Well, in the Democratic defense, if Obama does get the presidency, and assuming both the House and Senate are Democratic too, then he will be able to get more of his shit done without bipartisan bickering. Granted, having a bunch of yesmen (yeswomen? yespeople?) who blindly follow their party doctrine isn't so good either, but we're never going to get rid of that anyway.
As for me, I was diehard Obama fan at first, but that's because nobody in the Republican party really stuck out to me, and supporting Obama was a good way to not support Clinton, whom I knew early on I did not like.
And then, I wasn't sure anymore. Obama didn't seem to appeal to me as much after the primaries died down. Maybe it was the post primary hangover that the general public began to have, but I don't know. I think it's because at the beginning, he wasn't very offensive (as in verbal attacks) against other people, and in my mind Hillary was digging so deep for mud that she could've found oil. Also I remember that Obama was forced to get on the offensive because people in his party were seeing him as weak.
Now all Obama is saying is generic Democratic rhetoric. Every other sentence is about how John McCain's policies involve large black men coming into your home at night and pillaging your ass.
It's not that he's necessarily a bad candidate; it's just that he's a normal candidate to me now, and that's disappointing.
But now the situation is different. I don't know how many of you have been following up on it, but the United States saved the fucking world earlier this week, and the average person doesn't know or care. Wall Street has been burning down, metaphorically, and many of the biggest banks and financial institutions have been dying off left and right, because of the subprime loan mess and credit crunch. The Feds saved AIG (American International Group) with a whopping $85 billion loan earlier this week. The company operates in 140 countries worldwide, with fingers deep in different insurance industries. Loss of it could have caused banks around the world to go down as paniced claimholders withdraw all their money (it's already happening in parts of southeast Asia).
So, more than ever the economy is my biggest concern. And I praise McCain for being blunt about his lack of economic knowledge. Hell, the big secret in being successful in business is not knowing everything; it's being able to quickly call someone who knows a lot. But, this is a massive problem now, and we're not too far away from worst-case scenario. I don't like Obama being at the helm of something like this either, because although he knows a lot about business and economics he has no on hand experience.
The best candidate for presidency would be a fire-tempered Wall Street exec who has been around for many years, enough to firmly remember dealing with the oil crisis of the 80s. Despite the bad rap CEOs get, there are some out there who are talented at taking failing companies and bringing them back up to success, without just cutting employee numbers.
...nevertheless, this will never happen, because there are too many voters out there who are too concerned about inane shit like wearing flag pins. You have to be a politician to get into the White House.
I don't have a source since I'm on my cell, but I just read on the BBC that Anonymous hacked into Sarah Palin's Yahoo account and posted pictures and stuff from it on the net.
Ok, fair enough. However, please explain two things for me:
1. What exactly does "fairly standard issue Republican sort" mean? What principles and standards are you referring to, that define a "Republican sort"?
2. How is it a good idea to support "standard issue Republican sorts" when they were in total control of the federal government for 6 years, and controlled congress for 12, when the result is the mess we're currently wringing our hands over?
-1 I really don't feel like trying to explain an entire party platform. Am I supposed to? Things like gun control and abortion and such- the typical republican side of those sorts of issues gereally align better with my own view. I always try to favor small business where I can. I work at a small business and my parents own one, so if small businesses get screwed, I get indirectly screwed twice over. I could lose my job and not be able to turn to my parents even. I also don't consider myself a guru on business so I defer to the judgment of my parents and/or my boss as to who's generally better for them and they usually figure it's the Republican. There's no complex logic to it.
-2 How would voting Democrat and having a totally Democrat controlled government be any better? I'd say balance would be what we need.
We are going to move troops out. Iraq itself has already called for the previously maligned "timetables" for troop withdrawal.
If it's Iraq that's sending us away, then it's fine. Just that we can't up and leave if they aren't ready for it. You can't just make a mess and not clean it up. That's even worse than making the mess in the first place. And I've heard that Obama wants to expand military operations elsewhere? Is this true?
Fair enough. But I ask you to take a good look at his opponent's records on spending and other appropriations, and then ask yourself if giving money to classless (and inept!) private corporations who make good money abusing the system they paid to create is any better.
