McCain vs. Obama

[Soriak]

From Fortune Magazine: The evolution of John McCain - Jun. 23, 2008

Senator, what do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?" That was the first question we put to John McCain when he sat down for an interview with Fortune on a sunny afternoon in June. ...

Already they were going at each other hard, mostly over the economy, and there was no shortage of bad news to fight about: turmoil in the markets, oil pushing toward $140 a barrel, gas at more than $4 a gallon, GM shutting down truck plants all over North America, unemployment arching higher than expected. All that was context for the question we posed. But we were asking McCain to rise above the news and look ahead to the day seven months from now when, he hopes, he'll be sitting in the Oval Office. We wanted to know what single economic threat he perceives above all others.

McCain at first says nothing. ... He's looking not at us but into the void. His eyes are narrowed. Nine seconds of silence, ten seconds, 11. Finally he says, "Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences."

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Which is it, are you just completely fucking heartless or are you just totally ignorant? You're gonna wail and squirm about Darfur on the one hand but you think people who want to obliterate the inhuman tyranny that is the Khomeinist Islamic Revolution are all "greedy, evil fucks"?

These "greedy, evil fucks" want to dismantle a TRUE manichean evil that murders 12- to 16-year old girls who are victims of rape for "crimes against chastity". Get it, the chick got raped, so she must've not covered herself up the way a proper muslim woman should and thus, SHE was guilty of getting raped. These "greedy, evil fucks" want to erase the last island of abject brutality that hangs young men for doing something that most Canadians do at least once in their lives or in the case of Mek thrice before breakfast. You're talking about a regime that extends the rule of the CHURCH and embeds it into the most intimate spaces of each individual and crushing all independence and liberty may have been in its place.

Explain to us exactly how you need to be an "evil, greedy fuck" to rail against the insufferable cruelty Iran does to its people every fucking day. You're gonna try some vague relativist twist on how we tasered some sandnigger's nipples in gitmo aren't ya?

you completely misunderstood what i posted. also you seem to have me mixed up with someone else. you have this imagined liberal figure and all the typical things that imagined figure might say and you're pretending it's me. that's not accurate. it's obvious that bush and company wants to tackle iran. i have no doubt that mccain feels the same way. i also have no doubt that a great many companies would like to see war continue on and on and on. they're making great profit from it. in the event mccain does become president he will probably find a reason, justified or not, to invade iran. bush might do it before we even get that far. my comment is a display of disgust towards them, sure, but moreover it's about the notion of them sending in our worn out troops into another country that will prove much more difficult. if our republican politicians and their corporate buddies are so thirsty for war and they go through with it despite the majority of america and the world, then i'd prefer they hit iran's sensitive spots without getting us into a land war and/or occupation.

at any rate, of course i don't agree with some of the things that occur in iran. same goes for a number of countries. same goes for the usa. rape isn't a reason to invade a country. if one wants to discuss nuclear shit then that's a valid topic.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Torrid

Wait a second -- you're a NASCAR fan? Rarely have I seen such irony.

I grew up in North Carolina. NASCAR is North Carolina. North Carolina is NASCAR...(and basketball). I was into NASCAR before it became what it is now. NASCAR is one of the more exciting sports in America. Since moving North I can not do super speedways but even the short tracks are great.

[Araxen]

Nascrap is for the rednecks and hicks of America.

[Scientologist]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

I grew up in North Carolina. NASCAR is North Carolina. North Carolina is NASCAR...(and basketball). I was into NASCAR before it became what it is now. NASCAR is one of the more exciting sports in America. Since moving North I can not do super speedways but even the short tracks are great.

You fucking inbred hick piece of shit. North Carolina? Say hi to your sister and mother for me next time you see her. Also, give the grand wizard of your local KKK chapter my regards at your next meeting.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Khorum

the ruinous continuation of the New Deal entitlement regime which has been the doom of this economy for six decades.

I don't get this. If the New Deal was such a ruinous clusterfuck of epic proportions, why exactly did it coincide with the US's rise to pre-eminence in the world economically? I mean that was already happening prior to the World Wars, but if it was such an anchor around the neck of the US, why is it that the US was so successful in spite of it?

