Croc

It's easy to think that when you only respond with statements like these or unsupported emotional tirades without any real engagement with the discussion. If you believe you are informed, you believe in something, and you are on the internet, it really is not hard or time-consuming at all to respond with a real, meaningful, logical, fact-based response. Many of the political issues are issues not because of differences in black-and-white facts, but in different ideologies, values, and interpretations of many different facts. If you want to vote for McCain, I really can't argue with you if your reasoning is that you are a single-issue voter and have looked at the tax plans that show you paying a lot more in taxes because you are in the highest income bracket. There's nothing to argue there; you're looking at your money and voting with it, and you don't really give a $h! about anything else. But if you want to vote for McCain based on the reasoning that "liberals hate America and want to tax the hell out of everybody and spend like there's no tomorrow," then not only is your argument laughable, but it is quite easily disproven as it is a hasty generalization that can easily be disproven by multiple examples of facts. See the difference?

But he's had it all lock, stock and key for months now. What political liability is there for "being himself" like in 2000, now?

If you follow Congress, it's more like the Republicans won't compromise with the Democrats. Look at where all the political noise (fillibusters, protests, etc) has come from--hint, it isn't the D's. As for things like holidays and national __ month, those almost always pass because they satisfy a constituency and there's no downside to approving them. Every post office renamed for a local community activist has to go through a Congressional bill. By the way, local polls indicate the D's will pick up several seats and may even reach the magic number of 60 in the Senate. The RNC has not been posting great numbers for its campaigning congressional candidates. I get my House and Senate data from Daily Kos, and before some of you scream "liberal blog!" I want you all to know that Markos posts EVERY major poll, not just the ones favorable to D's. How do I know? Because he says so, and because many of the bad-for-the-D polls are followed by links to help those "Orange-to-Blue" candidates get more fundraising to improve their numbers.

But here's why I don't believe THIS is the "fake politician" McCain: many Americans so strongly dislike Bush that many Republicans have changed their party affiliation to "Independent" so as not to be associated with the Republican name. Many former Independents are now affiliated as "Democrats."* Given the political climate and Bush's long-term low approval ratings, why would McCain be disingenuous and align himself with the dwindling Republican "base" (who didn't even get excited about the ticket until Palin was announced) instead of using his "real" self (as presented in 2000) to appeal to Independents and conservative Democrats? It just doesn't make political sense. Also, his lack of bipartisanship over the past 8 years convinces me that what we see is what we are going to get. * SOURCE

Thank you. And don't even get me started on his whole bit about wanting to renegotiate the Colorado River water rights. My only read on that is that he knows he probably won't win and is just trying to guarantee re-election into the Senate. Renegotiating the water rights, or even threatening to has pissed off Colorado (even quite a few Republicans were interviewed saying "OVER MY DEAD BODY") and New Mexico. Nevada might be more favorable to McCain because of it, and California may not go QUITE as blue, but even though they'd likely benefit, there are enough enviromental people who would still oppose it out of principle. Thankfully, a lot of Californians aren't incredible self-centered and would continue to bemoan the irresponsibility of continued development in the desert and the havoc that would be wrecked on the environment further east, outside of the state.

Congress can't really do any reforming when Bush has veto power and the Democrats only have a slim majority. Without a fillibuster-proof or veto-proof supermajority, Congress really can't do anything right now.

I can picture her trying to con her into being her companion at one of her famous San Francisco Values* dance parties. *If you don't get the reference, see on Youtube.

Because his voting record and policies of the past 8 years beg to differ. McCain has not reached across the aisle like he did prior to his 2000 primary defeat. His economic policy is like reading a Neocon 101 textbook. His healthcare policy really isn't much of a policy at all. Basically, when I read what he has put out there for the policy wonks to devour this election cycle, I see a lot of rhetoric and very little in the way of meaningfully addressing the primary issues of the country. For all the experience he has in Congress, I would have expected a hell of a lot more policy. The "psychological recession" bit is what got me finally. For all of the accusations against Obama being all style and rhetoric with no substance, his policy goals and outlines contain a hell of a lot more policy and implementation that meaningfully addresses the nation's current problems than McCain's.

He should call up his old friend Janet Reno, then. They could get tea and scones, and reminisce about the good ol' days.

I don't think so. Those two are far too image-obsessed to do that, and from all perspectives, Hillary is still intent on staying in the Senate. No divorce until she's done, barring another embarrassing affair from Bill.

Agreed. I supported McCain way back in 8th grade, and IMO he is now a shadow of the candidate he presented himself to be. I want THAT McCain to be running now. I would have a hell of a lot more thinking to do between now and November in that scenario.

It's about having a discussion/debate. Intelligent people can discuss issues from different viewpoints with respect and facts and not piss each other off. When you start spewing loaded arguments and generalizations without any proof whatsoever, then it devolves into a pissing match. Trust me: I have debated with hardcore Christians civilly and with facts over whether or not the Bible has been corrupted by politics and power by man, versus being a credible, written record of the teachings of Jesus. Both of us came out without any changed minds, but with a lot of new knowledge/perspective and a ton of newfound respect for the other. Any idiot can be shrill like O'Reilly or Hannity...but it takes an adult to discuss things maturely. I fixed my post to correct the typo...but you knew damn well what I meant. Again, petty and snide ill becomes you.

