Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Obligation is left up to any individual to determine for them self. I choose not to look at casting a vote as an obligation. I will still voice my opinion, thus debunking the entire "you can't complain, if you don't vote" myth. I most certainly can.....and always will.
I see Obama's blueprint and I do like him! I do not disagree with much of what Obama says he will do.No problem with it really.I just want to know why he refuses to admit he was - at least at one time - a Muslim.Instead we got truthiness. About the BC ... I have an original and a new one.Obama has an original one and a new one too and the original is out there and I have no problem with what it says - just have a problem with him not owning his history.That being said - Troo and clato, you helped me see that I was associating lying about being Muslim with being an extreme Muslim.The two are very different.I was wrong there. Steel_ yeah, thank you for that.Very well said. Knoxville, my husband does not vote either and voices his opinion often - so you are right - the myth is broken!!! I do vote though and wish he would too.
Instead of dirt and poison, we have rather chosen to fill our hives with honey and wax; thus furnishing mankind with the two noblest of things, which are sweetness and light.
I have to agree with Knox. Take the argument to its logical extreme and say if there are 2 Prez candidates, one a radical fascist and one a radical theocrat, I would have to not vote for either. And a symbolic 3rd party vote is no real solution.
I feel if you want to complain, then you must be willing to work to change what you dislike; whether that be by voting, protesting, ballot initiatives, or outright revolution. Just complaining is not an option but just voting is not necessarily better.
One must do whatever they feel is necessary to invoke the change they want. Whether they includes voting is up to their conscience.
That being said - Troo and clato, you helped me see that I was associating lying about being Muslim with being an extreme Muslim.The two are very different.I was wrong there.
I never intended to say that the 2 are related. That's why I discussed them in separate paragrahs. My point (separate and distinct) were
1-that you should examine your admitted fear of a group (extremists) and;
2- a BC proved little if anything about Obama unless you are just trying to find something/anything. And I see no credible evidence anywhere that Obama was ever a Muslim unless you believe in guilt by association or that a child has any real choice in what religion they are. Everything I've seen has indicated that Obama has been undecided or Christian since he came of age (much like I am and was never a Catholic though I attended Mass into my 20's by default thanks to by upbringing.)
And I'll repeat that I believe this whole subject is just an intentional distraction from the real issues. (Not that this discussion, as all true discourse, does not have some inherent merit)
Last Edit: Oct 13, 2008 12:08:47 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
In a related topic, here's an article about the dude who started the "Obama-is-a-secret-muslim" stuff. Apparently he's a "the-Jews-control-all-the-money" guy.
troo 1- I did not say that you said they were related.I said I related them erroneously. 2- Examining fears currently. 3- So if you were running for office and were to be questioned about your unsolicited Catholic education - which ,btw, did help you form your current opinions (pro or con) - you would deny having learned it because you did not agree with it?
Instead of dirt and poison, we have rather chosen to fill our hives with honey and wax; thus furnishing mankind with the two noblest of things, which are sweetness and light.
If an American Christian were to run for office in a Muslim country and said he was Muslim - but stories of his true beliefs came out would it not be a story?
This analogy doesn't work because this isn't a Christian country. Have you ever heard of a Separation of Church and State?
I knew a couple of Muslim guys in college - they were smart and likeable. I did not fear them.
This whole "I'm not racist because I have a black friend" argument is tired and stupid.
Post by Steel_City_X on Oct 13, 2008 17:04:44 GMT -5
Our individual participation in the popular voting process is something wonderful that happens in this country, and others.
But, this is a participatory democracy, thus requires citizens participate in order to thrive. You have the right not to vote, but I liken it to something that happens in our household fairly often. My wife asks if there is something specific I want for dinner, or I ask her, if I don't reply, I have little to complain about what is served to me on my plate. The country is just an enormous version of this.
We still have a degree of "to the victor go the spoils" that takes place in our country. Elections recently, and maybe longer, have usually split the number of people sharing the spoils between a small elite group and a wider more diverse population.
I know that it is hard to imagine how your one vote out of millions and millions could impact the future of this country for the next four years, but I believe it can. First of all, the process of voting require civic engagement, hopefully a bit of research and study as to the various issues and people on the local/state/federal ballot. Too often, idiots get elected to all of these levels of government and some pretty bone-headed issues get made into law. Maybe each of us does not agree who in particular is an elected idiot, but at least by voting, you can support people who you do not think is an idiot.
Freedom is a great thing. Typically not really appreciated by those who have it, but wanted so dearly by those who do not have freedom.
Remember, things like this were influential in my upbringing .......watching PBS, listening to Smothers Brothers, signing kum ba ya at church.
