This Election Is Becoming A Joke

[copernicus 0]

OBTUSE?

Intentionally obtuse. Some people just cant help it. And she knows who she is.Morgan Freeman was great in SR. Who was the tall Democrat raving lunatic who dragged that whole movie down? Has a wife that smells like fish but likes old guys?[/sw]

[antistuff 0]

Quoting Peter Griffin may well explain why you disagree with me and why this election is materialising the way it is But I agree with your sentiments, no matter what the result of the election at least it will be democratic.

which is why i have long held the view that democracy is a farce. you are right, americans are too stupid to decide on something so important. important things like this should not be in the hands of the general public. oh where is mussolini when we need him?

[copernicus 0]

oh where is mussolini when we need him?

<raises hand> Here, or so Ive been told.

[antistuff 0]

<raises hand> Here, or so Ive been told.

the scary part is i can't tell if you're proud of it or not.im just kidding. thats a very rude thing to say to somebody.almost as rude as the OP in this thread.

[copernicus 0]

since he's on ignore I have no clue what he said....and somehow an 8 page thread grew out of it!

[antistuff 0]

since he's on ignore I have no clue what he said....and somehow an 8 page thread grew out of it!

ill quote it for you, you might get a kick out of it. its that audacious and arrogant.

As an 'outsider' I will not be voting in this election,however I have been following with interest as the US president does have an immense effecton world politics, and this is a vitally important election in every respect.I am extremely disappointed so far I have to say; no matter how badly theRepublicans screw up on important issues, such as the economy and foreign policy, and no matter how low the party satisfaction rate is,people willlook for excuses to vote for them.I have read several pro Republicans accusing Obama of being a socialist,laughable really. Obama is in fact centre right: proposing tax cuts for the majority of workers to help deal with the strain of high oil prices and increasing food costs is not 'far left' as some of the idiots are proposing.If anyone sees this as socialismthey are totally deluded as they are for dismissing his proposal for free health care(most 1st world countries don't let their citizens basically die on the street if they can't afford insurance).The Sarah Palin matter is the most laughable of all these sordid tactics the Republicans are employing, mostly because it's working.How blatant can you be? How insulting can you be? And yet due to the stupidity of large sections of the US public they away with it. Apparently it doesn't matter if she doesn't have any policies to help the economy,is "pro life"(no matter what your position on abortion is,it shouldn't be the government who decides on this important issue),plus a whole host of allegations of corruption, none of this matters to them as shes a "pit bull with lipstick". Thats a good enough reason to vote for someone,like f*ck it is! No substance no solutions, just bluster and force.Obama has clearly advocated change on various important issues,Mccain now pretends to, but when you agree with Bush 90% of time you would have to be seriously simple minded to believe him.Lets face the clear facts here; America is still a deeply racist country,not all, but large sections of it.Of course this will have a profound effect on the race and is doing so. I mean 15% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim, FFS thats millions of people. When will people just take a look around and realise what is going on?, America is crying out for change yet some misguided people seem to think there is no problem.Obama hasn't lost this by any means, but the fact this is even close shows just how small minded a hell of a lot of people are in your country.

[copernicus 0]

ill quote it for you, you might get a kick out of it. its that audacious and arrogant.

No need to quote it, lol. Audacity and arrogance are his more endearing qualities.

[Nimue1995 1]

No need to quote it, lol. Audacity and arrogance are his more endearing qualities.

But you do miss so many humorous posts when you put people on ignore Cope.

[strategy's_touch 0]

No need to quote it, lol. Audacity and arrogance are his more endearing qualities.

as wrong-headed and arrogant as the quoted post can be, I do think he/she nailed one of the fundamental problems the republicans face today. I am certainly in the minority here, but I think it would be a great sign of hope for our country if the republicans get annihilated in the upcoming election. the sooner the ridiculous pro-america-regardless-of-context mentality dies out, the better imo.

