CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › How to win Pt. II: Deny veterans the right to vote
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How to win Pt. II: Deny veterans the right to vote

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Help Our Veterans Vote

By SUSAN BYSIEWICZ
Published: August 10, 2008

Hartford

WHAT is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking? On May 5, the department led by James B. Peake issued a directive that bans nonpartisan voter registration drives at federally financed nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and shelters for homeless veterans. As a result, too many of our most patriotic American citizens — our injured and ill military veterans — may not be able to vote this November.

I have witnessed the enforcement of this policy. On June 30, I visited the Veterans Affairs Hospital in West Haven, Conn., to distribute information on the state’s new voting machines and to register veterans to vote. I was not allowed inside the hospital.

Outside on the sidewalk, I met Martin O’Nieal, a 92-year-old man who lost a leg while fighting the Nazis in the mountains of Northern Italy during the harsh winter of 1944. Mr. O’Nieal has been a resident of the hospital since 2007. He wanted to vote last year, but he told me that there was no information about how to register to vote at the hospital and the nurses could not answer his questions about how or where to cast a ballot.

I carry around hundreds of blank voter registration cards in the trunk of my car for just such occasions, so I was able to register Mr. O’Nieal in November. I also registered a few more veterans — whoever I could find outside on the hospital’s sidewalk.

There are thousands of veterans of wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan who are isolated behind the walls of V.A. hospitals and nursing homes across the country. We have an obligation to make sure that every veteran has the opportunity to make his or her voice heard at the ballot box.

Connecticut’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, and I wrote to Secretary Peake in July to request that elections officials be let inside the department’s facilities to conduct voter education and registration. Our request was denied.

The department offers two reasons to justify its decision. First, it claims that voter registration drives are disruptive to the care of its patients. This is nonsense. Veterans can fill out a voter registration card in about 90 seconds.

Second, the department claims that its employees cannot help patients register to vote because the Hatch Act forbids federal workers from engaging in partisan political activities. But this interpretation of the Hatch Act is erroneous. Registering people to vote is not partisan activity.

If the department does not want to burden its staff, there are several national organizations with a long history of nonpartisan advocacy for veterans and their right to vote that are eager to help, as are elected officials like me.

The department has placed an illegitimate obstacle in the way of election officials across the country and, more important, in the way of veterans who want to vote. A group of 21 secretaries of state — Republicans and Democrats throughout the country, led by me and my counterpart in Washington State, Sam Reed — has asked Secretary Peake to lift his department’s ridiculous ban on voter registration drives.

Bills that would require the department to repeal the ban have been filed in both houses of Congress. They need to be signed into law no later than Oct. 1, so that veterans in V.A. care don’t miss their states’ deadlines to register to vote in the fall elections.

But federal legislation shouldn’t be needed for the Department of Veterans Affairs to lift the ban on voter registration drives by state and local election officials and nonpartisan groups.

The federal government should be doing everything it can to support our nation’s veterans who have served us so courageously. There can be no justification for any barrier that impedes the ability of veterans to participate in democracy’s most fundamental act, the vote.

Susan Bysiewicz is the secretary of state for Connecticut.
Source.
post #2 of 51
I'd argue that too many people vote...let's see them call it a democracy with only 4% of the population casting their ballots...

But I'm afraid that would only happen only out of apathy, not wanting to make any change...
post #3 of 51
Thread Starter 
Exactly. That would be a much more truthful representation of the election rather than the Republican corruption that has driven the last two elections.

We are living in a plutocracy - rule by the rich for the rich. This is a fact.
post #4 of 51
Most of those veterans would vote for McCain, they're his demographic. I fail to see how this is a slam against Republicans..
post #5 of 51
Everything is a slam against Republicans. They deserve it a lot of the time, but not every goddamned time.
post #6 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
We are living in a plutocracy - rule by the rich for the rich. This is a fact.
Then become rich. Problem solved.
post #7 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
We are living in a plutocracy - rule by the rich for the rich. This is a fact.
Maybe we live in a bizarre version of ancient Greek democracy. The rich play the part of citizens, ruling the land while the rest of us play the part of slaves, meaning that we will work for them, they'll take care of us but we'll never be their equals.
post #8 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Most of those veterans would vote for McCain, they're his demographic. I fail to see how this is a slam against Republicans..
Actually, that's starting to look like another talking point that doesn't pass muster. Veterans are lukewarm on McCain.
post #9 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrichead View Post
Everything is a slam against Republicans. They deserve it a lot of the time, but not every goddamned time.
I'm sick of most Democrats as well, frankly. A lot of Democrats are beholden to big money interests, but not with the slavish devotion and passionate, greed-fueled fury of the Republicans. This connection nonetheless prevents Dems from really calling it out for what it is, and that helps the Republicans get away with so much corruption and perfidy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrichead View Post
Then become rich. Problem solved.
I'm talking about the health of our country and future of our world. This me-first, greed-is-good mentality spread around the have-nots is what has allowed Republicans to help divide and conquer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas View Post
Maybe we live in a bizarre version of ancient Greek democracy. The rich play the part of citizens, ruling the land while the rest of us play the part of slaves, meaning that we will work for them, they'll take care of us but we'll never be their equals.
Except that I don't think they have any interest in taking care of us, unless you're talking about life among the working poor of China. That's what we're heading toward to stay "competitive" - meaning, competitive among CEOs, stockholders, and Cayman Island tax-free bank accounts while the poor live in squalor.
post #10 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I'm sick of most Democrats as well, frankly. A lot of Democrats are beholden to big money interests, but not with the slavish devotion and passionate, greed-fueled fury of the Republicans. This connection nonetheless prevents Dems from really calling it out for what it is, and that helps the Republicans get away with so much corruption and perfidy.
How do you know the Dems are not as slavishly devoted? Why have they done nothing to change anything? They may not have the bigger role here, but they have a role in fucking everything up too. They don't get the free pass because Republicans have the White House. They could have done, and could do more to stop this shit. They chose not to because they have lobbyists and money people to answer to.