Mind you, my parents have a private corporation. You're making a baseless attack here on business here and I don't appreciate it. Most businesses are doing their damnedest just to continue existing and follow the laws that are often not very friendly for operation. So to answer your question, Yes! Private corporations will do something productive with money. If McCain acts like some corporate tool, I say fine. For every corporation with money there are employees and investors with money. For every fool with $10 there's probably some businesses they owe $100 to that will never see it.
So you have concerns about Palin being president, but you think she makes a fine VP? And this makes sense because... VP's are never expected to ever become president, ever?
I mean that I can tolerate her as a VP as long as she stayed a VP and nothing more. I know the implications of being VP. I don't like it, but there's not a lot I can do about it. From what I've seen she might just end up being a loudmouthed yeswoman just repeating what McCain says, just louder and angrier. I'm still weighing the risk of her possibly becoming President.
While I think your example of an "imaginary issue" is a bit retarded (offshore drilling will bring in tons of jobs, as will creation of new refineries. Meanwhile, they will also bring greater risk to the ecosystem, but less so than the simple presence of tankers near the shoreline), you are correct in that there are far too many imaginary issues on the political docket
If they wish to discuss offshore drilling I want to hear more details. There are lots of other ways to generate lots of jobs, so why offshore drilling? What benefit does this in particular bring? Is it supposed to bring gas prices down? Will it? And how/why will it? That's what I'm getting at. Hearing "Offshore drilling: YES or NO?" is not acceptable to me, yet that's all I ever seem to get.
In a serious note, I'd still like to be hopeful that we won't have to blame a President for stuff and that he could do SOME good.
On a non-serious note, I can't up and complain about Obama if I vote for him. Besides, Minnesota always ends up a Democrat state anyway. It probably won't matter who I vote for.
Well, they could do as the Republicans have done... deny, deny, deny, then lose Congress after 6 years, and then blame the dominant congressional party for being "do-nothing" after...3 sessions of work.
If they wish to discuss offshore drilling I want to hear more details. There are lots of other ways to generate lots of jobs, so why offshore drilling? What benefit does this in particular bring? Is it supposed to bring gas prices down? Will it? And how/why will it? That's what I'm getting at. Hearing "Offshore drilling: YES or NO?" is not acceptable to me, yet that's all I ever seem to get.
People can't seem to agree and how much time it would take for the offshore drilling to have a dent on the pump prices. It started with people saying 30 years best, then 15, then 10 tops, last I heard people were saying 5 to 7 years.
Idaho, is, and always has been (as far as I know) a republican state. So you find a lot of people here tend to respond to "What time is it?" with several phrases on how great the republicans are doing.
This generally ticks me off.
On the other hand, the demarcates make more than their fare share of stupid comments. If I could vote, I think I would go for Obama. Partially because a President Palin is just too much of a possibility for me. And also because his plans are more planning than a general optimistic goal. But I don't have a complete grasp of what the candidates are saying half the time. Then again, neither do most Americans.
THE US' FOREIGN POLICY IS IMMACULATE - I AGREE TO FOLLOW THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME - THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND ALIEN
You're fighting a war in South America? I live there and that's news for me. From what I know there's just a bunch of anti-drug operations.There's even a base for these here in Ecuador, but the President kicked them out for 2009 : (
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- To pick up the morning paper and see the word "recount" in a headline stirs an ominous case of déjà vu.
At issue in recent days in Palm Beach County is a local judicial race that is hardly of national note. But problems with administering the local election, and statements from county officials that some critics call confusing, if not contradictory, have some worried about the coming presidential election.
Polls showing a dead heat in the battle for Florida's 27 electoral votes only add to the drama.
"Managerially, software-wise, procedure-wise, training-wise, there is no confidence that these people will be ready in less than 50 days for the election we are all going to have," said Sid Dinerstein, the Palm Beach County Republican chairman.
"Never again!" was the county's promise after the butterfly ballots and hanging chads of the 2000 recount drama.
For 2004, the county switched to touch-screen machines. There were no major issues here. But some local Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler, demanded changes because they said the touch-screen system might be vulnerable to fraud and did not, in their view, provide a reliable audit trail.
