PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[melvin]

More more hahahhahhhahah

I know you're amused by the left-vs-right generalizations, but in reality, my comments would be better made in a totally non-partisan tone. The U.S. has achieved its relative success under the stewardship of both parties, and both parties have enacted their fair share of lousy policies. The principles I believe in were considered liberal 100 years ago and conservative in more recent years, and neither party has really stuck to them in my lifetime.

[erik]

More more hahahhahhhahah

I know you're amused by the left-vs-right generalizations, but in reality, my comments would be better made in a totally non-partisan tone.

Finally, we agree on something.

[jb]

Sober and Ray: it's important to look at the world on a RELATIVE basis. There is no utopia. The American government may not have lived up to your expectations during Hurricane Katrina, but then again, hundreds of Europeans have died due to a mere heatwave.

This article, based on a Swedish study, provides some quick metrics on American wealth and standard of living compared to Europe. The American healthcare system is a mess, yes, but a larger government monopoly is not the answer. It never is. Watch and see what happens to the world's socialist healthcare systems as Western populations age over the next decade or two. Socialism feels good, but it does not work. The math is simply untenable.

Regarding why/how people vote -- I agree, the rational fear that liberals will fail to protect the country, contribute to the further erosion of its moral fabric, and drive it into the economic sewer are probably stronger drivers than an academic point of view on economics for most "white trash". Fortunately, these fears still outweigh the desire for a short-term tax rebate among the majority. There's hope left.

I dunno Mel, you claim to be nonpartisan but include that bit at the end about "fortunately these fears still outweigh". I'm not sure what you're saying there-- it just *sounds* like "thank god people are still afraid of the left".

But to my eyes the right has never been able to live up to its own moral standards. The left does a much better job, as I see it, of at least attempting to take care of each other. There's certainly hypocrisy on the left, but I haven't seen anybody who's prepared to argue that the amount on the left isn't a fraction of that on the right. The current Republican presidential ticket is a great example-- they argue for family values while living a very different life than what would be dictated by their mores. How does anyone explain that? From what I can tell, their tactic is to change the subject. To ignore the issue. To say "you think we're bad, well they're worse!" But "they" never pretended to adhere to the strict moral code of the religious right-- Sarah Palin has. And that code doesn't simply involve "don't have abortions" does it? It's about remembering one's place within society, a society that is strictly mapped out so that it is the best in God's eyes that it can be.

The Daily Show's hypocrisy clips just leap out at me, and I want to actually scream in real life when I read anything that seems to be saying that the right is more moral than the left. It's complete and utter bullshit. Or that the right is more hawkish than the left, which should be read as "the right is more militarily liberal than the left". FDR was a democrat, and he led us through World War II. I mean, come on, we're all in a war together, but one ideology or another can take us INTO that war whether we like it or not. Protect America? How has the right done that over the last 8 years? How can anybody argue that they're more likely to keep bombs from exploding in our schools? Not to mention that the only radical Americans to have killed our own people have come from the fringes of the right, not the left!

Then there's the ridiculous idea that the right is more fiscally responsible. How many graphs and charts do you need to be shown before you agree that this administration, and Reagan's and Bush I's, have been the most profligate with public funds in our entire nation's history? Maybe GW had a catalytic event in 9/11, but the reaction to it has been to dump money on military action after military action while paying lip service to his original promises even as he ignores almost every one of them.

Ugh! Ok, I'm out.

[melvin]

I agree for the most part, JB. I'm one of the vast majority who don't see the words or deeds of politicians from either party matching my personal beliefs about economics, rights, or human nature. I wish there was a third party that believed in a classical vision of modest government with limited reach. But given the available choices, I see in the GOP at least the faint potential (and the founding principles) to do the right thing, whereas I see in the Dems a modern reinterpretation of government and society that I believe will lead to national failure. So here's the distinction: my beliefs are non-partisan and timeless. But my present-day party affiliation is the best of the available options, and subject to change if that third party ever comes along.

And Bush sucks.

[Hoblit]

I wish there was a third party that believed in a classical vision of modest government with limited reach. ...ut my present-day party affiliation is the best of the available options, and subject to change if that third party ever comes along.

And Bush sucks.

Uh, there is exactly that... a third party with the classical vision of modest government with limited reach... They're called the Libertarian party. Unless you are being sarcastic and I completely missed it. (Because maybe you meant a LARGE ENOUGH 3rd party to compete)

[jb]

I'll go along with you partly, Melvin, but don't you think that the party most likely to compromise, the party most likely to accept that it doesn't have all the answers and is therefore more likely to temper its ideological insticts with the flavor of those who disagree with them-- is the Democrat Party?