There is a very thin line between the two parties, sometimes nonexistent. You have plenty of articles shitting on Republicans, but the Dems have been absent or have played along. They deserve some of this shit too.

Quote:
I'm talking about the health of our country and future of our world. This me-first, greed-is-good mentality spread around the have-nots is what has allowed Republicans to help divide and conquer.
You know, there are a lot of wealthy Dems running around. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are not hurting for money. They're talking a lot about fixing shit, but they haven't done much from the Senatorial seats to try and stop or change anything so far, so why should anyone believe that they will stop what they've been doing and become the Hero to the Working Man? It is usually the working man that they tax to pay for the have nots.

I'm not saying that there should only be rich or not rich. I understand that there are people that need help. I'm not stupid, nor do I try and step on these people to get what I want. I help and donate as much as I can, but I also work 18-20 hours a day to keep things going for my family. They come first, everyone else after that. I only want the government, whether they be Dems or Republicans, to leave me the fuck alone.
post #11 of 51
Thread Starter 
The problem is that when you live in a democracy, you benefit from the privileges afforded to you by THE COMMONS. This is the system we are lucky enough to be born into, and we don't get to choose to partake of its gifts and not work to protect those gifts. I work full time, sometimes freelance on top of that, and take care of my family too.

The Democrats are bad at one thing -- strategy. They do all the right things in Congress, not as extreme as I'd like, but positive steps to protect the poor, conserve energy, invest in solar, wind and geothermal power, help retirees and children with hot & cold weather energy costs, help veterans, hold corporations accountable, put stopgaps on the excessive, historical profits the oil companies are enjoying, put stopgaps on the free-for-all McCain crony Phil Gramm et al handed to the banking industry, attempt to investigate the criminality in the administration, corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan and waste in the military industrial complex etc. etc. etc.

The Democrats are trying, but without a veto-proof majority in the Senate, they can get NOTHING DONE. However, instead of forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster, they roll over and take it. This is a HUGE strategic mistake because Republicans have no qualms about pinning the failure to act on Democrats when in fact there have been more filibusters with this Congress than any other in the history of our government. And when Bush's cronies refuse to testify under oath, do they arrest them and put them in the basement of the Capitol to compel them to testify? No. So far they haven't. Until they get serious about protecting the American people against being destroyed from within by big money interests, we're screwed.

Trust me, Democrats are beholden, but they're not ONE AND THE SAME with the big business plutocracy the way the Republicans are. You can tell yourself they are to sleep at night, but if you take a day and look at the facts, you'll be disturbed to see that they're not. It's disturbing shit, but it's important to recognize. Democrats aren't the messiah, but they're the only way forward until some independent anti-corporate, pro-American group materializes and uses 21st century communication to gain some momentum and call these greedheads out for their looting of the country.
post #12 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
The Democrats are bad at one thing -- strategy. They do all the right things in Congress, not as extreme as I'd like, but positive steps to protect the poor, conserve energy, invest in solar, wind and geothermal power, help retirees and children with hot & cold weather energy costs, help veterans, hold corporations accountable, put stopgaps on the excessive, historical profits the oil companies are enjoying, put stopgaps on the free-for-all McCain crony Phil Gramm et al handed to the banking industry, attempt to investigate the criminality in the administration, corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan and waste in the military industrial complex etc. etc. etc.
Do you really think that a Republican gets up in the morning and decides how he is going to fuck all of these people? If so, then we are both living with delusions. You have validity, there are a bunch of greedy bastards out there, I don't deny it, my only comment is that there are greedy bastards that are Dems too.

What's with the stopgaps on profits? What is that going to solve? How is that going to bring down the cost of energy? The job of a corporation is to make money, they will find a way to do it, regardless of what you throw at them. You have to also remember that these corporations have created jobs, they have done some good as well. They are not all evil, and they are not all good.

