would certainly not be an improvement.

Obama is clearly a smart guy. Maybe even as smart as Bush, but not as smart as Bill Clinton. He is certainly no Idi Amin. I guess the point I'm trying to make is, things can ALWAYS be worse. When the German economy was suffering and the Germans were craving change, I'm sure there were many who thought Hitler could certainly be no worse than the current regime. He certainly provided change they could believe in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#Corollaries_and_usage

Does this count as a Godwin'd thread?

Hahahahaha. Thats the first time Ive read that. I love it. Seems applicable. Do they have a flavor of it that applies to Idi Amin?

I don't believe so, I doubt near as many people know who he is even with the movie from a couple years ago.

His title was hilarious though:

"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beats of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular"

I agree that "When you choose the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil," but, at this late hour, I'm not aware of an alternative.

That's because you're not given an alternative. You think that's just some cosmic coincedence or something? The game is rigged, man.

Hey, when some people are asked to choose between two different ways to die, they analyze the options and pick whatever they think will be least painful. I'd rather spit in the face of my tormentor and refuse to answer the question.

But hey, do what you like. If it makes you sleep easier to think that your choice is going to make ANY difference, well, at least you sleep easier.

If the founding fathers were still alive, they would already have revolted (again). Go and re-read the Declaration of Independence... the parallels between King George and President George are astounding.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." (IRS? Dpt of Homeland Security?)

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." (Blackwater?)

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation" (Security and Prosperity Partnership? North American Union?)

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" (Extraordinary Rendition? Suspension of Habeus Corpus for "declared enemy combatants"?)

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms...
Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...
A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrany, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

To be sure, the fault is not Bush's alone... other administrations have been complicit in their ignoring of the Constitution and rule of law, and of the erosion of the checks and balances and the civil liberties of the people. More than any President, Congress is to blame for permitting these egregious violations of law.

But Bush has done more to speed us along the path of destruction than any of his predecessors. I'm sorry, but I think McCain might as well be his clone, and Obama will do nothing to fix these atrocious problems but will instead embark on idealistic pursuits of his own... Things like socialized medicine and radical environmentalism, probably. Things which will only further bankrupt this country and ensure that we are but a second-rate power throughout the next century.

Our country has a half-trillion dollar annual federal deficit, and no one seems to care. Am I the only crazy person or am I the only sane person? Because I just don't see how this game of fiscal irresponsibility can be played forever. To me, it MUST come to an end. It's like a game of musical chairs, and there are about 200 million more people than there are chairs.

I guess I'll join another political discussion.

Cute subtitle, cbwm -- I doubt anyone will believe you're a "Democrat 4 Life". Funny though, coming from you. Gotta love a sense of humor.

I, for one, am looking forward to an Obama presidency. Obama is a man who has a record of fighting for what is right.

In Illinois, he supported ethics reform, expanded health care, reduced taxes for low income citizens, banning of predatory loan practices, revised death penalty laws to help protect the innocent, and was re-elected twice.

In the US Senate, he opposed the Iraq preemptive war strategy; supported The Energy Policy Act of 2005 which, amongst other things, encouraged more-environmentally friendly energy production and provided incentives for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; sponsored legislation creating USAspending.gov for more transparency in govt spending; sponsored legislation to help end the conflict in the Congo; supported legislation restricting gifts to members of Congress and disclosure of earmarks; took action to stop the escalation of the war in the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007; introduced legislation to protect & take care of veterans when they get back from war; identified that "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the number one national security threat that confronts the United States today" and worked with Republican Dick Lugar "to eliminate conventional weapons stockpiles and assist other nations in detecting and interdicting weapons of mass destruction"; and encouraged Hamas to 'renounce its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel'.

Is Obama perfect? Absolutely not. Has he supported some dumb legislation? Yes. A look at his overall actions and intentions, however, encourages me. His competence & correct judgement on so many issues is irrefutable, though many try. Most encouraging to me is his love for diplomacy over war. If The 43rd and McCain had the same passion for diplomacy, our country would be much better off, much more secure, and significantly safer. Instead, those foolish individuals want to negotiate with enemies with the enemy at the end of a gun -- that is not diplomacy, that is not leadership, and that is not negotiating.

