Talk me out of it

[tjakey]

Hillary Clinton: Four years of Bush 1, eight years of Clinton 1, eight years of Bush 2, I just can’t vote for four (or eight) years of Clinton 2. When did the US become a two family government? In addition Clinton 1 did NAFTA, started the Rendition program, and was generally not very progressive for a “liberal.” Why would one think Senator Clinton would be much different?

Barrack Obama: I’m having trouble getting over his religious affiliations. He converted to Christianity as an adult, which doesn’t say much to me about his ability for critical thought, his capacity for independent thinking, or the value he puts in truth. In addition he is a member of an openly racist congregation whose leader was (is) ardently anti-American. (Can you imagine any white politician running who is a two decade member of the John Birch society?) And yet Senator Obama still regards this guy as something of a Dutch uncle. This is supposed to make things better?

John McCain: Fuck me he’s a Republican. More disturbing was his willingness to kneel at the feet of Jerry Farwell to get the right-wing, nut-case, Christian-fundamentalist vote. McCain’s religious affiliations are even more disturbing than those of Obama. Beside, well, fuck me he’s a Republican. He drinks at the trough of the NRA, corporations, tax cuts for the rich, and he never saw a war he didn’t like. And well, fuck me he’s a Republican.

300,000,000 people in this country and these three are the best we can do? Doesn’t this suggest that the system is completely, utterly, fatally broken? Truth to tell I think each one of them would be a disaster in the White House. And if someone is going to be a disaster it might as well be a Republican. Then, (maybe) the Democrats will finally come up with a real candidate and not a side show.

But what do I do this time around, vote for Nadir? After all he is the “vote for me because the system is completely, utterly, fatally broken” candidate.

Someone talk me out of it.

[The 800# Gorilla]

Ok, here goes.

tjakey for President. :wave:

[laughing dog]

But what do I do this time around, vote for Nadir? Anyone else notice this serendipitous spelling? :)

[tjakey]

Ahh Gorilla my friend, I am an atheist, I don't like dogs or babies (except my grand daughter), I think drugs should be legal and guns illegal, I think "In god we trust" should be taken off our money and "under god" out of the oath, I think hookers, booze and tobacco should be tax exempt while religion and all of its assets are taxed at something near 75% of net income.

I think being a Y.E.C. should automatically disqualify one for public office and get one a ticket to a padded room. I think if it wears a turban shoot it, (I know - doesn't fit with my gun thing) and if it bows to Mecca shoot it in the ass. I would have us out of Iraq in weeks and let the Muslims have at killing each other with abandon. The next WTC and I would turn Mecca into a smoldering lump of glass.

I couldn't get elected dog catcher anywhere in these United States. Which is understandable. I wouldn't vote for me either.

[Goldie]

Just don't vote Republican, please.

[Garnet]

That's it....I'm writing in tjakey.

[The 800# Gorilla]

Ramen.

[shipload]

Hillary Clinton: Four years of Bush 1, eight years of Clinton 1, eight years of Bush 2, I just can’t vote for four (or eight) years of Clinton 2. When did the US become a two family government? In addition Clinton 1 did NAFTA, started the Rendition program, and was generally not very progressive for a “liberal.” Why would one think Senator Clinton would be much different?

Barrack Obama: I’m having trouble getting over his religious affiliations. He converted to Christianity as an adult, which doesn’t say much to me about his ability for critical thought, his capacity for independent thinking, or the value he puts in truth. In addition he is a member of an openly racist congregation whose leader was (is) ardently anti-American. (Can you imagine any white politician running who is a two decade member of the John Birch society?) And yet Senator Obama still regards this guy as something of a Dutch uncle. This is supposed to make things better?

John McCain: Fuck me he’s a Republican. More disturbing was his willingness to kneel at the feet of Jerry Farwell to get the right-wing, nut-case, Christian-fundamentalist vote. McCain’s religious affiliations are even more disturbing than those of Obama. Beside, well, fuck me he’s a Republican. He drinks at the trough of the NRA, corporations, tax cuts for the rich, and he never saw a war he didn’t like. And well, fuck me he’s a Republican.