I just don't believe like you do that a Republican gets out of bed and just starts looking for people to rob and take advantage of. There are people that do, but I can't paint with the broad strokes that you use.

We are both crying about the same thing here, I am just a little more tired of all this shit than you may be.

Quote:
Democrats aren't the messiah, but they're the only way forward until some independent anti-corporate, pro-American group materializes and uses 21st century communication to gain some momentum and call these greedheads out for their looting of the country.
I doubt that this will ever happen regardless of who holds the White House. There is just too much to be lost on both sides to let this happen.
post #13 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrichead View Post
What's with the stopgaps on profits? What is that going to solve? How is that going to bring down the cost of energy? The job of a corporation is to make money, they will find a way to do it, regardless of what you throw at them. You have to also remember that these corporations have created jobs, they have done some good as well. They are not all evil, and they are not all good.
Let me use a recent example to show you how your thinking benefits the Republican/corporate circle jerk ruining our country.

A piece of energy legislation recently passed the Senate with 51 votes, mainly Dems but also a handful of Repubs. This legislation would force the oil companies -- whose recent profits have been THE LARGEST EVER IN RECORDED HISTORY - to pay a windfall profits tax ... UNLESS they invested in alternative energy sources. In other words, ExxonMobil, which pays more to their CEO than they spend on R&D, would not have to pay the tax all all, if they would just invest in alternate energy.

Well, guess who filibustered to prevent debate on the legislation (you need sixty votes for anything to move forward): Republicans in the Senate.

Seriously, who are they representing? The people? The argument is that the oil companies would just pass the tax onto the consumer. Except, how is that possible in a market-based economy? A tax doesn't affect supply and demand, does it? Capricious pricing is in the wheelhouse of a monopoly, which is what these multinationals are. So, wouldn't a move to invest in alternative energy help break us out of the grip of oil companies while creating thousands of new jobs (unlike the corporations whose bottom line depends on using slave labor overseas and getting tax breaks for importing substandard, foreign-made goods)? Of course it would. But Bush and his Republican friends in Congress, are fighting tooth and nail against what huge numbers of industrialized countries are now doing -- investing in innovative solar, geothermal & wind power, innovative electric cars and mass transit, etc.

The Democrats aren't the party of the oil companies, though they do have ties to them. The Republicans are. Bush and Cheney are both oil men, as was Bush Sr. This is the merging of corporate and political powers, a perfect plutocracy. And this is just one example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrichead View Post
I just don't believe like you do that a Republican gets out of bed and just starts looking for people to rob and take advantage of. There are people that do, but I can't paint with the broad strokes that you use.
I'm not suggesting that either. You are gradually taken in, Repubs and Dems alike, but I think because of pressure from their constituents, and in cases like Waxman, Feingold and Kucinich you've also got personal integrity, the Dems will side with the people when pressed. Not the Republicans, who have mind-fucked their constituents into believing total fabricated BS. Read the Republican Noise Machine by David Brock for more on this phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrichead View Post
We are both crying about the same thing here, I am just a little more tired of all this shit than you may be.
I'm tired of it too, and I'm especially tired of the meme that Dems are just as bad as Repubs. They all have dirt on their hands, but Repubs are rolling around in the mud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrichead View Post
I doubt that this will ever happen regardless of who holds the White House. There is just too much to be lost on both sides to let this happen.
No major changes will ever come from the top down. It will have to come from the bottom up. Maybe our kids' generation, who will be paying for this Republican spending spree for many decades to come, breathing toxic air, dying in more wars for oil profits, and watching species slide out of existence, will muster up enough anger to make it happen. But not us.
post #14 of 51
Thread Starter 
Ps. You also need to ask yourself why Republicans win fixed elections and why Republicans only want loyal Republicans in the Justice Department? Why are only Democratic public officials being hounded and thrown in jail? Why do Republicans want you to be afraid that they'll wiretap you, read your email, disappear you and torture you at some Rendition hell if they so choose? Why don't Democrats do these things? Why is the Republican candidate for President surrounded by lobbyists in his campaign? Why are there major campaign donation irregularities popping up with the Republican candidate and not the Democratic candidate?

What I'm getting at is that the radical right has taken over the Republican party. The "Goldwater conservatives" don't recognize their own party anymore. Even Nixon would be appalled at what these guys are doing.
post #15 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Ps. You also need to ask yourself why Republicans win fixed elections and why Republicans only want loyal Republicans in the Justice Department? Why are only Democratic public officials being hounded and thrown in jail? Why do Republicans want you to be afraid that they'll wiretap you, read your email, disappear you and torture you at some Rendition hell if they so choose? Why don't Democrats do these things? Why is the Republican candidate for President surrounded by lobbyists in his campaign? Why are there major campaign donation irregularities popping up with the Republican candidate and not the Democratic candidate?

What I'm getting at is that the radical right has taken over the Republican party. The "Goldwater conservatives" don't recognize their own party anymore. Even Nixon would be appalled at what these guys are doing.