One of the great things about our country is that we are encouraged to express our differences and disagreements. Generally without fear of disappearing into the night and ending up in a mass burial pit. Too many times, we forget that thousands of people are killed around the world because they do not fit the established mould of the rulers of their country. 800,000 people died in Rwanda because they were of tribes not part of the ruling group. 800,000 people died because the bridge on their noses was different. Pretty inconsequential in the greater scheme of the world.
And I guess to round up Columbus day:
I just love the logo/thought, I don't really know why, but I do.
kdogg, troo and clato - I am not fearful of Muslims. I fear extremist.
Yet I noticed you had nothing to say about Sarah Barracuda's religious practices/beliefs. Like I said before you brought this up, extremists of all flavors are scary.
I am not here to promote McCain. My guy did not get to debate, he was not rich enough. I have heard people use Obama's middle name and frankly - I thought it a cheap shot.
And how were those previous posts of yours not a cheap shot?
You said you didn't have to speak positively about McCain because your guy was too poor to debate. I've got news for you: the guy I supported at the beginning of all this isn't onstage for the debates either, and amassed several hundred thousand dollars in campaign debt. He lost, I dealt with it and moved on - that includes shifting my candidate preference towards one who has a shot at winning. (And for what it's worth, when I was waving signs in front of a New Hampshire polling place on primary day, the guys waving McCain signs nearby said "if we had to cross the aisle for someone, it would be your guy.")
I'm not the one here hammering away on non-issue-related topics. Sure, I could go on about McCain and his associations with the Keating Five, getting engaged to his current wife while still married to his first wife, etc. We could go back and forth in that manner on associations all day, if you wanted to. But I don't. I don't think we should be voting against the guy we hate more. We should be selecting our next President based on issues. I can understand why Republicans have a hard time discussing their nominee in terms of issues; supporting an unpopular/unnecessary war, being a long-time advocate of an economic de-regulation agenda that got us into what's being described everywhere as a "crisis," etc.
Long story short: I can respect someone who has well-thought out reasons for supporting a candidate I disagree with a hell of a lot more than I can respect someone who uses questionable claims in attacking the candidate I agree with.
So, kdogg - go ahead and be a smiter for Obama, but it does drive people like me in the closet - knowing our opinions would be looked down on here - You except open-mindedness only from those that agree with you?
This is a good place to admit you were wrong. Where did I say I was going to smite anyone? (For the record, nearly all of my smiting is sports-related; the one and only time I've smited anyone in the 10-month history of this thread was because a guy wouldn't lay off the caps lock.) What I said was that I would give karma for a thoughtful, reasoned explanation of why someone is supporting McCain. I can respect reasoned opinions. It's mud-slinging I've got a problem with. And if you're going to be feeding the rumor mill instead of discussing issues, I see that as mud-slinging and not an opinion. I don't want anyone to be closed-minded. Rather, I'd prefer to see supporters of both candidates having a rational, reasonable discussion of their candidates of choice. I don't think the mud-slinging helps.
Was my closed mind malfunctioning when I went to that McCain rally and shook his hand?
I believe Jim Lehrer does not vote and still manages to make a big contribution to our democracy.
There are plenty of people involved in media and politics who don't vote out of professional concerns. One of my classes in the spring semester had the political editor from the Des Moines register as a guest speaker. I asked him about his electoral participation, because a caucus is much more visible than a primary. He explained that as a reporter he couldn't be seen participating in a public caucus to protect his presumed impartiality, though he will cast his vote in an isolated booth on Election Day... he just won't tell anyone who it's for.
In the latest Gallup tracking poll, Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain 50 percent to 43 percent among registered voters. Mr. McCain’s deficit in that survey has remained seven percentage points or more for most of the last two weeks.
Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980. . . . Since 1948, front-running candidates have typically preserved three-fourths of their October leads, said Larry M. Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton. Applying statistical theory to current polls, he pegged Mr. Obama’s chance of winning the popular vote at “a little over 90 percent.”
I first saw the video today and just said OMG. I had never heard of forcing women who use in vitro to either carry every fertilized egg to term or to find another woman who will do so
I looked up that incumbent's district - Illinois 6th. It's in DuPage County, which includes a lot of wealthy suburbs northwest of Chicago. From what I know of Illinois politics, it's one of the most reliably Republican areas in the state.
Jill Morgenthal is totally going to lose that race. Pollster says she's down 29-59 against the incumbent.
This stuff has been understood by many for quite some time, but now that it's probably going to get some debate time tomorrow, best to bone up. This is brief, accurate, and easy to forward on to those stubborn friends and family!
