Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.
Published on October 7, 2008 By Frogboy In Politics

I figured that Obama narrowly won the first debate.  The VP debate was largely a draw. But the second Presidential debate I have to say McCain won decisively.  Still not going to vote for him, but McCain answered questions, was specific, and seemed to know what he was doing.  Obama came across as someone who practiced debating but seemed like an empty suit.


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Oct 09, 2008

fdr who imposed all those unfair regulations that hadda be dismantled in order to permit wall street enough freedom to bankrupt the country again a lil less than 80 years afterwards.
Right on!

on Oct 09, 2008

If that isn't socialism in action, how do you define it?
It's known as planned capitalism. You forget that your wealth is partly attributed to those in the grave who made sacrifices in the 60-90 percent marginal rate that brought this country back to its post war greatness.

on Oct 09, 2008

another of the folks suckered into the myth that corporations pay taxes - they absolutely don't, they simply collect them from you and me in the form of higher prices & pass them on to the IRS.
Good point--definitely a given.

seemed to know what he was doing.
While walking around aimlessly.

But the second Presidential debate I have to say McCain won decisively.
You need a new TV set.

 

on Oct 09, 2008

Daiwa

Unprecedently called for the military to be used on home soil permanatly
I could swear it was Obama who said he wanted to do exactly this - create a national police force, the domestic equivalent of the US Military.

And apparently you're another of the folks suckered into the myth that corporations pay taxes - they absolutely don't, they simply collect them from you and me in the form of higher prices & pass them on to the IRS.

 

I was refering to the Army brigade being assigned to NorthCOM, and the legal justification for said brigade to quell civil unrest. Nevermind The Mercenaries hired after hurricanes now a days.

on Oct 09, 2008

The fact that our choice is no longer "who is best qualified" but "who is going to screw things up slightly less" is pathetic and reflects on our two-party system.

I've made my mind up - I'm not voting for either of these idiots.

For almost my entire life, that has been the only choice - the lesser of 2 evils.  This year is not new in that respect.

See you on the 3rd party slate.

Calling him Socialist is no different then calling Bush and McCain Facist.

So you are equating socialists with Facists?  Interesting.  I would not go so far, but whatever floats your boat.

 

on Oct 09, 2008

to which hoover do you refer?

vladimar hoover? karl hoover?

The Hoover I push around my house. 

Hoover wasn't a bad guy.  In fact, he was all about personal responsibility until the great depression, then he made it impossible for Americans to live up to his personal responsibility standards.

I should have been more specific in comparing Hoover to Obama.  Hoover wasn't an Obama socialist, but he certainly taxed like one.

Specifically Hoover economic policies like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, tax increases in 1932.   The Revenue Act, the estate tax, he raised the income tax, estate taxes were doubled, corporate taxes went up 15% and the list goes on and on.

Who does that sound like?  Give me an O!

Hoover's single mindedness with raising taxes DESPITE the slowing economy.  Does that sound familiar?  He also did bone headed things (hindsight is 20/20 I know) like stop war reparations to us from our allies....money we NEEDED.  That smacks of something Obama would do to make us "better liked" in the world.

One of the things I remember best from studying Hoover?  How even after all these tax increases he said people shouldn't suffer from hunger and the elements, BUT caring for them is a "local and voluntary responsibility." 

I can get behind that idea as long as the fed gov isn't putting its hand in my pocket promising "change" but at the end of the day the money it took may as well never existed as far as making my life better.  The idea of self reliance is what the founding fathers intended..for states to take care of their own.  But Hoover said that kind of thing before AND AFTER he taxed people into the poor house.

Obama is the same kind of guy.  He is gonna tax us silly and when things don't go well, and history has shown taxing when the economy is slowing leads to things not going well, he is gonna say.."WHAT?"

 

 

 


on Oct 09, 2008

Calling him Socialist is no different then calling Bush and McCain Facist.

Except that real-life socialists and communists in Europe actually SUPPORT Obama, whereas real-life fascists, like the German neo-Nazis and American white supremacists (and Aab nationalists) hate and despise Bush and McCain.

So calling Bush a "fascist" is stretching the term "fascist" to include not only fascists but also people with views opposed to fascism and hated by fascists.

However, calling Obama a "socialist", a term that I personally don't recognise as an insult, doesn't require a change of the definition of "socialist".

(Why is it that liberals want to use the word "fascist" for anyone they oppose, even if they share such opposition with white supremacists, nationalists, and neo-Nazis?)