I'm going to break with you on some key points here:

1. Obama's campign is filled with lobbyists.

2. Ted Stevens would disagree with your assertion over the "hounding" of Dems only.

3.Nixon wouldn't be appalled; he wrote the playbook they've been riffing on for years. If anything, he'd admire them for doing everything they can to stay in power.

4. Election fixing transcends political parties.
post #16 of 51
Quote:
What I'm getting at is that the radical right has taken over the Republican party. The "Goldwater conservatives" don't recognize their own party anymore. Even Nixon would be appalled at what these guys are doing.
You're right, they are a shithole right now and someone needs to come in and kick their asses. I can't follow a lot of your claims, as they seem to be paranoid conspiracies from time to time, but I know that Bush, et. al. are screwing things up. I want them out as much as you. They are not doing anybody any good, and McCain seems to be, or is trying to look like, more of the same.

Both parties need to be cleaned up, I'm sure that we can agree on that. My point way back when was that you are always putting threads tearing the asshole out of the party when really both parties need to shoulder the blame for what's going on.

If Obama is for change, then I hope he has the balls to go for blood, in both parties. He needs to go in and clean up the mess. Will he, or can he? I don't know, I don't know that he's strong enough, politically speaking, to get all of this done. The Governator promised a lot, and we both see how he went back on many things that he said would be done. It's the way of human nature, politics, and the goal of getting re-elected.
post #17 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Why do Republicans want you to be afraid that they'll wiretap you, read your email, disappear you and torture you at some Rendition hell if they so choose? Why don't Democrats do these things?
Biased much? All due respect, but how do you know they don't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Why are there major campaign donation irregularities popping up with the Republican candidate and not the Democratic candidate?
Yes, because no politician in the history of ever has accepted money from a "shady" individual/group.

Look, speaking as a guy who doesn't know who's getting his vote come Election Day, I think both candidates suck. McCain can't seem to get his issues across because every five seconds someone is asking him about how his age will affect his time in office. That, and he's just not a good public speaker.

Obama, while an amazing public speaker, comes across as condescending at times. He's taken that "rock star" image and ran with it, and I suspect that that is a big reason why people are turned off. He also has a campaign full of lobbyists, let's not forget that, either.

My fault with your agrument, yt, is that you are so quick to condemn one party and let the other slide. If you're going to list one's fault, list the other. It's not that hard, and it can make your points a little more well rounded.

EDIT: Looks like Bancroft beat me to the lobbyist argument.
post #18 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
I'm going to break with you on some key points here:

1. Obama's campign is filled with lobbyists.
Not true. He has, what, something like three advisors with tenuous lobby links compared to McCain, who has already had something like five guys have to step down for various conflicts of interest? if we're talking about degrees of influence, this is apples and oranges. But it's a convenient argument for letting McCain off the hook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
2. Ted Stevens would disagree with your assertion over the "hounding" of Dems only.
I'm talking about baseless political persecution without cause (see Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, et al), not the inevitable and too-big-to-ignore corruption of Sen. Stevens. Seriously, if you don't know about these guys, check out the links. You will not believe your eyes, and yet it's true in Bush's America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
3.Nixon wouldn't be appalled; he wrote the playbook they've been riffing on for years. If anything, he'd admire them for doing everything they can to stay in power.
I totally disagree, though Nixon was no saint, Watergate was nothing like what they've gotten away with, with very little public outrage (unlike Nixon).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
4. Election fixing transcends political parties.
Really? In the past 10 years? If this is true, I'd really like to know about it. Unfortunately, virtually everything I've read about election fraud favors Republicans. But I would love to hear about it if you've found cases of Democratic shenanigans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrichead View Post
You're right, they are a shithole right now and someone needs to come in and kick their asses. I can't follow a lot of your claims, as they seem to be paranoid conspiracies from time to time, but I know that Bush, et. al. are screwing things up. I want them out as much as you. They are not doing anybody any good, and McCain seems to be, or is trying to look like, more of the same.

Both parties need to be cleaned up, I'm sure that we can agree on that. My point way back when was that you are always putting threads tearing the asshole out of the party when really both parties need to shoulder the blame for what's going on.

If Obama is for change, then I hope he has the balls to go for blood, in both parties. He needs to go in and clean up the mess. Will he, or can he? I don't know, I don't know that he's strong enough, politically speaking, to get all of this done. The Governator promised a lot, and we both see how he went back on many things that he said would be done. It's the way of human nature, politics, and the goal of getting re-elected.
Electrichead, I totally see where you're coming from and that we're on the same side, but what I'm raving about half the time is that NO ONE INDIVIDUAL is going to come in and clean things up. Unfortunately, the time has come for all of us to pay attention. Our ignorance, coupled with the quadrupling of average debt and constant specter of Republican-fueled fearmongering, have distracted us all away from the central backbone of democracy: an informed public.