300,000,000 people in this country and these three are the best we can do? Doesn’t this suggest that the system is completely, utterly, fatally broken? Truth to tell I think each one of them would be a disaster in the White House. And if someone is going to be a disaster it might as well be a Republican. Then, (maybe) the Democrats will finally come up with a real candidate and not a side show.

But what do I do this time around, vote for Nadir? After all he is the “vote for me because the system is completely, utterly, fatally broken” candidate.

Someone talk me out of it.

Uh...I'm a NAWAPP: Not Affliliated with Any Political Party. That's how I'm registered.

I don't agree with this assessment:

Barrack Obama: I’m having trouble getting over his religious affiliations. He converted to Christianity as an adult, which doesn’t say much to me about his ability for critical thought, his capacity for independent thinking, or the value he puts in truth. In addition he is a member of an openly racist congregation whose leader was (is) ardently anti-American. (Can you imagine any white politician running who is a two decade member of the John Birch society?) And yet Senator Obama still regards this guy as something of a Dutch uncle. This is supposed to make things better?

I'd appreciate it if you would provide evidence of the bolded comments.

I read Reverand Wright's pulpit comments and although I disagree with some of his commentary, I think he was neither racist nor unpatriotic. I think he was fulfilling his role as a christian minister to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. He has done nothing untoward, particularly if you take into consideration the prophets of the Old Testament, rather than the profits of the televangelists. Reverand Wright is a minister of the United Church of Christ...better known as the Congregationalists...the church of our New England forefathers and the bold believers who laid down their lives and their reputations to bring slavery in the US to an end.

He comments were not unpatriotic, but condemnatory of what such a great nation has done to its marginals whilst terrorizing the rest of the world.

As for white politicians...Our current president has invited Dominionists to preside over White House Prayer Meetings. That scares me more than any ranting UCC preacher calling down damnation upon those who would deny succor to the suffering in his own country, whilst he and his friends get rich on the proceeds.

Then, consider the comment of Frank Schaeffer, who noted that his father, evangelist Francis Schaeffer condemned the US and called for a violent uprising against the US government, was invited to the White House for lunch by Nixon, Reagan and Bush1.

Then there are the religiously zealous ideologues who flitter around Bush 2, blithely predicting the coming Armageddon and urging US participation in bringing it about. That's far scarier than Obama or any of his friends.

These are the same folks who McCain has compromised his principles to attract to his campaign support. Parsley and Hagee are perfect examples.

These are all folks who are waiting for the red heifer and onslaught associated with the rise of the antichrist. Whackjobs...through and through.

Obama is the sanest one out there...I'm personally sorry he felt he had to distance himself from a clergyman with social consciousness who has the courage to speak his own mind.

When you see this kind of spin, look to see who is generating it and why. This whole imbroglio over Wright is misplaced and given import far beyond what it should, into blatant falsehood. It seems to me to be spin generated by the Republicans because they'd prefer to face Clinton than Obama.

And, no...I still have not decided my vote.

[Jest2Ask]

Uh...I'm a NAWAPP: Not Affliliated with Any Political Party. That's how I'm registered.

I don't agree with this assessment:



I'd appreciate it if you would provide evidence of the bolded comments.

I read Reverand Wright's pulpit comments and although I disagree with some of his commentary, I think he was neither racist nor unpatriotic. ................

He comments were not unpatriotic, but condemnatory of what such a great nation has done to its marginals whilst terrorizing the rest of the world.
---------------------------------------


Obama is the sanest one out there...I'm personally sorry he felt he had to distance himself from a clergyman with social consciousness who has the courage to speak his own mind.

When you see this kind of spin, look to see who is generating it and why. This whole imbroglio over Wright is misplaced and given import far beyond what it should, into blatant falsehood. It seems to me to be spin generated by the Republicans because they'd prefer to face Clinton than Obama.

And, no...I still have not decided my vote.


:notworthy: :notworthy:

Of course I am biased against anyone vaguely connected to the current adimistration (Republican / conservative guilt by association ). McCain (IMO) has sold himself out to the power structure behind Bush-2. Which is really too bad as I liked him when he seemingly was independant.

Hillary I just distrust perhaps unfairly but :dunno:

Bottom line yeah or system is screwed but we don't have the courage to really change it.