 

on Oct 09, 2008

The devil's advocate is republicans are the same as a facist party from Germany, Italy, or Spain. They Torture, Declare endless wars, Fear monger, Spy on its own citizens. 

Republicans torture?

I seam to remember that the Republicans are those whose presidential candidate is an actual victim of torture (and I don't mean the kind of "torture" a lawyer complains about).

Fear monger? I am arguably a "Republican" when it comes to the "war" issues and I know what to fear and what not to fear. As you can see in this blog entry of mine (which is the first of series to come), I was actually in Iraq two weeks ago:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/326214/A_Fistful_of_Dollars

A Peshmerga lieutenant told me that there hadn't been a Jew in the region (Suleimaniya at the Iranian border) since the 1930s or 1940s.

I believed more or less everything Bush's supporters told me about Iraq and Islam. Plus I was a student in Haifa when Hizbullah attacked in 2006. Want to know the result of the "fear mongering"? I had absolutely no doubt that I was safe in Kurdish cities in the north of Iraq (and somewhat further south).

But I did manage to see one of Saddam's secret police headquarters of old, and the cells and torture chambers (they were in use before the arrival of the Republicans in Iraq). I saw a genocide memorial in that building and pictures of Saddam's gas attacks. I have seen evil and it is not Republicans.

I have never been in an army (although I have the greatest respect for those who fight), but I have been in two wars. In both cases I had enemies who would have happily killed me for what I am, but they tried and couldn't.

I took pictures. I just didn't have time to upload them.

Today, since yesterday evening, I am fasting (it is Yom Kippur), but since I am not religious I use the Internet. Maybe I'll find time to upload some pictures later today.

"JackDaniels", my friend, I don't think you know what you are talking about...

 

 

 

on Oct 09, 2008

Here you go: pictures of torture chambers.

http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100025

 

on Oct 09, 2008

Republicans torture?

I seam to remember that the Republicans are those whose presidential candidate is an actual victim of torture (and I don't mean the kind of "torture" a lawyer complains about).

 

Yeah and McCain voted for the torture bill. McCain voted to Torture POW's, if you consider imprisioned Journalists as POW's.(Not that journalists can not be terrorists, but plenty have been held with out charge, liberal ones I might add whom are more likely to dissent). And I believe he did for little other reason than to pander to the right base.

Fear monger? I am arguably a "Republican" when it comes to the "war" issues and I know what to fear and what not to fear. As you can see in this blog entry of mine (which is the first of series to come), I was actually in Iraq two weeks ago:

When A President comes out and says "The enemy wants to kill you and your familes", When the president goes around to a prime minister and together they attempt to decide the best way to  "Sell" the Iraq War and WMD's are chosen, When the president comes out and says we've saved these buildings, even if they don't exist. Not to mention the constant insinuation from the right that if you vote democrat you'll die.  I would consider that fear mongering yes.

A Peshmerga lieutenant told me that there hadn't been a Jew in the region (Suleimaniya at the Iranian border) since the 1930s or 1940s.

I believed more or less everything Bush's supporters told me about Iraq and Islam. Plus I was a student in Haifa when Hizbullah attacked in 2006. Want to know the result of the "fear mongering"? I had absolutely no doubt that I was safe in Kurdish cities in the north of Iraq (and somewhat further south).

But I did manage to see one of Saddam's secret police headquarters of old, and the cells and torture chambers (they were in use before the arrival of the Republicans in Iraq). I saw a genocide memorial in that building and pictures of Saddam's gas attacks. I have seen evil and it is not Republicans.

I have never been in an army (although I have the greatest respect for those who fight), but I have been in two wars. In both cases I had enemies who would have happily killed me for what I am, but they tried and couldn't.

I took pictures. I just didn't have time to upload them.

Today, since yesterday evening, I am fasting (it is Yom Kippur), but since I am not religious I use the Internet. Maybe I'll find time to upload some pictures later today.

"JackDaniels", my friend, I don't think you know what you are talking about...

 

Are you trying to prove to me we don't torture as bad or what? I'm not trying to agrue that Saddam was greatest guy in the world. Excuse me if I didn't believe that the Shia and Sunni and the Kurds would just be all happy to live with each other in an arbitrary set lines drawn up after WW2. Sectarian violence is an issue still not resolved, we are just bribing every not to fight each and us. Yeah I believe Saddam was Ahole who had no place on this planet, but becuase of that I have no place to critize Republicans? I believe many are better off than they were and many arent. Like the million dead Iraqi citizens, or the 4 million that tried to leave had no were to go and came to back nothing. What infrastructure was there was destroyed by heaving bombing runs in 2002 by US and Brits. It's too bad we couldn't take time out of the busy Project For A New American Century schedule to actually finish the job in Afganistan in the first place, we had to go get those Al Quieda Iraq who weren't there untill we showed up.