So the county switched again, to its third system in eight years, this time a paper ballot that is scanned by an optical reading device. The paper is then retained in case of recounts or other irregularities.
Local officials say the system works and promise a smooth Election Day.
But Dinerstein says the recount in the judicial race proves the folly of switching.
"We could have had nice, reliable computers counting and giving all of us an honest count," he said in an interview.
The 2000 recount drama led to major changes -- more than 40 states made changes or adjustments to the way they conducted and administered elections.
"We have had more change in our election process since 2000 than we have seen since the Voting Rights Act of 1965," said Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a recent past president of the national association of top state elections officials. Indiana alone spent some $67 million on new equipment, including a statewide voter file, and also requires a color photo ID on Election Day.
Rokita takes issue with those who question the reliability of newer, high-tech systems.
"You know, we use technology in every one of our financial transactions and social transactions -- why did we not until 2000 put that type of technology to use when it comes to our most sacred civic transaction, you know, the voting process?" Rokita asked in an interview at his office in Indianapolis.
"The technology is just a tool. And what the conspiracy theorists want you to believe is the technology runs the election -- and nothing could be further from the truth," he said.
"If you have well-trained people who know how to use that technology and those tools, to know what to do if a battery dies on election day, all those things, then you will have a fair and an accurate election and the people are the ones who will produce that. And If they are not trained and they are not prepared, then you are not going to have a good election. But it is the people, not the machines."
Indiana expects a record number of new voters this year, and Rokita is changing his usual advice as a result. In the past he has encouraged voting on Election Day, saying it builds community spirit and gives voters up to the last moment to ponder their choices.
But this year, given the high interest in his state and nationwide, he suggests voters who are certain they will not change their minds help ease the burden -- and the potential for mistakes on Election Day -- by taking advantage of any early voting options in their states.
Okay, he's eleven, right? That would probably mean he's in middle school. I don't know about his school, but at my middle school, and at my highschool, we got a student handbook saying what was allowed or not allowed, and you had to sign a form saying you will follow all rules within. You sign some of your rights away in order to uphold an optimal learning environment, and when you don't comply with a request to stop doing whatever it is that is detracting from that environment, the school has every right to punish you. As long as he signed that piece of paper, there is no arguement, he broke a rule he said he would not, and is recieving the proper repremandation for it.
You get suspended if you call a teacher a whore too.
He was given a chance to change the shirt. He did not. It's against any schools rules to wear a shirt that has a good chance of offending a significant portion of the student/teacher body. By attending that school he agreed to follow the instruction of his teachers. Because he did not, he was suspended. Case Closed.
Also: That “this isn’t about politics” thing was a truck load of crap. If another kid had worn a shirt that called McCain out, they would have been angry as heck.
It doesn't work that way. It's gone through the courts several times now (I'll have to look up specific examples later), students in a public school have limited rights. If that student is a distraction to other students for any reason (that s/he can control), then the school has the right to take action to remove that distraction. You are permitted to express your views, if he simply wanted to wear a shirt that said "Vote McCain '08" then that would be fine. He would be expressing his opinion in a non-disruptive manner. Instead he (or his father, more likely) chose to use known inflammatory words to make an unfounded statement about Obama's affiliations. As said, the father is an activist, he was trying to get his son noticed with that shirt. He knew it would not just pass by with a quick glance and nothing more.
I really hate it when people do stupid crap just to make waves. I mean, no one but Fox reported it anyways so clearly no one in their right mind cares.
Adam I love you and your finely tuned bullshit detector that runs on AA Common Sense batteries.
Free speech doesn't work like that. You are allowed to express your rights insofar as that it does not infringe on the rights of others. Calling a major presidential candidate, whom millions of people adore, a terrorist based on what I'm guessing is a first glance judgment of his middle name, is going to be a distraction. By doing that you are infringing on the rights of OTHER people who have the right to a peaceful learning environment.
If the father's got such a problem with it he can homeschool his own damn kid, and they can wear whatever the hell they want.
As the other day I made Professor Jake's avatar a shirt, I have to go with the kid. While I highly doubt that he legally has said right, and I agree he should have changed shirts (is he stupid?) I still think he SHOULD be able to express even extremist views without intervention. If you can say "Man came from primative apes" you can say "God made man from clay, duh."