[Jest2Ask]

300,000,000 people in this country and these three are the best we can do? Doesn’t this suggest that the system is completely, utterly, fatally broken?

-------------------
But what do I do this time around, vote for Nadir? After all he is the “vote for me because the system is completely, utterly, fatally broken” candidate.

Someone talk me out of it.


Hmmm intentional or not :dunno: :confused:

Nadir (noun) : Lowest point / rock bottom / all - time low / depths of despair

[tjakey]

Sorry Jest, borrowed. I saw his name spelled that way on a web sight somewhere, and it seemed kind of appropriate to my rant.

Ship friend, you may be taking me a tad too seriously. I caught Christopher Hitchens on one of his videos suggesting the Senator Obama had a lot to explain when it came to his membership in a "Black racist church." (Hitchens' words.) I thought that was a bit curious, then a few days later the whole thing came up. I watched a couple of the clips and it seemed to me that the good Rev. White is as out of line as Falwell or Robertson have ever been. I tend to label anyone who thinks that the WTC attack was somehow justified in any way, shape or form as being as fuck-nuts crazy as the Muslim criminal lunatics who funded and carried out the attack.

I'm not sure how your criticisms of Republican's bending over for religious screwing helps me with Obama. I know they are shit-heads, you know they are shit-heads, exactly what would we argue about? Obama may (may - I'm not sure he is fully vetted yet) be the least shit-headed of the bunch, but an adult convert to a ranting Christian Church? Sorry, doesn't do anything for me.

[kennethamy]

Just don't vote Republican, please.

But McCain did not say he was dodging sniper fire when he was doing nothing of the kind; and he did not say he was not in some pew listening to a raving racist when he was. So, why should I not vote for McCain, which I expect to do?

[shipload]

But McCain did not say he was dodging sniper fire when he was doing nothing of the kind; and he did not say he was not in some pew listening to a raving racist when he was. So, why should I not vote for McCain, which I expect to do?

Because he'd sell out his principles for the votes of whackjobs.

I keep wondering whether he's the one wearing the blue dress these days.

[shipload]

I'm not sure how your criticisms of Republican's bending over for religious screwing helps me with Obama. I know they are shit-heads, you know they are shit-heads, exactly what would we argue about? Obama may (may - I'm not sure he is fully vetted yet) be the least shit-headed of the bunch, but an adult convert to a ranting Christian Church? Sorry, doesn't do anything for me.

Because from my view, it is the people who associate with whackjobs who are palpably worse than Wright seem to be the ones most "incensed" by Wright's comments.

The racism I see is that Wright can make the comments he did and attract shiploads of criticism, yet those who associate with even worse advisors are in the forefront of the feigned disapproval. A black minister does it and it's an abomination. White preachers do it and get invites to tea at the White House.

[Esocyn]

I'm writing in Jeremiah Wright.

[Ray Moscow]

I plan to vote for the least bad candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning.

In this case, that's Obama, because the better candidates have all dropped out.

I appreciate the position of those who vote for better candidates (like Nader) who simply won't win, but I think this is bad tactics.

[Esocyn]

I plan to vote for the least bad candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning.

In this case, that's Obama, because the better candidates have all dropped out.

I appreciate the position of those who vote for better candidates (like Nader) who simply won't win, but I think this is bad tactics.

WTF is it going to matter who I vote for when my vote isn't going to count?

I feel like I'm doing it so I have the ability to bitch about politics for the next 4 years, so the mouth-breathers who seriously believe the line "If you don't vote, you can't complain!" will just shut the fuck up.

[Ray Moscow]

WTF is it going to matter who I vote for when my vote isn't going to count?

I have the same problem, because I'm still registered to vote in Texas. My vote is usually overwhelmed by the people who think Rush Limbaugh is the fount of all wisdom.

Still, I vote.

[tjakey]

Because from my view, it is the people who associate with whackjobs who are palpably worse than Wright seem to be the ones most "incensed" by Wright's comments.

The racism I see is that Wright can make the comments he did and attract shiploads of criticism, yet those who associate with even worse advisors are in the forefront of the feigned disapproval. A black minister does it and it's an abomination. White preachers do it and get invites to tea at the White House.