[copernicus 0]

. the sooner the ridiculous pro-america-regardless-of-context mentality dies out, the better imo.

moral equivalency FTL

[CaneBrain 95]

speaking of jopkes:Some news audiences are more politically savvy than others, according to a new poll, with readers of The New Yorker and similar high-brow magazines being the most knowledgeable.The survey, conducted between April 30 and June 1 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, measured the political knowledge of 3,612 U.S. adults. Participants were asked to name the controlling party of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. secretary of state and Great Britain's prime minister.Overall, just 18 percent of participants answered all three questions correctly.More than 50 percent of Americans knew that the Democrats have a majority in the House, while 42 percent could identify the secretary of state (Condoleezza Rice). Less than 30 percent could name the prime minister of Great Britain (Gordon Brown).Perfect scoresThe best-informed news audiences crossed the ideological spectrum. Nearly half of regular readers of The New Yorker, The Atlantic and Harper's Magazine answered all three political knowledge questions correctly.A perfect score was obtained by 44 percent of regular listeners of National Public Radio (NPR), 43 percent of regular viewers of MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" and 42 percent of the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" audience. Thirty-four percent of "The Colbert Report" audience and 30 percent of "The Daily Show" audience got all three questions correct.While most news audiences knew that Democrats have a majority in the House, participants struggled to correctly name the current British prime minister.Just four news audiences had a majority who correctly identified Gordon, including regular readers of The New Yorker and similar magazines such as The Atlantic, regular NPR listeners, regular readers of political magazines, such as The Weekly Standard and The New Republic, and regular viewers of "Hardball."Just 44 percent of BBC viewers identified the prime minister correctly.Here's a detailed breakdown of the percentage of individuals answering each of the three questions correctly from the different news audiences: * The New Yorker/Atlantic: 71 percent (correctly identified Democrats as the majority in the House), 71 percent (correctly identified Condeleeza Rice), 59 percent (correctly identified Gordon Brown) * NPR: 73 percent, 72 percent, 57percent * Hannity & Colmes: 84 percent, 73 percent, 49 percent * Rush Limbaugh: 83 percent, 71 percent, 41 percent * Colbert Report: 73 percent, 65 percent, 49 percent * Daily Show: 65 percent, 48 percent, 36 percent * NewsHour: 66 percent, 52 percent, 47 percent * O'Reilly Factor: 70 percent, 60 percent, 41 percent * C-SPAN: 63 percent, 59 percent, 35 percent * Letterman/Leno: 51 percent, 42 percent, 31 percent * CNN: 59 percent, 48 percent, 29 percent * National Enquirer: 44 percent, 32 percent, 22 percentEducation factorIn general, well-educated news audiences scored high on political knowledge. For instance, 54 percent of the regular readers of publications such as The New Yorker, The Atlantic and Harper's Magazine are college graduates, as are 54 percent of regular NPR listeners.However, several news audiences with relatively low proportions of college graduates also scored well on the news quiz. Just 31 percent of regular "Hannity & Colmes" viewers are college graduates. Even still, 42 percent Hannity viewers got perfect scores on the political knowledge quiz, compared with 44 percent of NPR listeners.Nearly 40 percent of the regular audience of the news parody "The Colbert Report" are college graduates, compared with 30 percent of "The Daily Show" viewers. Both shows have younger audiences than other TV news sources, with less than a quarter of Colbert and Daily Show viewers over the age of 50, compared with more than half of "Hardball" and "Hannity & Colmes" viewers being 50 and older.

[85suited 0]

the american electorate is largely uninformed.... Thats why candidates like Obama can go out there and sing platitudes and half truths and not answer questions and get electedIt is a beauty contest more than a contest of ideas

[Jeepster80125 0]

as wrong-headed and arrogant as the quoted post can be, I do think he/she nailed one of the fundamental problems the republicans face today. I am certainly in the minority here, but I think it would be a great sign of hope for our country if the republicans get annihilated in the upcoming election. the sooner the ridiculous pro-america-regardless-of-context mentality dies out, the better imo.