 

Oh so the whole guilt by assosciation thing to, on your post above. The Socialist and Facist thing. So If the KKK supports McCain over Obama should I infer McCain is not facist just racist and anti-semitic? Also I played devil's advocate to rediculous calls of Obama as a Socialist, the opposite is McCain as Facist. Why is it Republicans always try use the word Socialist for that they oppose?(in reply to your claim). If you wanted to make the agrument Libertarians aren't Facists you would have something there. Republican's aren't as economically devout as Libertarians though. Republican's want to impose their veiws on everyone else, Un like libertarians who still believe in freedom. Again  I am not trying  actually say Republican's are facists, I am trying to show how idiotic it is to attempt to pidgeon hole a candidate or ideology in a democracy. Hell Democrats aren't even true Progressives, and the true version of Republicanism is Libertarianism, look what happend to the one true Republican candidate though, Ron Paul.

 

On a side note, thank you for sharing the pictures. I'll see if I can get some of my brothers pictures from when he served in Iraq.

on Oct 10, 2008

Are you trying to prove to me we don't torture as bad or what?

I am trying to demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Many Europeans and Americans believe that the bad things the media tell them are really humanity's low points. Unfortunately, they aren't.

The really bad things happen where journalists are not allowed to talk about them, in places where a lawyer cannot get you out.

Screaming at Gitmo is useless. They are worse problems affecting innocent people. Similarly screaming at Republicans is useless. They are at least trying to do something against the evil in the world. To proclaim that they are part of that evil is not only stupid but also exactly what the real bad guys want.

 

Oh so the whole guilt by assosciation thing to, on your post above. The Socialist and Facist thing. So If the KKK supports McCain over Obama should I infer McCain is not facist just racist and anti-semitic?

If the KKK supports someone, I tend to reconsider my support for that someone. The KKK happens to hate both George Bush and John McCain, and anyone who supports Bush's policies and knows about the KKK's positions knows why.

Obama is a socialist. And I don't understand why you are so upset about that. I also don't understand your equation that socialist and fascist are the same type of exageration. Calling someone a socialist is not, in my opinion, an insult. Calling someone a fascist, especially someone who is hated by (real) fascists on the other hand, is not only arrogant but also ignorant.

Obama proposes what constitute socialist policies. Whether they are good or bad is another matter. But the fact is that this is what he does. McCain on the other hand does not propose fascist policies and is hated by fascists. Calling him a "fascist" (a term that anyone with some knowledge of history understands to be an insult) is not the same honesty.

Conservatives call Obama a socialist because he is and won't vote for him because they don't like socialism.

Liberals call McCain a fascist because they don't like him and won't vote for him because they (these days anyway) SPECIFICALLY disagree with McCain on the very subjects that (real) fascists also disagree with him.

Brigitte Bardot has only recently condemned Sarah Palin. The article in question (on a German news Web site) referred to her as an "animal protection advocate", which is a code word for "racist". Brigitte Bardot was on the news over the last few years because of her anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and general negative attitude towards immigrants. However, whenever one of those neo-Nazis criticises American Republicans, they become "animal rights advocates" instead. (And there are no links back to older articles decrying her racism.)

The connection between neo-Nazis and animal rights is the following, btw. Neo-Nazi parties in Europe have few votes and are trying to become more mainstream. Looking for something positive to say in their platform, they included animal rights, hoping to gain votes that way. Since they never get enough votes to become part of a government (except in Austria, apparently), they can demand all the animal rights they want and never have to figure out whether those make sense (for the economy and the animals). The connection between neo-Nazis and animal rights is entirely bogus, but it makes for nicer-sounding credentials whenever a neo-Nazis speaks up against his favourite enemy number 3, American neo-cons. (First two are Jews and foreigners in general.)

 

Also I played devil's advocate to rediculous calls of Obama as a Socialist, the opposite is McCain as Facist. Why is it Republicans always try use the word Socialist for that they oppose?

It's simply because Republicans oppose socialist.

Obama promotes socialist policies (public healthcare as a "right" and things like that) which Republicans are opposed to. Hence they call Obama a "socialist" and oppose him. Note that I am generalising.