I don't know that I am "incensed" by Wright's comments as I am disappointed that Obama would stand by a person who claims that the WTC attack was justified. That and my impression of Obama tending to wear his religion on his sleeve. (My view, your mileage may differ.)

And McCain? In one election he is "standing up" to the Christian nut-job right; the next election he is giving them hand jobs and declaring how he is one of the fold. Obama joined his church some 20 years ago. McCain is a recent right-wing-nut-job convert just to get votes. He has less claim to integrity then anyone who has been in the race so far.

[Esocyn]

I don't know that I am "incensed" by Wright's comments as I am disappointed that Obama would stand by a person who claims that the WTC attack was justified. That and my impression of Obama tending to wear his religion on his sleeve. (My view, your mileage may differ.)

Wright never said that the WTC attack was justified. He was saying what goes around comes around, which is perfectly true. When you fuck with people and kill their leaders on a constant basis, for the reason to steal their resources, then something is gonna give. It's inevitable - it does not mean it's justified.

[kennethamy]

Wright never said that the WTC attack was justified. He was saying what goes around comes around, which is perfectly true. When you fuck with people and kill their leaders on a constant basis, for the reason to steal their resources, then something is gonna give. It's inevitable - it does not mean it's justified.

Wright did not imply that the attack was at least excusable? Honestly? All of sudden it is the attackers who are the victims? And, what of his assertion that the United States government intentionally gave black people AIDS? Think that is excusable too?

[kennethamy]

Because he'd sell out his principles for the votes of whackjobs.

I keep wondering whether he's the one wearing the blue dress these days.

:confused:

[laughing dog]

Wright did not imply that the attack was at least excusable? Honestly? All of sudden it is the attackers who are the victims? And, what of his assertion that the United States government intentionally gave black people AIDS? Think that is excusable too? In my view - and my memory could be wrong - Wright was providing an explanation, not a justification for the attack. There is a not so subtle difference between the two concepts.

[kennethamy]

In my view - and my memory could be wrong - Wright was providing an explanation, not a justification for the attack. There is a not so subtle difference between the two concepts.

I thought he was providing an excuse.

[Arctish]

Some people thing the attacks came out of the blue, unpredictable and unforseeable and the result of an unreasoning hatred. Others think the attacks were entirely predictable and forseeable and the result of an easily understood hatred with a documented history behind it. Then there are those who think it's our fault we were attacked because we don't hate gays enough.

So which position is the most offensive, which is the most ignorant, and which is the most accurate?

[shipload]

I don't know that I am "incensed" by Wright's comments as I am disappointed that Obama would stand by a person who claims that the WTC attack was justified. That and my impression of Obama tending to wear his religion on his sleeve. (My view, your mileage may differ.)

My mileage does differ. I'm not particularly pleased with the manner in which our political leadership has taken the country since WWII. In one sense, I think that WTC was a known possibility, made more likely by the international actions of the US overseas. It was perpetrated by a group the US had, alternately, trained and equipped, and then attacked, in Afghanistan. My nation was reaping the product of a half century of terrorizing, manipulating, and pilfering. My nation has become the military/industrial juggernaut that Eisenhower warned us against. Weapons and armaments are our most profitable export to the rest of the world....it's our number one earner, our cash crop.

With weapons as our cash crop...war is our economic stimulus. War is a must. Emnity is our friend. It's cash in hand for the highest life style in the world...well, for some.

When you look at the death, destruction, morbidity, grief, anguish the US has spread throughout the world, the deaths of the WTC pale in comparison.

It didn't have to be this way. I don't know as we can walk away from it undamaged and unscathed, now. It will be distinctly unpleasant economically to entirely restructure our domestic economy away from making weapons and the equipment of war. Many will suffer.

And McCain? In one election he is "standing up" to the Christian nut-job right; the next election he is giving them hand jobs and declaring how he is one of the fold. Obama joined his church some 20 years ago. McCain is a recent right-wing-nut-job convert just to get votes. He has less claim to integrity then anyone who has been in the race so far.

Wants to attack Iran. This is insanity. A particular delusion he shares with Hillary, I understand.