Ever think about becoming a libertarian?Read theagitator.com, he's a pretty smart guy, I think you'll agree with a lot of what he says.Here's his new article for FoxNews, where he asks for this too.Why the Republicans Must Be Defeated This Year I grew up in a particularly conservative part of the already conservative state of Indiana. I voted for Bob Dole in 1996 and George Bush in 2000, generally because — though I'm not a conservative (I'm a libertarian) — I'd always thought the GOP was the party of limited government. By 2002, I was less sure of that. And by 2004, I was so fed up with the party that I did what I thought I'd never do — vote for an unabashed leftist for president.Since then, "fed up" has soured to "given up." The Republican Party has exiled its Goldwater-Reagan wing and given up all pretense of any allegiance to limited government. In the last eight years, the GOP has given us a monstrous new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. In the prescription drug benefit, it's given us the largest new federal entitlement since the Johnson administration. Federal spending — even on items not related to war or national security — has soared. And we now get to watch as the party that's supposed to be "free market" nationalizes huge chunks of the economy's financial sector.This isn't to say that Barack Obama would be any better. Government would undoubtedly grow under his watch. And from my libertarian perspective, he has been increasingly disappointing even on the issues where he's supposed to be good. We may not go to war with Iran in an Obama administration, but we'd likely become entrenched in a prolonged nation-building adventure in the Sudan. Obama's vote on the FISA bill and telecom immunity also suggests that, for all his criticisms of President Bush's use of executive power and assaults on civil liberties, Obama wouldn't be much better. On the drug war, Obama has promised to end the federal raids on medical marijuana clinics in states that have legalized the drug for treatment, but he wants to resurrect failed federal criminal justice block grant programs that have had some disastrous effects on civil liberties.While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They've failed in staying true to their principals of limited government and free markets. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task — sending the nation to war. I could go on.As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn't hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.That's the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.If they do lose, the GOP would be wise to regroup and rebuild from scratch; scrap the current leadership and, most importantly, purge the party of the "national greatness," neoconservative influence. Big-government conservatism has bloated the federal government, bogged us down in what will ultimately be a trillion-dollar war, and set us down the road to European-style socialism. It's hard to think of how Obama could be worse. He'll just be bad in different ways.The truth is, unless you vote for a third-party candidate (which really isn't a bad idea), you don't have much of a choice this November. You can either endorse the idea of a massive, invasive, ever-encroaching federal government that's used to promote center-left ideology, or you can endorse the idea of a massive, invasive, ever-encroaching federal government that's used to promote center-right ideology.Sadly, if the GOP does lose, it's likely to be interpreted not as a repudiation of the GOP's excesses, but as an endorsement of the Democrats'. When the only two parties who have a chance at winning both have a track record of expanding the size and scope of government, every election is likely to be interpreted as a win for big government — only the brand changes.Voting yourself more freedom simply isn't an option, at least if you want your vote to be taken seriously (and I'm not denigrating any third parties here; I'm just reflecting reality).Which brings me back to why the Republicans need to get throttled: A humiliated, decimated GOP that rejuvenates and rebuilds around the principles of limited government, free markets, and rugged individualism is really the only chance for voters to possibly get a real choice in federal elections down the road.Of course, there's no guarantee that's how the party will emerge from defeat. But the Republican Party in its current form has forfeited its right to govern.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not saying I disagree, but the problem is if you step back and let another party, which is really different from your views regarding libertarian views, do you push the country so far down the slippery slope it's return trip is almost umpossible?The Reagan Big Tent theory is a better way to go, include as many people as possible, keep the infighting in, and unite to stop the democrats from taxing and spending us like Bush has....Ahhh the ironyI mean really, do we want democrats fixing the financial system in this country, while stearing a shaky economy?

[Avaron 0]

the american public likes the candidates to tell them what they want to hear.... Thats why every presidential candidate can go out there and sing platitudes and half truths and not answer questions and get electedIt is a beauty contest more than a contest of ideas

fyp

[hblask 1]

Of course, there's no guarantee that's how the party will emerge from defeat. But the Republican Party in its current form has forfeited its right to govern.