It's like, "We want everyone to be happy, these are the principles we believe in, and this is how we think we can achieve that. While we won't compromise our principles, which means will achieve our ends is something about which we are definitely open to suggestions." I never ever EVER get the impression that the Republican Party is open to suggestions. Even while they're raising taxes after saying they'll never raise taxes, or rather than raising taxes LOWERING them while simultaneously burying us and our children in war debt. Still, they're never open to suggestions.

I understand if other people have a different impression of the Democrats, but keep in mind that *I* am a Democrat and the above statement is what *I* believe in. Liberals have, in the past, taken "your rights end where mine begin" to extremes-- but conservatives never believed in that tenet in the first place. They seem to believe that "your rights end where mine begin unless I disapprove of what you're doing. Then I get to dictate your behavior."

Eh, it's all rhetoric. I'm tired now. More tired. Blah. Nobody ever convinces anybody of anything.

[melvin]

Nobody ever convinces anybody of anything.

You're right. Let's stick to making music.

[Billy's Little Trip]

By the way, if it isn't already agonizingly obvious, I am a Republicrat.
Masterson, 2008!

[Sober]

Regarding why/how people vote -- I agree, the rational fear that liberals will fail to protect the country, contribute to the further erosion of its moral fabric, and drive it into the economic sewer are probably stronger drivers than an academic point of view on economics for most "white trash". Fortunately, these fears still outweigh the desire for a short-term tax rebate among the majority. There's hope left.

This is where your 'I'm non-partisan' bullshit falls apart. What the fuck is 'moral fabric?' Give one concrete example of democratic economic policy being an aggregate disaster for the country. There are libraries worth of evidence showing the damage of the last 3 republican administrations. As far as protecting the country, if you call grossly bloating the executive branch's powers beyond constitutional limits and illegal surveillance protection, then you should read some Orwell.

Oh, and when I do 'look at Europe,' I see universal healthcare that makes us look like we're in the fucking stone age. Poor people in the UK live longer than rich people in the US. We have the worst infant mortality rate in the western world. We have socialized education, police, fire, sewage, transportation, but socializing medicine is commie fag-talk? HMO's were put in place by Nixon, and thanks to his insistence on taping everything, we hear exactly why:

Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

President Nixon: “Fine.”

Ehrlichman: “… and the incentives run the right way.”

President Nixon: “Not bad.”

The next day, Nixon announced the HMO system, with Kaiser Permanente as the template, stating that this private system would provide better care for less money. Oh, but quotes and facts are irrational.

You keep talking about how you're non-partisan, how classical you are (wtf does that mean?), but republicans happen to best fit your ideology. Tell me. What are your ideologies?

[Spud]

Liberals are more likely to start swearing and thus sounding irrational, even though the facts may be on their side.

[JonPorobil]

Obviously none of this makes any difference - and he does seem by far the best candidate and I hope he wins - but this has been puzzling me since he first emerged. I would have thought African-Americans (or black Americans or American Negros..or whatever the correct way to describe the large group of people that are the descendants of the slaves of the 1800s is) would have been a bit insulted by some bloke claiming to represent them, when all he really has in common with that culture is pigmentation and a father that came from the same continent as their ancestors (albeit a completely different part of that continent)

I'll give you, there are some rather militant groups who think that you're "not black" unless you had a black mom and either a black dad or no dad, and were raised with multiple siblings in a low-income housing division, but by and large, these are the opinions are snobbish, cliquish, and extremist individuals. It may be slightly more credible to say that he can only count as African American if he is actually descended from the slaves of U.S. slaveholders, though I still think that's ludicrous.

This is actually quite simple. Senator Obama's father, Barack Sr., is Kenyan. From Kenya, in Africa. And Barack Jr., having been born in Hawaii, is an American citizen. African ancestry, whether distant or recent, is still African ancestry. And American is American. Hence: African American.

[JonPorobil]

Liberals are more likely to start swearing and thus sounding irrational, even though the facts may be on their side.

Most of my co-workers seem to prove your point, Spud.

Liberals are also more likely to phrase the argument in terms that assume the person they're trying to convince already agrees with them, which is paradoxical and somewhat infuriating.

At least we've got that guy on top of the ticket who knows how to make a good argument when he has to.

[Sober]

I'll just interject here and say that "African American" is an inherently flawed word, borne of misguided attempts at political correctness.