But Democrats, even though they now agree with fascists about Iraq (and even Israel), call everyone they oppose a "fascist". However, there is no particular rational reason for that. Republicans do not actually promote fascist policies. In fact Republicans currently promote policies that fascists all over the world decry and oppose.

Ask socialists and fascists around the world who they support as president of the US, Obama or McCain.

Do you think a German socialist supports McCain? Do you think the head of Hamas or the dictator of Syria (who is an actual fascist from an actual fascist party founded in actual Vichy France) does not want you to vote for Obama?

And then take a look at Obama's local racist friends. I wouldn't call Obama a fascist, but he HAS fascist supporters (in contrast to McCain), IS a racist, and DOES promote socialist policies.

 

Republican's want to impose their veiws on everyone else, Un like libertarians who still believe in freedom.

I have joined many discussions and it is never Republicans who are really upset when I disagree with them. Democrats, on the other hand, scream censorship whenever someone disagrees with them. Remember the discussion about radio talk shows?

I disagree with Republicans about public healthcare (_I_ am in favour of it), with capitalists about property rights (I believe natural resources should be owned only in exchange for taxes), and with American Christians (some of them) about evolution. But never ever has one of those, and most of them are Republicans, called me ignorant for opposing them or proposed a mechanism to make my voice unheard.

I cannot say that my experience of Democrats was the same one.

 

on Oct 10, 2008

Your right I am ignorant or stupid or what ever. I don't understnad why not being Republican makes you into an automatic socialist. I am stupid because I though it was an exageration. I thought America could belong to more than just devout Republicanism. I see now America should only be for Republicans and Policys, abolish the tax code, privitise the police, Let corporations do what they want. Don't worry about animals, an animal activvist just may turn out to be a neo-nazi(those damn nazis also discovered the dangers of smoking while corporation in America ran wild). I am an idiot becuase I thought the abortion issue is "censorship". It does make me laugh you they don't call you ignorant, something you guys can't stop doing to me. Hell I don't think you guys are ignorant, and would less be able to judge that over a posts on a message board. But hey hey since I am supposedly the ignorant one, I guess that would make us all ignorant then. Hey we're all equals! I won't even touch the idea that random people decide how you vote goes(KKK argument). IN A DEMOCRACY IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOME "SOCIALIST POLICIES" WITHOUT BEING SOCIALIST. By the way, Obama doesn't want to nationalize every industry which socialism is, which is why I call the arguement that have any other belief than republicans is socialism. Facism on the otherhand is neither Libertarian Capitalism nor European"Socialism". It is in the middle with limited gov, intervention. Usually goverened in totalitarian way. It is easy to make the same rediculous assertions that having some Socialist ideas makes you a full blown communst is the same as having some facist ideas on the republican side making a  nazi. Both are rediculous, and are used to slander there otherside. Like I said before I was never calling Republicans Facists, I was drawing the same conculsions ill-advised republicans made to me about socialism. the reason I became a progressive is of all the atrocities, in my opinion, that occur, and how closely connected the republicans are. Democrats are not innocent by far. Republican policies help to further probelms in all respects in my opinion. Note I am not talking about a centerist, I am taking about your Far Right Ultra Neo-Con Republicans.

 

Also what is the difference between Libertarians and Republicans if freedom is not the issue? AS far I know they agree economically, they agree on gun rights(hey ak and grenades and rpg's for everyone!), they disagree on torturing people, civil rights abuses, like spying on the military calling home from battlegrounds, and christian issues like abortion and gay marriage.

on Oct 10, 2008

If McCain won the second debate can you tell me why he is running behind in the polls after the debate?

on Oct 10, 2008

If McCain won the second debate can you tell me why he is running behind in the polls after the debate?

If you believe the polls, he was behind before the debate as well.  Just because he may have won doesn't mean anyone is going to change their mind.  I walked away from that last debate feeling that nothing was going to change.  No major revelations, no major "gotchas"  and nothing really all that exciting came out of it. 

I don't necessarily think McCain won the debate, but then again, I'd say it's pretty subjective for the most part anyhow.  I'd call it a draw myself, although I do believe McCain was more forthright with his answers than Obama was. 

on Oct 10, 2008

If McCain won the second debate can you tell me why he is running behind in the polls after the debate?

He had to have a KO because of the economy, but only got a win on points.  Winning debates only shows up in poll numbers when all else is equal (like 2000).

4 Pages1 2 3 4