US Presidential Elections 3

[Aristes]

I'm going by the public statements by the campaign, not an unnamed source for Newsweek. However, the article does include one statement that makes sense.

 

"...the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books."

 

I'd suggest that this is a red herring. If the audit turns up the real dirt, as the Newsweeks unsubstantiated claim suggests, then I will gladly eat crow. Until then, I don't know why the official word should take backseat to the mags rumor sheet.

 

On the other hand, this sort of nonsense is the type of thing that irritates me about the Palin choice. What McCain fans saw as daring and courageous, I saw as desperate and unpredictable.

 

Frankly, Alaska has got some real problems lately. When a convicted fellon comes within a hair's breath of winning the senate seat, your state has problems.

[Humodour]

Newsweek has been running its election project for many years now. It (that specific secret press team) is not known for making things up or publishing falsehoods.

 

To be fair to Ted Stevens, he did more for the lower classes of Alaska (especially rural native Americans) than, well, anybody, and he has immense seniority over Begich (which means he can continue to do more for Alaska). It's no surprise they'd keep voting for him. What McCain calls 'earmarks', rural native Americans call quality of life improvements. It's always interesting to see things from the other side's perspective.

[The Owner]

I dont really like OBAMA, but that don't mean other people cant, It aint like some racist reason i dont like him, thats like sayin anyone who wouldnt vote for Hillary is sexist... I think (from what every1 is sayin', not that i made it up) that he is socialist, i personally dont think this will help our economy, but we should pray for him, because he is our new president

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I think (from what every1 is sayin', not that i made it up) that he is socialist...

 

He's not.

 

...but we should pray for him, because he is our new president...

 

[Calax]

I personally think that the secret service is going to work overtime to protect obama because of the fact that we have somewhat militant racists who probably lack the intelligence to know that attempted assassinations don't go well

[The Owner]

I personally think that the secret service is going to work overtime to protect obama because of the fact that we have somewhat militant racists who probably lack the intelligence to know that attempted assassinations don't go well

 

ROFL!

 

that may be true lol, and it sounds kinda funny when ya put it that way.

 

Well, whether ya like him or not, he is our president for the next 4 years starting...January i think.

So, pray for him!!!

[Volourn]

No. I pray for nobody except for God to forgive God's sins.

[Walsingham]

I personally think that the secret service is going to work overtime to protect obama because of the fact that we have somewhat militant racists who probably lack the intelligence to know that attempted assassinations don't go well

 

ROFL!

 

that may be true lol, and it sounds kinda funny when ya put it that way.

 

Well, whether ya like him or not, he is our president for the next 4 years starting...January i think.

So, pray for him!!!

 

 

If my prayers start working, he's not the first in line. But since you asked, I'll try to save him one.

 

Krez, I don't really know the woman, but a candidate gets seen with their family. They get JUDGED by their family, as the press coverage of Palin showed. I don't see why spending money on them is unreasonable. The donors pay to get you elected.

 

But it's not like the donors can be outraged, IMO. It's not fething children's kidney transplant donations. You don't get to finance political campaigns and take the fething high ground over it.

[Aristes]

I stand by what I said earlier. It may be that the unsubstantiated story is true, but it's not like major news organizations haven't had to back off from stories they've already printed. ...And since Newsweek didn't print a named source and only gave rumors, they won't even need to print a retraction. It may be true, but we should wait for the audit. If this story is true, and the audit bears that out, I'll gladly admit to being wrong. That's the point. We should argue based on facts, and the newsweek article is not fact. It smells of the usual backbiting between staffs at the end of a failed campaign.

 

As for Stevens, who the hell cares? He's a convicted fellon. If he had won, the Senate, both republicans and democrats, would probably have refused to seat him. Nuts. I know folks like to argue just to argue and whatnot, but Stevens is a criminal.

 

Now, as far as his service to his state, yes, he's brought home a lot of bacon. The problem with earmarks isn't that they're universally bad. Even McCain didn't say that they had always been bad. What he said, and I agree with him on this, is that they are institutionally dangerous. The system is flawed at its most basic level by encouraging unethical behavior. In fact, since it's hard to tell the difference, even ethical behavior becomes suspicious. There are ways of ensuring federal funding at the state level without relying on earmarks and, frankly, the federal government should essentially confine itself to funding federal programs that begin and end at the federal level. Grants to the states should not be part and parcel of the federal system. That was the whole issue with federal mandates, often tied to federal funding, in the 1990s. Nice to see the damnably corrupt Republicans taking over from the damnably corrupt Democrats.

 

Want to encourage faith in the government? Start acting in good faith.

[Walsingham]

Racial attacks up post-election.

 

My reaction to this was that this should be an excellent opportunity to fething well identify and deal with the individuals responsible.