William Ayers: Funded by Republicans
Thu, 10/09/2008 - 3:34pm — John Martin
The more the McCain campaign tries to tie Barack to William Ayers, the more ridiculous they look. But hey-- at least the economy is doing well!
After his stupid, youthful days with the Weather Underground organization, William Ayers became a normal, productive member of society. After receiving his PhD in the 1980's, he became a professor of education at the University of Illinois, wrote 15 books, and served as an advisor to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. As Daley told the New York Times recently, "He's done a lot of good things in this city and nationally... This is 2008. People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life."
In 1995, Bill Ayers was part of a team that helped create the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education reform project that worked with half of Chicago's public schools. Barack Obama, then working as an attorney and law school professor, was elected chairman of the eight-member board of the CAC. The board included individuals of diverse political backgrounds, including Ray Romero, the President of Ameritech; Stanley Ikenberry, the former President of the University of Illinois; and Republican Arnold Weber, who had served in the Nixon White House.
In their best efforts to portray Barack as out of the mainstream, some on the right have tried characterizing the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as a dangerous fringe organization. What they do not discuss is the fact that the CAC was funded by a foundation belonging to Walter Annenberg, the billionaire Republican philanthropist who served as Richard M. Nixon's ambassador to the U.K. Annenberg and his wife, Leonore, gave the CAC $50 million in the 90's.
But Walter and Leonore weren't just giving money to educational foundations started by William Ayers. They were also giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican National Committee and various other Republican groups, as well as to a whole host of Republican candidates, including the following:
- George W. Bush $4000 - Mitt Romney $5000 - Strom Thurmond $1000 - Fred Thompson $500 - Rick Santorum $3000
Why would billionaire Republican philanthropists give millions of dollars to a program that was working with William Ayers? Why would George W., Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and all those other Republicans accept money from the people who were funding this William Ayers-associated group? Why won't McCain discuss these connections between the Republican Party and Ayers?
Here's the icing on the cake: just yesterday, the McCain campaign put out a press release bragging about the fact that Leonore Annenberg has endorsed him for president. Yes, you heard it-- a McCain backer bankrolled William Ayers with millions of dollars.
More icing: You know that Republican Arnold Weber I mentioned earlier? The one that served on the board of the CAC with Barack? Not only did he work with William Ayers in the 90's, he has also donated at least $1000 to the McCain campaign. That's right-- McCain is accepting money from associates of William Ayers, and so far has not given the money back.
I'm feeling a little cheated. Months ago I was promised an October surprise. It's already October 9th, and all I've heard is that Barack knows a guy who's been working with McCain supporters and Republicans since the mid 90's.
In a closely fought campaign like the Presidential race, elements of either side can get caught up in the emotions of the contest. This is especially true during stressful economic times. I heard Senator McCain help tamp down the rhetoric at a recent town hall meeting.
Regrettably, he needs to do more of that. An energetically waged campaign can all too easily slip over into something hateful and dangerous, and everyone from the candidate on down needs to do whatever it takes to stop that. It won't seem credible for the John McCain I know to say his campaign should be respectful, while seeming to look the other way as his campaign employs certain tactics and rhetoric which apparently are intended to appeal to the fears of some Americans.
I so disagree. Voting is an obligation. You are choosing to live in a democracy, the basis of which is voting by the people.
I'm mixed about this. I agree that way more people need to get out and vote, and I personally vote in every mid-term and Presidential election. Also, political apathy just frustrates the hell out of me - way more so than people with polar opposite views from me. I don't really care what your views are, as long as A) you explain clearly your point of view and give valid reasons as to why you think that way, B) you don't try to force your beliefs on me, and C), you respect my right to have an opinion completely different from your own. However, I also think that people should not be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, you know? I mean, in 2004, I didn't like either candidate. I supported Kerry in the end (even though I just missed out on being able to vote in 2004), simply because his views generally aligned more with what I believed, but I didn't particularly like him as a candidate. To quote South Park, sometimes, you just have to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
Blurb from the campaign: Today, the Obama-Biden campaign is unveiling a new tax calculator that is designed to show the difference between the tax bill you would face under current tax policies, and under the tax policies proposed by Barack Obama and Senator McCain. The calculator starts by using the tax rates and credits that are currently on the books, and then calculates the difference under each candidate's proposals.
I like when Obama and McCain shake hands and Obama puts his other hand on McCain's arm/shoulder. It makes McCain look old and feeble. Anyone else notice this?
I loved when Obama said that Americans don't care about their hurt feelings because that was EXACTLY what I was thinking - McCain just sounded so whiny and like he was tattling on Obama for pushing him in the schoolyard.