His VP selection will be very, very, very, very, very important.

He's a sell-out. Currently a Bush buttkisser; who knows next week? Exceedingly high possibility he will be a willing sockpuppet for the MIC. In other words...."Same as it ever was."

[tjakey]

Ship my friend; I do not disagree with you at all. American foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster since at least the formation of Israel. Both parties are equally guilty though, in fact, I don’t know that one can make the legitimate claim that there are two parties. It seems to me there is more dissention and breath of opinion on the “one party” system of China then there is in the “two party” system in the US. China has (is) making the move from socialism to a market economy, while its one party does everything it can to stay in control. The US is close to being moribund; while its two parties do everything they can to prevent any challenge to their dominance of the system.

Which is kind of how this whole op got started. Where is the candidate that will cut the US nuclear arsenal in half? Where is the candidate that will slash our military budget by 50%? Where is the leader who will stand up and say that exporting war to the world, providing weapons to both sides of conflicts, is the pinnacle of immorality? Where is the voice that states that the US spending more on its military (623 Billion dollars) then the rest of the world combined (477 Billion dollars) while our bridges fall, our citizens lack health care, and our children’s education fails, is not only hideously obscene but lousy fucking “leadership?”

Rhetorical question of course; there are none. Which is why I can’t figure out why I should vote for any of these asshats. Am I not just participating in and enabling the delusion?

[Esocyn]

Wright did not imply that the attack was at least excusable? Honestly? All of sudden it is the attackers who are the victims? And, what of his assertion that the United States government intentionally gave black people AIDS? Think that is excusable too?

Why do you insist on using strawmen?

Now, had you seen the entire video, instead of swallowing the sound-bite that Fox News fed you, then you would see that he did not imply that the attacks were excusable, in the least. In fact, you seem to have completely missed his point - I don't know whether you did this intentionally or if you're truly that dull.

More over, as I explained to the other right-wing nutcase in this thread - Nunyobizness or whatever - there are a couple of things that he said that were clearly wrong, like the US government intentionally gave black people AIDS.

Why don't you try to pay attention for once?

I thought he was providing an excuse.

You thought wrong.

[Esocyn]

Ship my friend; I do not disagree with you at all. American foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster since at least the formation of Israel. Both parties are equally guilty though, in fact, I don’t know that one can make the legitimate claim that there are two parties. It seems to me there is more dissention and breath of opinion on the “one party” system of China then there is in the “two party” system in the US. China has (is) making the move from socialism to a market economy, while its one party does everything it can to stay in control. The US is close to being moribund; while its two parties do everything they can to prevent any challenge to their dominance of the system.

Which is kind of how this whole op got started. Where is the candidate that will cut the US nuclear arsenal in half? Where is the candidate that will slash our military budget by 50%? Where is the leader who will stand up and say that exporting war to the world, providing weapons to both sides of conflicts, is the pinnacle of immorality? Where is the voice that states that the US spending more on its military (623 Billion dollars) then the rest of the world combined (477 Billion dollars) while our bridges fall, our citizens lack health care, and our children’s education fails, is not only hideously obscene but lousy fucking “leadership?”

Rhetorical question of course; there are none. Which is why I can’t figure out why I should vote for any of these asshats. Am I not just participating in and enabling the delusion?

If you accept all of this then why did you repeatedly assert that Jeremiah was being "unAmerican" or say that he was trying to justify the attacks?

[tjakey]

Because there is no justification for hijacking airplanes, cutting the throats of terrified flight attendants, and then flying those airplanes into buildings where thousands of people are just going about their daily lives without menace or harmful intent to anyone. Depravity is without excuse.

[Esocyn]

Because there is no justification for hijacking airplanes, cutting the throats of terrified flight attendants, and then flying those airplanes into buildings where thousands of people are just going about their daily lives without menace or harmful intent to anyone. Depravity is without excuse.

But he was providing no justification. You, just like kennethamy, are conflating explanation with justification. They're two different things.

[Jest2Ask]

But what do I do this time around, vote for Nadir? After all he is the “vote for me because the system is completely, utterly, fatally broken” candidate.