To his credit, he also defeated the Clinton Machine. Who would have thought that an 'inexperienced, junior Senator who can't beat McCain' could do that? Who would have thought that he'd have so many donors that he'd break previous records? I think it is this last which causes fear amongst Republicans: citizens with little money, stepping forward to put their money where their vote is. Much harder to disenfranchise Democratic voters when they're excited enough to pay.

His detractor's arguments against Obama are very encouraging. Instead of trying to encourage a vote for McCain, they commit the following fallacies:

Appeal to Fear -- You know, we'll all be obliterated if Obama is president. Hamas wants Obama for president, so you know what that means...
Guilt By Association -- Hey, do you know who he knows? Who he's talked to? Well, if he's willing to talk to those types of people, then he must be one!
Ad Hominem -- Well, he's "inexperienced", so he can't be right.
Straw Man -- Obama wants to talk with our enemies. That means he wants to submit to their will; placate them; "appease" them. Subsequently, meeting with our enemies is a bad idea.

I'm sure there are more, but those will suffice to trigger the Right on here to rip into me.

Now, let me conclude with this: I'd only be worried about an Obama presidency if arguments could be presented, without logical fallacies, which demonstrate his policies would be destructive to this country. McCain, on the other hand, has 8 years of evidence that the policies he wants to continue with have failed -- it's happening right now, in front of his face. Instead, he has put the blinders on and declared that he wants more of the same, under a different name. -- Names, you know, define the nature of something; especially in politics.

Here's to a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress which can't be filibustered by Republicans in an effort to not take responsibility for their (Republicans') own actions and incompetency!

Originally Posted by nyef

If the founding fathers were still alive, they would already have revolted (again). Go and re-read the Declaration of Independence... the parallels between King George and President George are astounding.

Amen! I didn't think anyone read that old thing anymore. Supreme Court **** sure doesn't, not to mention that irritating thing called the Consitution of the United States. **** laws get in the way of running rampant all of the world, you know.

Now, let me conclude with this: I'd only be worried about an Obama presidency if arguments could be presented, without logical fallacies, which demonstrate his policies would be destructive to this country.

I have just one question, then:

How does Obama plan to pay for all these changes, like so-called "universal healthcare", etc, in view of the fact that we are ALREADY running a $500 billion dollar (that's $500,000,000,000.00) yearly deficit (roughly)?

Don't hold your breath if you expect to ever get an answer to that one from Obama or his staff or his website.

And Obama does NOT plan on getting us out of Iraq before 2013 at the earliest. So defense spending is not going to be cut by any significant amount. The deficit also doesn't take into account off-budget expenses, or the $43 trillion in unfunded liabilities from Social Security and Medicare. David Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office, resigned in disgust last year because politicians don't seem to care that we're running the country into the ground economically. They think the magic of the inflation tax will take care of everything, I guess.

Obama and McCain have more in common with each other than either one of them does with you and I.

If memory serves, his tax plan change would increase the tax on the wealthy to increase government to bring in more federal tax money. I don't believe he's declared how to pay for all of his plans as of yet. It is worthwhile to note, however, that the Democrats are supporting a pay-as-you-go budget, which the Republicans are denouncing. Not only did the Democrats support PAYGO in 1990, but they passed it. If we can look at previous behavior, then it is likely that a similar policy will be adopted under their full control again.

It is also intriguing to note, if one can trust the data at http://zfacts.com/p/318.html , that under Regan, Bush, and The 43rd, our debt has increased, while it decreased under Clinton.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Here's to a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress which can't be filibustered by Republicans in an effort to not take responsibility for their (Republicans') own actions and incompetency!

Well that is just silly. If there has been something the Republicans have done wrong in the last 7 years it is runaway spending. While wartime spending is always heavy, the non-war related expenses have also been off the chart. They say that is a byproduct of having a single party control both houses of congress and the presidency. It seems the best chance for bi-partisan behavior is best produced by having a different party in congress than is in the presidency. That includes fiscal responsibility.

What's silly is that when they lost control of Congress they said that they would just block the Democrats from doing stuff and then blame them as the do-nothing Congress. Well, when the Republicans are booted out this fall, they will be able to do-nothing to prevent a do-something Congress (well, except march out to the front of the capitol and whine to the press).

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Well, when the Republicans are booted out this fall, they will be able to do-nothing to prevent a do-something Congress (well, except march out to the front of the capitol and whine to the press).