Not all black people are descended from Africa. Not all Africans are black. Trying to put a catch-all label for people of a certain skin color based on heritage doesn't work, because they don't necessarily share a heritage. I understand wanting to give it your best PC shot, but in this case it doesn't work. You would have a much better time justifying the use of "Latino."

Barack Obama is an American, who is (half) black, and who is descended from Africa. Joe Biden is an American, who is white, and who is descended from Ireland. I don't hear anyone calling him Irish-American. If Obama's father had become a US citizen, I would call him an African-American, just as I would call JFK's grandparents Irish-Americans.

imo.

[JonPorobil]

Yeah, and in general I use the word "black," but the funny thing about debating whether someone is "black," is that couching it in language of color leave only one obvious criterion: the color of his skin. And that's exactly the kind of perceptions and politics we're trying to move beyond.

Here's how I handle it: don't worry about cultural identification and vote based on issues, dammit. ISSUES.



Oh, and one more thing before I sign off for the evening. The DNC is being badly outfunded, and the polls are narrowing. If you care at all about the Democrats winning this election, go to http://www.democrats.org and contribute. I wouldn't spam here if it weren't desperate.

[Caravan Ray]

Not all black people are descended from Africa. .

Actually they are.

And so are all white people.

And all other people of every other shade, colour or hue as well.

[Lord of Oats]

This is an excellent point.

Can I then call myself African-American?

Why not, eh?

[Sober]

Yeah, and in general I use the word "black," but the funny thing about debating whether someone is "black," is that couching it in language of color leave only one obvious criterion: the color of his skin. And that's exactly the kind of perceptions and politics we're trying to move beyond.

I still have to disagree on the basis that there's nothing wrong with identifying someone based on the pigmentation of their skin, even though our white guilt makes us feel weird about it at times. Humans need to categorize, identify, and inventory things, and skin is an easy attribute to apply to anyone we see. Obviously further judgments based on skin color can be educated or ignorant.

In fact, I'll go ahead and say (I'm sure Caravan Ray will find a clever way to shoot this down) that the only perfectly non-racist, factual generalization you could make about "black people" is that they have high melanin levels when compared to "white people."

"But Sober, what about 'black' albinos?" Persons of black parentage with albinism? Are they still black? I DON'T KNOW.

ARGUING WITH MYSELF IS FUN.

Back on topic, I'm not just going to call the race, but I'm going to call Obama taking 300+ electors, just so I can quote myself.

[Billy's Little Trip]

Obama called Palin a pig. Is he getting desperate? Was it intentional?
...on your marks, get set, argue.

On election day, are you going to be a racist or sexists. This is how the media is summing it up.

[Spud]

Obama did not call Palin a Pig.

Dick Cheney, referring to John Kerry’s claims he would be a credible war president.: "”As we say in Wyoming, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

John McCain, referring to Hillary Clinton’s health care plan: "“I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig."

Barack Obama, in 2007: "George Bush has given a mission to General Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig."

There is no news here. If the Republicans thing that Palin is a pig, that is their problem.

[jimtyrrell]

After reading about this, and the sniping from each camp that followed, I've ended up right where I usually find myself: thinking that a trip to the polls is a waste of a morning. It matters not at all to me which of these assclowns grabs the reins. And there's no third-party candidate that impresses me this time either.

I know there's some logic in accepting the fact that one of these guys is gonna run the country, and that there's value in picking the one I think will do the best job. But I can't reconcile that with the idea that, given the way they choose (need?) to campaign, the best either of these guys can hope to be is a successful politician. The process sickens me, and a vote for anyone is an endorsement of what I can only best describe as 'lipstickery'.

Gimme a week and I'll probably calm down.

[melvin]

I somewhat doubt Obama intended to call anyone a pig, but you have to consider the context: one of Palin's most famous and widely-reported lines from her GOP convention speech was that, "the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick." Since she's noted for wearing lipstick, and since Obama says the thing wearing lipstick is a pig... well, you can see where people are getting the inference from.

[Spud]

Actually, no, I can't. It's a common phrase. I have used it myself. So have they all. He has used it before on the campaign train before anyone had even hear of her. They are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Did I just call someone a mole? No. If you want to get cynical about it, why not accuse her of making the pit bull/lipstick comment at the convention because she knew that he was prone to using the analogy, and was setting him up. Do I think that? No, but it's just as viable.

"Because Palin is the only national candidate who wears lipstick, the comment was directed at her." -Former Gov. Jane Swift

Was McCain calling Hillary a pig? SHE was the only one in the race wearing lipstick at the time HE made the analogy.