Someone talk me out of it.



http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080326/obama-girl-swings-at-hillary-clinton-and-misses/

[tjakey]

Just how does one explain depravity? I worked my way through as many of Wright’s videos as I could find. Not once did I hear even a hint of condemnation for those who carried out the attacks; nothing of depraved or deluded, criminal or insane or obscene. Lots of angry words about America, as if the people who were forced to jump from the tops of the WTC, plummeting to a terrifying death instead of being incinerated, had somehow earned their fate. Not a single angry word for those who forced them to make such an utterly horrifying choice. (If there is any justice in history at all, Islam will be forever despised for its responsibility for and collusion in those attacks. It won’t be of course. Even here in the US we don’t call the killers, “Muslims” but rather “terrorists.” As if somehow a tactic is ideology.)

Does that make Wright any less deranged then Falwell or Robertson, Roberts or that dip-shit who sits on a gold throne on TV (sorry I don’t know his name)? No, but it makes him no less deranged either. And it makes Obama’s relationship with the man no less distasteful then McCain’s with Falwell. Or maybe it does in a way. McCain’s was a blatantly political move, cynical and hypocritical on a breathtaking level. I’m not sure anyone really bought it; not the public, not the press and not the right wing nut jobs. Obama however, gives every indication that he was (is) a true follower of whacked Rev. Wright. Oh he distances himself now from some of the more blatantly troublesome statements, but he spent 20 some odd years as a member of this guy’s church.

Which leaves me in the same place as when I started this thread. I find Obama no more attractive as President then I do McCain; McCain no more so then Clinton; Clinton no more so then Obama. The perfect trinity of distaste.

[Arctish]

Just how does one explain depravity? I worked my way through as many of Wright’s videos as I could find. Not once did I hear even a hint of condemnation for those who carried out the attacks; nothing of depraved or deluded, criminal or insane or obscene. Lots of angry words about America, as if the people who were forced to jump from the tops of the WTC, plummeting to a terrifying death instead of being incinerated, had somehow earned their fate. Not a single angry word for those who forced them to make such an utterly horrifying choice. (If there is any justice in history at all, Islam will be forever despised for its responsibility for and collusion in those attacks. It won’t be of course. Even here in the US we don’t call the killers, “Muslims” but rather “terrorists.” As if somehow a tactic is ideology.)



Are you saying since you can't find a recording of Rev. Wright condemning the terrorists you therefore conclude he approves of their actions?

You won't find any recordings of Quaker ministers condemning the terrorists, either. Quakers aren't into condemnation. That doesn't mean the Quakers approve of the Sept. 11 attacks.

[Esocyn]

Just how does one explain depravity? I worked my way through as many of Wright’s videos as I could find. Not once did I hear even a hint of condemnation for those who carried out the attacks; nothing of depraved or deluded, criminal or insane or obscene. Lots of angry words about America, as if the people who were forced to jump from the tops of the WTC, plummeting to a terrifying death instead of being incinerated, had somehow earned their fate. Not a single angry word for those who forced them to make such an utterly horrifying choice. (If there is any justice in history at all, Islam will be forever despised for its responsibility for and collusion in those attacks. It won’t be of course. Even here in the US we don’t call the killers, “Muslims” but rather “terrorists.” As if somehow a tactic is ideology.)

Does that make Wright any less deranged then Falwell or Robertson, Roberts or that dip-shit who sits on a gold throne on TV (sorry I don’t know his name)? No, but it makes him no less deranged either. And it makes Obama’s relationship with the man no less distasteful then McCain’s with Falwell. Or maybe it does in a way. McCain’s was a blatantly political move, cynical and hypocritical on a breathtaking level. I’m not sure anyone really bought it; not the public, not the press and not the right wing nut jobs. Obama however, gives every indication that he was (is) a true follower of whacked Rev. Wright. Oh he distances himself now from some of the more blatantly troublesome statements, but he spent 20 some odd years as a member of this guy’s church.

Which leaves me in the same place as when I started this thread. I find Obama no more attractive as President then I do McCain; McCain no more so then Clinton; Clinton no more so then Obama. The perfect trinity of distaste.

First of all, you're, again, conflating explanation with justification. Can you seriously not see the delineation?