This may seem morbid and/or mean spirited, but I'd like to see if McCain dies within the next 4 years. Now, I would never say I want someone to die. But just for the sake of the "Palin as President" argument I'm curious to see what becomes of McCain.
What about Palin in 2012? The GOP seems to be in love with her. I personally hope she fades back into obscurity.
I can’t hold in the truth any longer. My feelings are too large to live just within the confines of my heart. I need everyone to know:
I am passionately in love with David Gergen.
Our (mine and Gergen’s) love story is in some ways ordinary. We were friends first. I would see him hanging around the channel—sometimes on AC360, sometimes on The Situation Room—and was always vaguely aware of a little pang of happiness whenever his large, wonderful head would appear in some kind of split-screen box.
The moment I realized my feelings were more serious was in late September, right after the first presidential debate. Gergen was on for hours, and I found myself on the couch, riveted, a glass of Cabernet by my feet, hands wrapped around my knees as I leaned forward to capture every word, every thought, every—oh, be still my fluttering heart, was that a little chuckle?
And then all of a sudden my face felt hot. I was blushing. I was loving David Gergen.
How do I love David Gergen? Let me count the ways.
I love his low, quiet voice. That unmodulated buttery whisper that sounds like it’s elbowing its way past a cough drop that’s permanently lodged at the back of his throat. You know how Bed Bath & Beyond sells those white noise machines that help you sleep? And they usually make ocean noises? I want one that’s just David Gergen gently muttering about the economy.
I love the way Gergen makes me feel calm, even when he’s making dire predictions about the future of our country. I love the way he knows everything and then formulates an opinion about everything that’s always right. I love that his eyebrows only move when he gets mad, and I love that he almost never gets mad. I love that he looks like a handsome baked potato. I want him to analyze my life with the same subtle intelligence he uses to analyze politics. How can I make my kitchen brighter? Should I email that dum-dum of a guy I know or just leave it in my draft folder? Should I get a bob or is my hair better long?
I love that his name is Gergen. Gerrrrr-gen. I don’t know the real origin of the name, but it’s a quirky, comforting sound with an onomatopoeic quality to it. Like the little pleasure noise you make under your breath when you’re home in your pajamas and you hear someone on the TV making consistent, rational sense.
This may seem morbid and/or mean spirited, but I'd like to see if McCain dies within the next 4 years. Now, I would never say I want someone to die. But just for the sake of the "Palin as President" argument I'm curious to see what becomes of McCain.
What about Palin in 2012? The GOP seems to be in love with her. I personally hope she fades back into obscurity.
Insurance actuaries give McCain a 1-in-4 chance of dying in the term following the 2012 election. I'm not sure if they take into account the "real age" estimate of presidents showing two years of aging for every year as president...
As far as Palin 2012, I'm torn... Part of me thinks that she's got too much baggage and is pretty much the butt of a national joke. Unfortunately, another part of me realizes those Huckabee supporters will have to vote for some other candidate. If she did run in 2012, I'd be surprised.
I don't see any of this year's GOP also-rans throwing their hat in the ring four years from now, other than Romney. Huckabee knows it would be futile, and his taking on a TV analyst gig means he's probably through with politics. Giuliani failed miserably. Ron Paul and Fred Thompson will be too old. Also, candidates who should be lucky I'm even mentioning them: Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, John Cox, Tommy Thompson, Alan Keyes (Scratch Alan Keyes. He's going to run for President every four years until he dies.)
So if we're going to have a 2008 repeat in the next GOP primary, it's probably Romney. He's a fundraising force to be reckoned with, had a respectable showing this time around, "flexible" enough on issues be appeal to some moderates, seemed to be posturing for McCain's veep slot after withdrawing, will still be relatively young, and looks and sounds presidential to many. And is it really going to be that big of a deal if he's a Mormon if he's running against Obama?
The GOP is more likely than Democrats to re-nominate a candidate who had already run and lost. The last time the Democrats re-nominated a losing candidate was Adlai Stevenson, his most recent run being 1956.
In that time, on the GOP side: Richard Nixon lost the 1960 general and came back to win in 1968. Bob Dole was Ford's running mate in 1976, later the 1996 nominee. Ronald Reagan unsuccessfully sought the nomination in 1976, returning to win it four years later. George H.W. Bush ran against Reagan in 1980, but I won't count that because he ran as an incumbent veep. I suppose one could make an argument about his son, though. While he didn't run as a Republican, Ross Perot received more support from Republicans than Democrats in 1992 - and had a respectable run four years later (at least, by normal third-party standards...)
I think it's reasonable to assume a Romney 2012 campaign. Newt Gingrich 2012 wouldn't surprise me, either.