I'm looking forward to it.. Every so often, you got to burn the thing down and start over. Nancy Pelosi + Barack Obama will definitely do something, though if you think it includes fiscal responsibility you are smoking crack. I hope you got some money invested in gold.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'm looking forward to it.. Every so often, you got to burn the thing down and start over. Nancy Pelosi + Barack Obama will definitely do something, though if you think it includes fiscal responsibility you are smoking crack. I hope you got some money invested in gold.

Ah, yes, why would they be different from the Republicans? ... Oh, yeah, because they're not. Check the history of the last 20 years, dude. That graphic I showed you ought to help (assuming, again, that it is correct). Fiscal responsibility? I'll let the data speak for itself.

Let's face it, the Republicans had a chance with everything under their control and public sentiment leaning their way for years. They squandered every opportunity they had and caused real harm to the United States. They cannot sit on a high horse anymore declaring the wonderfullness and superiority of their political philosophy -- it failed. Invest in gold? Um, have you seen what the Republicans have done to the value of a dollar?

I'm half tempted to think that Republicans are pretty much all blind -- operating on faith that "sooner or later their policies will work." Well, it's probably more that they have put blinders on. Instead of showing how their policies could possibly succeed, they are instead saying "Well, the Democrats' policies will ruin us more, so our policies must be better" without ever offering a lick of proof and by denying the reality they have created (yep, I saw The 43rd's assertion that reality is what he makes it). Want proof that a combination of social and capitalistic policies work? Check out the world. You'll find countries which are growing and becoming stronger. America became strong, but has now been stabbed in the heart by the Republicans who then claim that "we're the greatest because of the Republican's policies." Correction. We're the greatest because of the hard work of the people who came before us. We'll be great again because of the hard work of people too -- not by stealing from the poor to pay the rich on the premise of trickling-freaking-down.

EDIT: I don't believe that the wound inflicted by the Republicans to the heart of Democracy is fatal. Just need some serious surgery.

With all that rhetoric, it sounds like you are running for office. What Nvef said is correct. Neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility anymore. Republicans spend on imperialism, defense, and expansion of the American corporate culture, the Democrats spend on social programs, wealth redistribution, and a socialist agenda. Neither party left to its own devices spends in a fiscally responsible manor.

Clinton lowered the deficit with the massive wealth generated by the internet bubble by ignoring national security, but lets not forget he also had a Republican congress. Lets face it, with the partys at odds, it is difficult to get major spending legislation moved through by either party.

If you are a big fan of isolationism, socialized health care, higher taxes and a stagnant economy I imagine you will be in heaven this year. If you are in favor of an active economy, strong national defense, and leadership in a global market. You are going to be disappointed this year. If you are in favor of fiscal responsibility from our Federal Government, you have not been happy for a long time, and are not likely to be happy anytime soon.

The deficit, according to the chart, went down when Clinton did and did not have a Democratic Congress. Republicans are against a balanced budget -- "Why balance when you can borrow?" ought to be the motto.

You make an argument that providing for the general welfare is anti-American. I'd argue that it is pro-American, even if the meaning in this context is different than that of the Constitution. The argument here seems to be anti-spending money on America. With that argument, we'd be doing stupid things like... Oh, say, spending it on the Iraqi people instead of the American people. Gotcha. Long Live Iraq!

Stagnant economy. lol. Yeah, that's right. The 43rd has been great for the economy. How could I have forgotten?

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Stagnant economy. lol. Yeah, that's right. The 43rd has been great for the economy. How could I have forgotten?

Well at least we can agree on that. I'm not anti-spending on America. I'm not anti-borrowing, so long as the loan is for something that will later turn a profit. I find it hard to place entitlement spending as an investment that will one day turn a profit, unless we are talking about education. At least spending money on invading a place with lots of oil has some dollar signs at the end of the rainbow.

And a healthier population isn't a worthwhile investment? Seriously? Many Republicans (not necessarily you, btw) act like only those who can afford health care are worthy of it. Was the interstate highway not worth it?

I have come to realize that there are some tasks which are greater than an individual; greater than a company; greater than a non-profit. Some tasks require generations of work to achieve. Where the results are not always tangible, but observable. A happier, healthier society is a more productive society. Quality of life is more important than one's earnings or social status. A greater quality of life for its citizenry is a noble and worthwhile goal.

Oh, and exactly what noble goal has been achieved by this war? Appeasing the family of The 43rd's desire to "deal with" Iraq? Was that worth the money. Universal health care comes with a much smaller price tag and a nice side effect: lives saved.