But, in any case, going by your conflation, we would not be allowed to explain why anything that can be considered depraved happened because it would then be some kind of justification. That's absolute nonsense. We wouldn't be able to explain the Holocaust, civil wars, so on and so forth.

And, by the way, I don't know what videos you were watching - if they were the MSM soundbites or not - but every time I heard him say something about the attacks, his statements were always prefaced with statements about how horrible and inhumane the attacks were. And I certainly don't understand where you think he implied that people falling from the buildings had somehow earned it? In fact, that was one of the examples he was using to condemn the attacks.

Here, I'll quote it for you;

What should our response be, in light of such an unthinkable act? I asked the lord that question Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday... I was stuck in New Jersey - in Newark - no flights were leaving La Guardia, JFK or Newark airports. On the day that the FAA opened up the airports to bring into the cities of destination, the people's whose flights had been diverted because of the hijacking, a scare in New York closed all three regional airports and I couldn't even get here for Mr. Radford's father's funeral. And I asked god, "What should our response be?"

I saw pictures of the incredible; people jumping from 110th floor. People jumping from the roof, because the stairwells above the 89th and 90th floors were gone. Black people jumping to a certain death. People holding hands and jumping. People on fire jumping. And I asked the lord, "What should our response be?" I read what the people of faith felt in 551 BC, but this is a different time. A different enemy. This is a different world. This is a different terror. This is a different reality. What should our response be? The lord showed me three things - let me share them with you quickly, and I'm going to leave you alone to think about the faith footnote.

(emphasis mine)

Do you know what I see in there? Someone who was questioning themselves at the time because they were scared about what the attacks had done. I don't see justification at all. I don't see him saying that the people who jumped earned their deaths. To insinuate such a thing is extremely dishonest.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

WTF is it going to matter who I vote for when my vote isn't going to count?

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, not this bullshit again.

There are 50 separate votes for president, with 50 separate different electorates. The probability of a single vote (i.e, your vote) becoming critical is much, much greater in these elections.

I feel like I'm doing it so I have the ability to bitch about politics for the next 4 years, so the mouth-breathers who seriously believe the line "If you don't vote, you can't complain!" will just shut the fuck up.


Actually, if you vote you lose the right to complain--you encouraged them or put them into office.

I on the other hand, who did not vote, who did not leave my house on election day...

(I LOVE George Carlin)

[Esocyn]

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, not this bullshit again.

There are 50 separate votes for president, with 50 separate different electorates. The probability of a single vote (i.e, your vote) becoming critical is much, much greater in these elections.

I hope you don't think this is at all true for Texas.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

Your vote doesn't count for much if you vote for any unpopular politician, no matter where you are--i.e. libertarians.

[Lanakila]

When did McCain buddy buddy with Falwell? He's been dead for going on a year now.

[Esocyn]

Your vote doesn't count for much if you vote for any unpopular politician, no matter where you are--i.e. libertarians.

I guess I'll put the question in a different way; do you seriously think that, in Texas, if I were to vote for even Barack Obama that my vote would count?

[Arctish]

I guess I'll put the question in a different way; do you seriously think that, in Texas, if I were to vote for even Barack Obama that my vote would count?

Yes.

I lived in Texas during the Reagan years and nowadays I live in another Republican stronghold. It's been years since I believed my candidate of choice would carry my home state. Nevertheless, I believe my votes are important if for no other reason than to give a more accurate reading of a politician's popularity. If the dissenters stay home the winners get to declare they've won by landslides and everybody loves their platform. :yuck:

Even if Texas goes to McCain a strong showing of Obama supporters will resonate throughout the entire good ole boy network. Shaking up the religious right wing and the "America, fuck yeah!" halfwits is worth the effort of getting to a polling station.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

^^^
What he said.

[Writer@Large]

I don't know that I am "incensed" by Wright's comments as I am disappointed that Obama would stand by a person who claims that the WTC attack was justified. That and my impression of Obama tending to wear his religion on his sleeve.
I'm sorry for jumping into the conversation late, but I've just registered. :)

I have to take issue with this. You've got a problem with Obama for not disowning a man with controversial views, and for wearing his religion on his sleeve, and because of that you're thinking of voting for McCain. Seriously? That's the definition of irony.