If only there was a way to get this message to the Republicans. I suspect it is a message they are immune to receiving, though.

[NickZepp 0]

The republican party basically gave up when they basically became the democrat party some 15 years ago. Really there isn't a difference between the 2 candidates other than some minor differences. They are both real liberal and neither will end up doing the right thing. I'm afraid we may become a communist country when all is said and done though. But if that's what the American people want, that is what we get. I won't complain.

[Jeepster80125 0]

The republican party basically gave up when they basically became the democrat party some 15 years ago. Really there isn't a difference between the 2 candidates other than some minor differences. They are both real liberal and neither will end up doing the right thing. I'm afraid we may become a communist country when all is said and done though. But if that's what the American people want, that is what we get. I won't complain.

Basically.sw

[copernicus 0]

The republican party basically gave up when they basically became the democrat party some 15 years ago. Really there isn't a difference between the 2 candidates other than some minor differences.

LMAO. There is a bigger difference between BHO and JSM than any other election in my lifetime.

[CaneBrain 95]

the true story behind the mayorship of Wasilla and executive experience......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJDoPzRMZBQ...feature=related

[NickZepp 0]

LMAO. There is a bigger difference between BHO and JSM than any other election in my lifetime.

Just because people want you to think that doesn't make it true. The real differences between the 2 are health care and a slight difference in the tax thing. But Tax will be raised roughly the same amount with a small % difference in their plans if you look at the real facts. And also the differences between Clinton-Bush, Clinton-Dole, Bush-Gore, much bigger than differences between Obama-McCain politically. Just because one is young and the other is old doesn't make them completely different. They basically are going to go about things the same way. Both are pretty liberal. I don't think either will do the country any good, and I wish a more rightest view would step up and make the government a bit more balanced. Historically when the government takes a lean one way or another it ends up real bad. Just look at the causes of the Vietnam conflict and the Civil War those were because of extreme views taking over.

[hblask 1]

LMAO. There is a bigger difference between BHO and JSM than any other election in my lifetime.

Reagan-CarterReagan-MondaleI've taken political quizzes on a half dozen websites where they rank how close the candidates agree with you. The quizzes are created by different organizations with different agendas. On every one of them that I've taken, McCain and Obama end up just a few points from each other (e.g., if the scale is 1-100, it'll be McCain 58, Obama 53).Healthcare is the only issue where there is a meaningful difference, and if it were close in MN, it might be enough to change my vote or make me care about this election.

[copernicus 0]

Reagan-CarterReagan-MondaleI've taken political quizzes on a half dozen websites where they rank how close the candidates agree with you. The quizzes are created by different organizations with different agendas. On every one of them that I've taken, McCain and Obama end up just a few points from each other (e.g., if the scale is 1-100, it'll be McCain 58, Obama 53).Healthcare is the only issue where there is a meaningful difference, and if it were close in MN, it might be enough to change my vote or make me care about this election.

The problem withmost of those comparisons is that they dont weight importance.Economy and taxes - couldnt be more differentWar on terror/domestic security - couldnt be more differentForeign policy/relations including Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan - couldnt be more differentThe 3 most important issues and they are as opposite as you get. Everything else is trivial.

[hblask 1]

The problem withmost of those comparisons is that they dont weight importance.Economy and taxes - have some major differences, especially on healthcare and "fairness" -- i.e., taking from the rich and giving to the poorWar on terror/domestic security - basically identicalForeign policy/relations including Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan - Minor differences on how slowly to get out of Iraq, otherwise nearly identicalOn 1 of the 3 most important issues and there are significant differences. Everything else is trivial.

FYPAlso, some people (not me) rank abortion rights up there, so that one would be included in the 'differences' column.... well, depending on which speech of theirs you believe.

[hblask 1]

Speaking of Elections and Jokes (hey, that is the subject of this thread), here's one I heard today:What's the difference between Sarah Palin and a Pit Bull?A pit bull doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old.