The people who are ruining this country are getting away with it because they can do it in secret, the corporate press won't blow the whistle, the Republicans are on-board and the Democrats are letting it happen. You can say the Dems are just as bad as Repubs, but just remember, that that's one of the talking points that lets the Repubs off the hook. At least the Dems are trying -- unsuccessfully, but they're trying to address the realities in America. The Republicans are just trying to scare you into blind trust.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent View Post
Biased much? All due respect, but how do you know they don't?
I'm not saying they wouldn't; I'm saying they HAVEN'T. The Republicans HAVE. And I'm not biased, I'm just paying attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent View Post
Yes, because no politician in the history of ever has accepted money from a "shady" individual/group.
This is an institutional problem with our form of government. We the people need to take money out of politics and have publicly funded elections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent View Post
Look, speaking as a guy who doesn't know who's getting his vote come Election Day, I think both candidates suck. McCain can't seem to get his issues across because every five seconds someone is asking him about how his age will affect his time in office. That, and he's just not a good public speaker.
He gets them across. He just keeps changing them. I know there are aspects of McCain that are incredibly positive, but this campaign and his voting record show me that he's not the right guy for right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent View Post
Obama, while an amazing public speaker, comes across as condescending at times. He's taken that "rock star" image and ran with it, and I suspect that that is a big reason why people are turned off. He also has a campaign full of lobbyists, let's not forget that, either.
Please see my earlier point on lobbyists. You want to do a side-by-side comparison with McCain's lobbyists? I'd be happy to comply.

On the other issue, why are you buying the right wing talking points about "condescending" "rock star" image? Wtf does any of that have to do with governing? What do you think people said about Reagan (a movie star) or Kennedy (a "rock star") or even George Washington (probably the biggest "rock star" of his time)? Please, I beg you, when you start hearing Hannity or O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or any one of these douchebags all repeating the same slur on Obama, step back for a moment and ask yourself, wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent View Post
My fault with your agrument, yt, is that you are so quick to condemn one party and let the other slide. If you're going to list one's fault, list the other. It's not that hard, and it can make your points a little more well rounded.
Not true. My posts above are full of criticism for the Dems. I'm incredibly frustrated with the weak Democrats in Congress who won't stand up for Americans against predatory and abusive Republicans. Standing by and letting something happen is almost as bad as doing it. In other words, I'm pissed off at Democrats, but not as disgusted as I am by the pure slimy big business-fueled destruction of America by the Republicans.
post #19 of 51
The reason why the Democrats in Congress who won't stand up for Americans against predatory and abusive Republicans, is because they are on the same team, they have the same boss. It is a 'good' cop 'bad' cop thing. Voting for a Dem is the same as Voting for a Rep. as much as a part of me hate to say it it is true. fuck I think I will vote for Nator.
post #20 of 51
A few things, to clarify:

1: It is incredibly naïve to think that because a person is a Democrat that they haven't invaded someone's privacy.

2: When I said that Obama had lobbyists in his campaign (he does), I was not comparing him to John McCain. It does not matter if one of them has more, it matters that they have them at all.

3: The rock star image I referred to earlier is not because of "Right-Wing Spin." Nor does this "spin" have anything to do with him being condescending. This is the vibe I myself have gotten from watching/hearing him talk, not from asshats like O'Reilly, Beck, or Hannity.

4: Your posts feel like they're leveled at all Republicans, not just the "slimy big-business fueled" ones. That was a big part of what I meant when I said I found fault with your argument.

5: The image of George Washington as a rock star (complete with big hair, make-up, and a flaming guitar as I imagine it) is hysterical. Thank you for that, I mean it.
post #21 of 51
Thread Starter 
Obviously I paint Republicans with too broad a brush, so in that way I'm wrong. There are some good Republicans who haven't given over to the radical right wing cult. And there are some weak and compromised Dems as well.

But I protest this idea that they're all the same. If you pay attention to what's happening in Congress you see that Democrats are bringing forward desperately needed legislation, like SCHIP (health care for kids) and use-it-or-lose-it restrictions on oil leases (a standard Big Coal must comply with) as well as mounting investigations into the nefarious actions of the Bush administration and trying to get to the bottom of some of these hideous revelations. Have you ever watched these hearings? Watching the behavior of the Dems vs. Repubs tells the whole story. One side is trying to get to the truth, the other is trumpeting talking points and coddling the witnesses. It's gross.

And just to illustrate my earlier point about lobbyists, I am going to attempt a comparison to show you all that this idea that Obama is anywhere near as choked by special corporate interests as McCain is misguided at best.
post #22 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
But I protest this idea that they're all the same. If you pay attention to what's happening in Congress you see that Democrats are bringing forward desperately needed legislation, like SCHIP (health care for kids) and use-it-or-lose-it restrictions on oil leases (a standard Big Coal must comply with) as well as mounting investigations into the nefarious actions of the Bush administration and trying to get to the bottom of some of these hideous revelations. Have you ever watched these hearings? Watching the behavior of the Dems vs. Repubs tells the whole story. One side is trying to get to the truth, the other is trumpeting talking points and coddling the witnesses. It's gross.