Read Behemoth's comment, Blob. You don't have the same kind of rights in a public school. End of story. Outside of school, yes, wear whatever the hell you want. Inside school, no. Follow their rules or get out.
He should be able to express extremist views. I totally agree, because that's part of free speech.
But he should not be able to in a public school. Doing so infringes on the right of other students to enjoy a calm and productive learning environment.
This is only ok as long as they are suspending ALL students who wear political clothes, even if it just says "Vote McCain '08"
That was poorly worded, and I didn't watch the whole video. I correct: It's ok that he got suspended, because really, no form of political activism should be allowed in schools, not even a shirt that says "Vote Candidate '08". Here, it's constitutionally prohibited to do political activism in schools: that is, placing stickers on windows, urging people to vote for one or other candidate, etc. As it is logic, this does not apply to actual debates and/or academic-type explanations of a or b candidate. Because really, having kids exposed to propaganda will always be disruptive of learning, however little; add to this the fact that one or another political ideology may leak into your kid who is still in the process of forming a solid set of morals/beliefs/ideas, etc.
add to this the fact that one or another political ideology may leak into your kid who is still in the process of forming a solid set of morals/beliefs/ideas, etc.
He should be able to express extremist views. I totally agree, because that's part of free speech.
But he should not be able to in a public school. Doing so infringes on the right of other students to enjoy a calm and productive learning environment.
We have a very small differnce in opinion really. I'm simply giving the right to free speech priority over the right to learn.
Comments
As for me, I was diehard Obama fan at first, but that's because nobody in the Republican party really stuck out to me, and supporting Obama was a good way to not support Clinton, whom I knew early on I did not like.
And then, I wasn't sure anymore. Obama didn't seem to appeal to me as much after the primaries died down. Maybe it was the post primary hangover that the general public began to have, but I don't know. I think it's because at the beginning, he wasn't very offensive (as in verbal attacks) against other people, and in my mind Hillary was digging so deep for mud that she could've found oil. Also I remember that Obama was forced to get on the offensive because people in his party were seeing him as weak.
Now all Obama is saying is generic Democratic rhetoric. Every other sentence is about how John McCain's policies involve large black men coming into your home at night and pillaging your ass.
It's not that he's necessarily a bad candidate; it's just that he's a normal candidate to me now, and that's disappointing.
But now the situation is different. I don't know how many of you have been following up on it, but the United States saved the fucking world earlier this week, and the average person doesn't know or care. Wall Street has been burning down, metaphorically, and many of the biggest banks and financial institutions have been dying off left and right, because of the subprime loan mess and credit crunch. The Feds saved AIG (American International Group) with a whopping $85 billion loan earlier this week. The company operates in 140 countries worldwide, with fingers deep in different insurance industries. Loss of it could have caused banks around the world to go down as paniced claimholders withdraw all their money (it's already happening in parts of southeast Asia).
So, more than ever the economy is my biggest concern. And I praise McCain for being blunt about his lack of economic knowledge. Hell, the big secret in being successful in business is not knowing everything; it's being able to quickly call someone who knows a lot. But, this is a massive problem now, and we're not too far away from worst-case scenario. I don't like Obama being at the helm of something like this either, because although he knows a lot about business and economics he has no on hand experience.
The best candidate for presidency would be a fire-tempered Wall Street exec who has been around for many years, enough to firmly remember dealing with the oil crisis of the 80s. Despite the bad rap CEOs get, there are some out there who are talented at taking failing companies and bringing them back up to success, without just cutting employee numbers.
...nevertheless, this will never happen, because there are too many voters out there who are too concerned about inane shit like wearing flag pins. You have to be a politician to get into the White House.
-1 I really don't feel like trying to explain an entire party platform. Am I supposed to? Things like gun control and abortion and such- the typical republican side of those sorts of issues gereally align better with my own view. I always try to favor small business where I can. I work at a small business and my parents own one, so if small businesses get screwed, I get indirectly screwed twice over. I could lose my job and not be able to turn to my parents even. I also don't consider myself a guru on business so I defer to the judgment of my parents and/or my boss as to who's generally better for them and they usually figure it's the Republican. There's no complex logic to it.