[taks]

He's not.

you must be basing your opinion on the way he campaigned, not where he actually stands. he's a marxist, actually, which makes him socialist even if the system he works within does not allow fully socialist policies. of course, just about all politicians that make it into the limelight are socialist.

 

let's now hear from the peanut gallery about how taks doesn't understand socialism, and i get to yet again point out that the gallery doesn't understand what statism or collectivism is, and how all statist/collectivist systems are the same under the hood. variations on a theme are not only immaterial, but point out how little the peanut critics actually understand, which is exactly why statist policies continue to destroy our society. wrap them in a "third way" package and suddenly morons come out of the woodwork showing their collective hands.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

The devil is always in the details, as usual you have bundled so much together that the bundles no longer make any sense.

 

There you go, peanut gallery out.

[taks]

The devil is always in the details, as usual you have bundled so much together that the bundles no longer make any sense.

you don't make any sense. there's no "bundling." obama's positions are marxist, period. that makes him a statist, which is no different than any of the "ists" relative to capitalist. the "details" are immaterial. that you don't understand why this is true is not a surprise.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Saying Obama is Marxist is a subjective judgment, nothing more. Marxism is an anachronism, at least economically speaking. That's what you want to paint him as.

[taks]

keep in mind that no "socialist" can ever win the US presidency. instead, they make up this "third way" crap* and insist that it's viable and can overcome the problems with socialism. the "third way" is not new as von mises was writing about it long ago. it's a way to hide the truth. to fool the masses that don't really understand that collectivist is collectivist no matter what you call it. it suffers from the same problems as any collectivist system: an inability to adjust for demand.

 

taks

[taks]

Saying Obama is Marxist is a subjective judgment, nothing more. Marxism is an anachronism, at least economically speaking. That's what you want to paint him as.

it's based on his own freaking quotes. that's what he intentionally painted himself as, particularly his autobiography. sheesh. that's not at all subjective.

 

for god's sake, open your eyes.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

The problem facing any would be welfare state is mostly that government can't contend with globalization, that makes it much harder to affect demand, which of course you can do by giving people more money to spend. Throttling up or down doesn't automatically work, but in the face of a prolonged recession it's imperative to make the attempt.

[taks]

no, that's not true at all. the problem facing any would be welfare program in general is an inability to deal with demand. it's that simple. throttling in any direction does not work and should not even be attempted. and, btw, the recession would not happen in the absence of government intervention in the first place. it is a result of such intervention. there's no mechanism for "recession" in the absence of government control. enoch likes to point out that government intervention was put in place to prevent such things as recessions, yet can offer not one bit of evidence that such a thing existed before government control.

 

obama favors increasing that control, which, not unlike FDR's failed socialist policies extended the depression, will only serve to drag this problem out. FDR got "lucky" with the war that instantly put 12 million americans to work.

 

taks

Edited November 17, 2008 by taks

[Gorgon]

FDR's spending meant the difference between living and starving for a whole lot of people.

[Wrath of Dagon]

If card check and binding arbitration passes, which it will unless Republicans have enough votes to filibuster, the government will be telling just about every business how to run it. If that's not socialism, I don't know what is. Also one of the leaders of the American Socialist party said a long time ago, paraphrasing, "The American people will never accept socialism, but they will accept it in pieces, under the guise of liberalism."

[taks]

FDR's spending meant the difference between living and starving for a whole lot of people.

nonsense. those people wouldn't have needed handouts if it weren't for his socialist policies, and certainly FDR didn't solve the depression, WWII did. policies like those FDR advocated are what caused the depression in the first place.

 

c'mon man. that's a weak argument even for you.

 

^wrath: no kidding. there's a very good reason that unions only enjoy single digit percentage existence now: the general populace doesn't want them and they are all but unnecessary. why on earth do liberals in control want this when the people clearly don't? control.

 

go ahead, peanut gallery, tell me how i don't know what i'm talking about. then tell me how many unions you've been in. i've been in two, btw.

 

taks

Edited November 17, 2008 by taks

[Hurlshort]

Um, FDR did not cause the Great Depression. Maybe I'm misreading your post taks.

[Gorgon]

We are talking really grim 'grapes of wrath' times here, handouts were saving lives.

[SteveThaiBinh]

nonsense. those people wouldn't have needed handouts if it weren't for his socialist policies

Okay. So what are the non-socialist policies that, if implemented now, would result in no-one ever needing a government handout again?

[Killian Kalthorne]

keep in mind that no "socialist" can ever win the US presidency. instead, they make up this "third way" crap* and insist that it's viable and can overcome the problems with socialism. the "third way" is not new as von mises was writing about it long ago. it's a way to hide the truth. to fool the masses that don't really understand that collectivist is collectivist no matter what you call it. it suffers from the same problems as any collectivist system: an inability to adjust for demand.

 

taks

 

Well, I for one am willing to give a little socialism a try after the bungling of capitalism with this meltdown we had. Capitalism is just as failure prone as socialism.