And just to illustrate my earlier point about lobbyists, I am going to attempt a comparison to show you all that this idea that Obama is anywhere near as choked by special corporate interests as McCain is misguided at best.
1: I was not saying that they were all the same. Just that both parties are capable (and, in some cases, have done) deplorable things.

2: I never made the claim that Obama was as "choked by special corporate interests as McCain." However, to say that Obama is free from this at all (or to imply it, which is more apt for your argument) is just as misguided.
post #23 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
And just to illustrate my earlier point about lobbyists, I am going to attempt a comparison to show you all that this idea that Obama is anywhere near as choked by special corporate interests as McCain is misguided at best.
Since you ignored this in the 2008 Presidental Election thread, I'll reiterate.

Big donors are the key to Obama's record haul

Quote:
In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.

But records show that a third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more - a total of $112 million, more than the total of contributions in that category taken in by either Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries.

Behind those large donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama "bundlers," fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.

While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate.

He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago before the 2004 Senate race, and, once elected, set out across the country starting in 2005 to cultivate some of his party's most influential money collectors.

U.S. spending on contractors in Iraq reported to reach $85 billionMcCain and Obama use summertime to hone messagesFBI seeks owners of 137 artworks
He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children.

The fruit of his efforts has put Obama's major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million that President George W. Bush's Pioneer and Ranger network raised in $1,000-and-larger contributions in 2004 during the primary season.

Given his decision not to accept public financing, Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his campaign for the general election and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee.

An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group at about 130, with many working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses - nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real-estate industry.

The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to big-time political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James Torrey, a New York hedge fund investor; and Charles Rivkin, an animation studio head in Los Angeles.

"It's fairly clear that this is being packaged as an extraordinary new kind of fund-raising, and the Internet is a new and powerful part of it," said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. "But it's also clear that many of the old donors are still there and important."

The care and feeding of top Obama fund-raisers underscores their significance to his campaign. Members of his National Finance Committee who fulfill their commitment to raise at least $250,000 are being rewarded with trips to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Finance committee members participate in biweekly conference calls with top campaign officials. The fund-raisers meet quarterly, often with Obama dropping in. He lingered after the meeting last month in Chicago, telling his staff he wanted to thank every person in the room. Some fund-raisers who knocked on doors for Obama in places like Iowa, Pennsylvania and Indiana got to spend time with Obama backstage before and after speeches on primary nights.

His fund-raisers invariably say their support for him is not rooted in any kind of promise of access but in their belief in him.

"This is about Barack Obama and changing the direction of our country," said Jonathan Perdue, a business consultant in Mill Valley, California, who has raised more than $250,000 for Obama's campaign.

Obama has pledged not to accept donations from federally registered lobbyists or political action committees. But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Obama at a time their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington.
But records show that a third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more - a total of $112 million, more than the total of contributions in that category taken in by either Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries.

Behind those large donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama "bundlers," fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more.

From page 2

Many fund-raisers sit on the campaign's array of policy working groups, getting a chance to weigh in on policy positions and speeches.
post #24 of 51
Thread Starter 
Point one: I know, but what I'm trying to communicate is that this very response -- they're both capable of deplorable things -- lets the Republicans in charge right now (and their heir apparent) off the hook for the deplorable things they HAVE DONE and ARE DOING as we speak.

I'm arguing with the talking point itself. This is odious. Democrats may be just as capable as sinking to the level of criminality and corruption that the Republicans in power have sunk to, but that's not the same thing as saying the Republicans in power ARE CURRENTLY abusing their position and the public trust to the great detriment of the rest of us.

The same lack of strategy the Democrats show in their election management is what has saved them from brainwashing, dividing, conquering, polarizing and lying to their constituents, which the Republicans have employed with GREAT success. Get this book, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
post #25 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Since you ignored this in the 2008 Presidental Election thread, I'll reiterate.

Big donors are the key to Obama's record haul

But records show that a third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more - a total of $112 million, more than the total of contributions in that category taken in by either Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries.

Behind those large donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama "bundlers," fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more.

From page 2

Many fund-raisers sit on the campaign's array of policy working groups, getting a chance to weigh in on policy positions and speeches.
I think we need public financing of elections to keep the big money out of it. The number of lobbyists in Washington has skyrocketed since Bush took office. It's always been bad but it's a whole new flavor of bad. So while you think this is such an alarming statistic on Obama, take a look at the numbers of mega donors and lobbyists:

Quote:
JOHN McCAIN

Total Raised: $122,002,749

Bundlers: 850

Mega-Donors: 1011

Lobbyist Bundlers: 76

BARACK OBAMA

Total Raised: $336,742,305

Bundlers: 552

Mega-Donors: 471

Lobbyist Bundlers: 15

Source
Meanwhile...