[Kolle]

conservatives can't come to terms with it. there are things which should be available to all citizens regardless of their financial status. it should be available to them whether they are nice or assholes; hard workers or lazy fucks. they should have food, shelter and medical care...to name a few. if they are in a burning building then the fire department should save them even if they don't pay taxes. if they are victims of a crime then the police should try to solve the case. their level of contribution to society does not matter. if you are gonna crusade for outlawing abortion then you should also crusade for the lives of those babies when they exit the womb instead of ceasing to give a fuck as the late carlin might put it.

obama won't give us the perfect version of this in four years, but he'll get us there sooner than mccain will. meanwhile conservatives wring their hands in frustration, disgusted by the thought of some american citizen benefiting from a tax dollar. although, in some cases not a citizen. nevertheless, a human being worthy of decent treatment that all humans deserve.

[Sinter1]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Well everyone is entitled to the enlightened guidance of Anglo-Saxon manhood, even the ugly sandmonkey mongrels seething against western exceptionalism up in Iranistan. We're obligated to extend our stern hand and bring them screaming into modernity by any means necessary. It's our manifest destiny.

Take your orientalist views and shove them up your ass you fucking bigot.

Oh and actually post a link that has some fucking substance for once... couldn't hurt.

Am I the only one who is worried that Robert Rubin is advising Obama?

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Eomer

I don't get this. If the New Deal was such a ruinous clusterfuck of epic proportions, why exactly did it coincide with the US's rise to pre-eminence in the world economically? I mean that was already happening prior to the World Wars, but if it was such an anchor around the neck of the US, why is it that the US was so successful in spite of it?

You're having a hard time "getting" how the populist demagoguery of the most tyrannical president this country has ever had could coincide with the economic "peace dividend" of the winning greatest war the world has ever known? What's hard to get? We could've been a monarchy and we STILL would've benefitted from the economic expansion of the postwar peace dividend.

Guess what __OTHER__ economic system reaped the economic benefits of WW2's peace dividend and prolonged the misery and oppression imposed on 1 billion people for another forty years? Do you think Communism floated along on the merits of its deluded interpretation of human nature INSTEAD of the exuberance of postwar reconstruction? Maybe Stalin really DID find 24 million capitalist hard liners in his country and maybe Mao really needed to starve 80 million peasants to create a society that doesn't need a state.

The fact is the New Deal and every other keynesian travesty like it in India, France and Scandinavia have proven to be disastrous impediments even BEFORE the war and served to hinder the US economy afterwards up until this very day. It even proved to be detriment to getting medicare passed.

[FulorianC]

The U.S. emerged from WWII as the only 1st-world country in the world with a functional economic and manufacturing base. That alone is why we emerged from it as a superpower - because we didn't get the shit kicked out of us, we let everyone beat themselves to a bloody haze before we walked in and took the credit for giving the final whack to the baddies.

Slight exaggeration, but seriously, Japan was wrecked, Germany was wrecked, France was wrecked, England was wrecked, Russia was wrecked. The U.S. was literally untouched.

[Bristlebane]

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

My Way News - Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs



My Way News - Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

Great. Keep slurping the Obama dick, people. Change indeed.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Eomer

I don't get this. If the New Deal was such a ruinous clusterfuck of epic proportions, why exactly did it coincide with the US's rise to pre-eminence in the world economically? I mean that was already happening prior to the World Wars, but if it was such an anchor around the neck of the US, why is it that the US was so successful in spite of it?

Correlation is not causation. A better question to ask yourself is why was the recession America experienced following World War I -- by all accounts a deeper recession than that which America experienced in 1929-1930 -- over in a little more than a year or two with almost no government intervention, while the 'recession' America experienced in 1929-1930 turned to a depression from which America did not emerge until AFTER (not during) World War II, despite myriad government interventions?

You might also look into, if you want to be really seditious, why exactly recessions occur. Have you ever pondered that question, or do you just take it as a given that this is something endemic to a free market system? Think about it: Why should it be the case that various and sundry industries all suffer downturns at once? What could possibly be the cause of these periodic 'coincidences'?

[Zora]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs



My Way News - Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

Could be a smart move or it could backfire. Hard to say at this point. But remember, unlike other progressives, Obama has to "define" himself before the upcoming Republican conservative onslaught of "radical Muslim-Wright Christian" campaign ads that we will be bombarded with this fall. What better way to counter that than to paint Obama as a progressive "evangelical?"

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs



My Way News - Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

There's more to that story than the shock treatment you gave it. Be fair. He wants those faith based groups to actually start DOING THINGS with the money Bush gave them.

I don't see how that's bad, especially given:

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for aid recipients nor using federal money to proselytize, the official said.

Obama does not see a need to push for a law to make this program work as Bush did, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work." - Obama

That sounds prudent to me. Rather than create another support structure for disadvantaged people, why not use one that's already there and help them to do their job? Despite your views on religion, no one can argue the positive work they do in the poorest neighborhoods of America.