-2 How would voting Democrat and having a totally Democrat controlled government be any better? I'd say balance would be what we need.
If it's Iraq that's sending us away, then it's fine. Just that we can't up and leave if they aren't ready for it. You can't just make a mess and not clean it up. That's even worse than making the mess in the first place. And I've heard that Obama wants to expand military operations elsewhere? Is this true?
Mind you, my parents have a private corporation. You're making a baseless attack here on business here and I don't appreciate it. Most businesses are doing their damnedest just to continue existing and follow the laws that are often not very friendly for operation. So to answer your question, Yes! Private corporations will do something productive with money. If McCain acts like some corporate tool, I say fine. For every corporation with money there are employees and investors with money. For every fool with $10 there's probably some businesses they owe $100 to that will never see it.
I mean that I can tolerate her as a VP as long as she stayed a VP and nothing more. I know the implications of being VP. I don't like it, but there's not a lot I can do about it. From what I've seen she might just end up being a loudmouthed yeswoman just repeating what McCain says, just louder and angrier. I'm still weighing the risk of her possibly becoming President.
If they wish to discuss offshore drilling I want to hear more details. There are lots of other ways to generate lots of jobs, so why offshore drilling? What benefit does this in particular bring? Is it supposed to bring gas prices down? Will it? And how/why will it? That's what I'm getting at. Hearing "Offshore drilling: YES or NO?" is not acceptable to me, yet that's all I ever seem to get.
In a serious note, I'd still like to be hopeful that we won't have to blame a President for stuff and that he could do SOME good.
On a non-serious note, I can't up and complain about Obama if I vote for him. Besides, Minnesota always ends up a Democrat state anyway. It probably won't matter who I vote for.
Heh, I suppose so.
Whew. This is a lot to go over.
Idaho, is, and always has been (as far as I know) a republican state. So you find a lot of people here tend to respond to "What time is it?" with several phrases on how great the republicans are doing.
This generally ticks me off.
On the other hand, the demarcates make more than their fare share of stupid comments. If I could vote, I think I would go for Obama. Partially because a President Palin is just too much of a possibility for me. And also because his plans are more planning than a general optimistic goal. But I don't have a complete grasp of what the candidates are saying half the time. Then again, neither do most Americans.
Florida voting issues raise fears of 2000-like debacle
fail.
He was given a chance to change the shirt. He did not. It's against any schools rules to wear a shirt that has a good chance of offending a significant portion of the student/teacher body. By attending that school he agreed to follow the instruction of his teachers. Because he did not, he was suspended. Case Closed.
Also: That “this isn’t about politics” thing was a truck load of crap. If another kid had worn a shirt that called McCain out, they would have been angry as heck.
Free speech doesn't work like that. You are allowed to express your rights insofar as that it does not infringe on the rights of others. Calling a major presidential candidate, whom millions of people adore, a terrorist based on what I'm guessing is a first glance judgment of his middle name, is going to be a distraction. By doing that you are infringing on the rights of OTHER people who have the right to a peaceful learning environment.
If the father's got such a problem with it he can homeschool his own damn kid, and they can wear whatever the hell they want.
Is k
But he should not be able to in a public school. Doing so infringes on the right of other students to enjoy a calm and productive learning environment.
That was poorly worded, and I didn't watch the whole video. I correct: It's ok that he got suspended, because really, no form of political activism should be allowed in schools, not even a shirt that says "Vote Candidate '08". Here, it's constitutionally prohibited to do political activism in schools: that is, placing stickers on windows, urging people to vote for one or other candidate, etc. As it is logic, this does not apply to actual debates and/or academic-type explanations of a or b candidate. Because really, having kids exposed to propaganda will always be disruptive of learning, however little; add to this the fact that one or another political ideology may leak into your kid who is still in the process of forming a solid set of morals/beliefs/ideas, etc.
That's a really, really good point.
We have a very small differnce in opinion really. I'm simply giving the right to free speech priority over the right to learn.
It isn't done per say, the design must still be printed on the shirt.
The great irony is that I'm making it at school.