This looks GREAT! I love it. This is why American design IMO is always more expressive--and just overall better--than anything out of Japan. As for the Beretta, I know the mockup looked totally different, but I always liked the production Beretta. Definitely one of the better designs out of GM in the 80s, and certainly better than the dowdy Corsica.

In the spirit of forthrightness, I double-checked and Balthazar, you sir are correct. Dennis Kucinich is a member of the House of Representatives, which would be why he is not rated more liberal than Obama in the "liberal senators index." My bad.

Cool. You disagree with Oldsmoboi. That's awesome. Instead of being petty and snide, why don't you refute his position with a cogent argument. If you want to know how that is done, read some of loki's posts. Debate with him is at least an actual debate.

:sign0200: Agreed 100%. Ocn and gm4life: I have no problem with you disagreeing with me...but for the love of Ogg BACK YOUR $h! UP! This is the internet, Google is but a mouseclick away.

OK...? Is that it?

x2

Agreed. Obama gets my vote this November, but I'm voting for the Republican in the Indiana gubernatorial election.

You need to read up on the EEOC. For someone to take action they have to prove that there was discrimination present, not even just an unbalanced workplace ratio. This has NOTHING to do with affirmative action/quotas/"diversity initiatives" whatsoever. And yes it increased your civil rights as a white male. Say you become injured in some way, but that you are perfectly qualified to do Job X in every way, except that you need a special ergonomic computer keyboard. Prior to the EEOC, you would not have been hired due to the cost incurred to the employer--why spend $100 on a different keyboard when there are 65 other applicants who don't need it? But because of the "reasonable accomodation" clause, you cannot be refused a job solely on those grounds. Employers of I believe 15 or more employees are required to make a "reasonable accomodation" to potential employees. This isn't just a "gender thing" or a "race thing." The EEOC covers race, gender, religion, color, and disability. The other key is that you ARE qualified for the job. Again, totally different from a "diversity initiative." As a side note, that's another reason I like Obama: he's against affirmative action. Thank f@#king Ogg.

Reform means change or alteration. It does not necessarily mean "band-aid fix" or "tweaking" of current policy. It can be a total reversal, or it can be an amendment. Here's an example: the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission did not restrict the civil rights or freedoms of Americans, but put an end to discrimination in the workplace. It increased civil liberties. Unless you really believe in "the right to discriminate"...but that would be a really tough argument to make credibly.

FALSE FALSE FALSE!! Patriot Act, opposed by Progressives, restricted civil liberties. That was a Republican measure. Guantanamo and its disregard for the Geneva Convention (restricting HUMAN RIGHTS) was opposed by Progressives and embraced by Republicans. Don't make messy generalizations that don't hold up under scrutiny. That's just as bad as saying Democratic policy is higher taxes--a statement just as demonstrably false and little-encompassing.

It certainly was in many ways. I'm definitely not a Chrysler fan, but I gotta respect the 300M.

But that's where the Geneva Convention and Treaty of Human Rights kicks in. Sorry, bad analogy.

Really? Trot out his voting record and prove it. I'm pretty sure Dennis Kucinich is far more liberal than Obama. Guaranteed. Really? How is McCain a "moderate"? Trot out his record and prove it. Is Bush a "moderate" by your definition? Because McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time. As for the surge, how has it "worked"? What are your performance criteria for calling it a success? My criterion for a military success are that it stabilizes or significantly stabilizes a region, and that isn't even close to happening at this point. What do you think Obama is? False. Show me a quote where Obama has said he hates performance cars. He never said that. Also, you might want to research domestic oil drilling...if started NOW, none of that oil would be in the system until 2012 due to infrastructure setup. How is that going to impact prices? And what happens when THOSE reserves run out? Why? Demonstrate some proof. What record? Voting with Bush 95% of the time? Wow, so liberals hate America and performance cars, yet many of us on this board do not...you are not making a lick of sense. How does being in the army as a POW qualify McCain for executive office? How does being a senator really qualify someone for executive office? Obama was a community organizer, which is at the very least an executive leadership position. Frankly, I think the "qualifications" argument is stupid. I'm not voting for someone's resume. I'm voting based on how each candidate has made decisions throughout their career, throughout the campaign, and how they handle stress based on the way they handle stress on the campaign. In these regards, Obama has run a much more successful campaign. He "Got Out The Vote" during the primaries, he out-fundraised all of his rivals, he has a strong grass-roots network (probably based on his background as a community organizer), and he is a very good speaker. All I've seen from McCain are flip-flops on key issues between his campaign in 2000 and this one. According to John McCain, he has changed his mind completely on several issues in the past 8 years. His campaign has not been run well by any metric, and his lack of fundraising in comparison to Obama's is a stark testament to that. I also severely question his judgment, not just in how he runs his campaign, but in his inability to make decisions. The memos are out there, McCain wanted Lieberman as his VP. That's a fact. So why didn't McCain make a decision HE wanted instead of kow-towing to the team of advisors who are the same ones who advised Bush? Frankly, had McCain chosen Lieberman, I would have had a lot more respect for the man than I do now. There's a big difference between political strategy and pandering, and by picking Palin, McCain pandered, just like he did when he changed his mind on those countless issues between 2000 and 2008.