Quote:
Last week, The Washington Post disclosed that Harry Sargeant III, a prominent McCain booster in Florida and part owner of an oil-trading company with business in Iraq, had rounded up thousands of dollars in small donations from Americans of Middle Eastern origin. Many had not made political contributions before, and were of relatively modest means. The Times followed with a report that at least $50,000 of this had been solicited from a single extended family in California, the Abdullahs, by one of Mr. Sargeant’s business partners, a Jordanian named Mustafa Abu Naba’a.

Though it is unclear whether any of this is illegal — including whether the law forbids foreigners from soliciting contributions — the McCain campaign hurriedly announced that it was returning the money raised by Mr. Abu Naba’a. It also promised to review the money raised so far — about $500,000 — by Mr. Sargeant.
Source.
post #26 of 51
yt, this is an alarming statistic on Obama. For someone who is saying he's a step up and that he's the change America needs, he's still falling prey to the same old crap.

Look, not to beat a dead horse (or, for that matter, kick it in its fucking face) but whether or not Obama has less funding from lobbyists than McCain doesn't matter. It's the fact that he has it AT ALL. I've been trying to say this.

Both men are dipping in the shady money pool. Both should be held accountable for it.


And your "Obama as Niko Bellic" avatar makes this whole thing hysterical.
post #27 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I think we need public financing of elections to keep the big money out of it. The number of lobbyists in Washington has skyrocketed since Bush took office. It's always been bad but it's a whole new flavor of bad. So while you think this is such an alarming statistic on Obama, take a look at the numbers of mega donors and lobbyists:
I'm not sure if you're understanding this. Obama opted out of public financing. Those numbers for McCain are going to be static and he's raised a much lower amount than Obama from those special interest groups. All those big bundlers that Obama has, they can double up on him with the general. So instead of 112 million (as of June numbers) he could be higher then $224 million! Bush, was only $147 million in 2004 (he opted into the public financing!)

Now, you can't say that Obama is all pure and innocent when his big-donor bundlers, the fund raisers who interact with these special interest groups are the ones who are helping shape his policy and write his speeches!

Now, I'd go around saying "well they're just as bad!" but no! Obama opted OUT OF PUBLIC FINANCING! He is 100% beholden to those special interest groups now, these guys who are shaping his policy! He is at least (or will be), 100% worse than McCain in this aspect.
post #28 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent View Post
yt, thhttp://www.accountableamerica.com/people/adelsonis is an alarming statistic on Obama. For someone who is saying he's a step up and that he's the change America needs, he's still falling prey to the same old crap.

Look, not to beat a dead horse (or, for that matter, kick it in its fucking face) but whether or not Obama has less funding from lobbyists than McCain doesn't matter. It's the fact that he has it AT ALL. I've been trying to say this.

Both men are dipping in the shady money pool. Both should be held accountable for it.
I agree. I'm not saying I like it, but it's also a matter of degrees here since we don't have a pure system and have let election spending spiral into a nightmare of special interests. McCain is in with some very heavy, creepy people and huge industries.

Everybody's looking for "gotcha" issues for Obama, but the truth is, McCain's near total reliance on big money interests vastly outclips Obama's bundlers/lobbyists, and the bulk of his donations stem from INDIVIDUALS. PS. a lot of Obama's bundlers are people who are doing it because they believe in him as a leader, not to buy influence -- environmental protection groups, watchdog groups, etc.

Here's a nice new development, since this can of worms has been opened: McCain's having a big fundraiser this week with, among other gazillionaires, Sheldon Adelson. Read all about him here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent View Post
And your "Obama as Niko Bellic" avatar makes this whole thing hysterical.
That's an animated gif I picked up somewhere that's really funny but it's not working.

post #29 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
That's an animated gif I picked up somewhere that's really funny but it's not working.
Post it over here and I'm sure someone can fix it for you.
post #30 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
I'm not sure if you're understanding this. Obama opted out of public financing. Those numbers for McCain are going to be static and he's raised a much lower amount than Obama from those special interest groups. All those big bundlers that Obama has, they can double up on him with the general. So instead of 112 million (as of June numbers) he could be higher then $224 million! Bush, was only $147 million in 2004 (he opted into the public financing!)

Now, you can't say that Obama is all pure and innocent when his big-donor bundlers, the fund raisers who interact with these special interest groups are the ones who are helping shape his policy and write his speeches!

Now, I'd go around saying "well they're just as bad!" but no! Obama opted OUT OF PUBLIC FINANCING! He is 100% beholden to those special interest groups now, these guys who are shaping his policy! He is at least (or will be), 100% worse than McCain in this aspect.
Snaieke, I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be totally free of bundlers and lobbyists. But he actually has a proposal to help address some of the loopholes that have totally corrupted previous campaign financing reform (including McCain's, which McCain has since violated).