The entire Republican party wears their religion on their sleeves, and just because McCain hasn't been hugely religious yet, don't think it isn't coming. He needs the Religious base of the party to have any chance of winning. Also, he's gone out of his way to kiss the ring of certain religious nutjobs (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1779141) who claimed that the WTC attack was justified because of America's tolerance of lesbians and other undesirables (http://www.actupny.org/YELL/falwell.html). And I quote:

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve [...] I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

How does that not make you cringe just as much as Obama & Wright?

--W@L

[tjakey]

It does make me cringe as much as Obama & Wright (or did - see below). That was the point of the thread.

Esocyn (and others) who have pointed out Mr. Wright's words, thanks. I couldn't find any transcripts of his various sermons and I appreciate you taking the time to find them for me. And at the end of the day Mr. Obama doesn't look quite as bland, insipid, (? - can't really find the right word here) as he did. Maybe by the time November comes around I can vote for him and not feel like I am being had yet again.

(The truth is I will probably end up voting for him anyway because my wife has decided he is the least objectionable of the trio and, well, she is smarter than I am. If I can't really figure out a reason to vote for someone her reasons are good enough.)

Still, 300 million people in this country and these three are the best we can do? Is there anyone backing a candidate because they really think that person is a superlative leader with vision, passion and ideas that will help heal and lead the world? Or is it, "Well shit, (place name here) is at least not as bad a fucktard as (place other two names here)?

Which is why the idea of voting for Ralph still lingers out there at the edge of my mind. The guy can't win, in fact I'm not sure I would vote for him if he had a chance of winning. But I would love to see the talking heads squirm if he got 15 or 25% of the vote. It might occur to our "leaders" that people really are dissatisfied with a system that can't do any better then Obama, Clinton and McCain.

[Zebulon]

Still, 300 million people in this country and these three are the best we can do? Is there anyone backing a candidate because they really think that person is a superlative leader with vision, passion and ideas that will help heal and lead the world? Or is it, "Well shit, (place name here) is at least not as bad a fucktard as (place other two names here)?

No one who actually wants the job has those superlative qualities.

To quote South Park, it's always a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

[Esocyn]

^^^
What he said.

What do you mean "what he said"? He indirectly rebuffed your argument. Your contention was that it's not going to matter if I vote third-party; Green, Libertarian or whatever, or any "unpopular" candidate, but Aeron basically said that no matter what you do, it makes a difference, even if you vote third-party, to, if nothing else, signal to McCain that he doesn't have a mandate.

Which I think is still a weak argument, considering McCain (or Obama or whoever) is going to act as if he has it anyway.

[laughing dog]

Which I think is still a weak argument, considering McCain (or Obama or whoever) is going to act as if he has it anyway.
If I am not mistaken, the Nov. ballot will have more than a Presidential race. So, unless you are not going to vote in any race or question, it makes little sense to forego registering your voice in the Presidential race. After all, if you casting your ballot in one race, it is little extra effort to vote in another race. Whether or not the eventual winner receives an overwhelming mandate or acts accordingly is irrelevant - the record of the votes will stand and give a measure of the popularity of the candidates.

[shipload]

Whether or not the eventual winner receives an overwhelming mandate or acts accordingly is irrelevant - the record of the votes will stand and give a measure of the popularity of the candidates.

It may well be a measure of how unpopular the other candidate is.

Why settle for the lesser of two evils? Vote Cthulhu.

[Writer@Large]

Which is why the idea of voting for Ralph still lingers out there at the edge of my mind. The guy can't win, in fact I'm not sure I would vote for him if he had a chance of winning. But I would love to see the talking heads squirm if he got 15 or 25% of the vote.
The only way he might do that would be if Clinton stages some sort of party-boss coup of the nomination. If the primaries favor Obama but Clinton politics her way into the nom, I think you'll see a big chunk of Democratic voters (myself included) break with the national party and vote third party, maybe even Nader. Of course, in that scenario, McCain wins, but in that scenario the Dems would have deserved it. On the state level, including state reps to national Congress, I would still vote Dem; I just couldn't bring myself at that point to vote Clinton.

--W@L