Here's someone more articulate than I (David Corn) analyzing his decision (an analysis that makes sense to me):

Quote:
But the story here is deeper than the simple narrative, Obama-sells-out-reform. His campaign, relying on Internet fundraising, has broken records in the number of small donors it has attracted. It has been far more populist than other major campaigns when it comes to fundraising. As Obama put it, "Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans." Sure, Obama did receive a significant amount from maxed-out contributors and bundlers, but he has mobilized small contributors like no one else. Given that the goal of the reform system was to prevent big-money backers from getting their hooks into a candidate, are its restrictions less relevant for a candidate who does so well with small donors?
...
It is true that Obama has used bundlers and accepted money from big donors. But he has indeed demonstrated the potential of a new model. And Obama is one of three lead Senate sponsors of legislation that would improve the presidential public financing system, particularly for presidential primaries. This bill would give primary candidates public matching funds of $4 for every $1 raised, covering only individual contributions of $200 or less. Under this reform, the importance of smaller Internet contributions would be maximized and the primaries would become less a money-chase than they have been.
Whole thing here...
post #31 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tieman View Post
Post it over here and I'm sure someone can fix it for you.
Thanks Tieman. I will...
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Snaieke, I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be totally free of bundlers and lobbyists. But he actually has a proposal to help address some of the loopholes that have totally corrupted previous campaign financing reform (including McCain's, which McCain has since violated).

Here's someone more articulate than I (David Corn) analyzing his decision (an analysis that makes sense to me):



Whole thing here...
McCain has alienated himself from his party with his campaign finance reform, don't throw that partisan bullshit out that he's corrupt. McCain may have screwed up when he thought his campaign was stalled and he was starting to opt into public financing but he never took a penny and an FEC commission would have cleared him had there been one at the time.

Fiengold himself said the public financing for the General election is fixed and there is no reason for Obama to have passed on it... obviously, we know the reason now.

Also, this whole proposed $4-$1 thing? Is bullshit! Who are the small donors? With the rules the way they are you'll never know!!! Public financing means you know where the money comes from, tax payers. All donations under $200 don't have to be reported (unless the proposal states a change in that..?)

HE SHOULDN'T BE TOTALLY FREEE????? $112 MILLION DOLLARS!!!! For fucks sake, that's almost more money then McCain has raised!!! THEY'RE INVOLVED IN WRITING HIS POLICIES AND HIS SPEECHES!!! This guy who has been in the US Senate for four years and according to that article, has been collecting big donors for a Presidental run since before he was in the US Senate! How can you, who sees a conspiracy in almost everything NOT call that into question, even a little bit!!! I'm pretty laid back but I'm raising my eyebrow at that and think there needs to be HUGE FEC investigations into his donations.
post #33 of 51
Thread Starter 
I would welcome an investigation into Obama's fundraising ... but only if there was also an investigation of McCain's. I don't like the system as it exists today, and I say that in a non-partisan way. It is a circus, and the expenditures are way overboard when you consider the vital needs of this country and the world.

When I say I'm for public financing, I'm talking about TOTALLY PUBLIC, entirely paid for by taxpayers. No 521s, no bundlers, no third-party TV ads, nothing like that. Donated equal time from the networks. Donated equal time/space on other media real estate.

The amount of money in politics is what has brought our system of government, and consequently the people, to its knees.

Put it all out there on the public's dime, with equal time, and it becomes about the candidate's policies and the vision for the country rather than smearing Obama as an arugula-eating rock star celebrity wayne's world muslim antichrist elitist.

My alarm bells don't go off for Obama's fundraising because I'm someone who has never donated to a political candidate before (though I have lots of charities and causes that I donate to), and on my own, without a bundler or fundraiser, I personally chose to make two small donations to Obama. Not because I expect him to give me a tax break, no-bid contract or favorable legislation that will violate the public trust, but because I believe he is the right candidate to start trying to clean up Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush's cataclysmic mess.

I'm not alone in this either, which is WHERE THE BULK OF OBAMA's donations are coming from.

Do you see the difference, Snaieke?
post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
McCain has alienated himself from his party with his campaign finance reform, don't throw that partisan bullshit out that he's corrupt. McCain may have screwed up when he thought his campaign was stalled and he was starting to opt into public financing but he never took a penny and an FEC commission would have cleared him had there been one at the time.
Well, that's not what happened with McCain, but the fact that he couldn't even follow his own rules says plenty about his ability to follow the rules.

The day after McCain flip-flopped on offshore drilling, the oil companies filled his campaign coiffers. Obama's compromise on that same issue occurred when the Gang of 10 drew up a policy plan. Is that difference clear enough for you?

Quote:
Also, this whole proposed $4-$1 thing? Is bullshit! Who are the small donors? With the rules the way they are you'll never know!!! Public financing means you know where the money comes from, tax payers. All donations under $200 don't have to be reported (unless the proposal states a change in that..?)

HE SHOULDN'T BE TOTALLY FREEE????? $112 MILLION DOLLARS!!!! For fucks sake, that's almost more money then McCain has raised!!! THEY'RE INVOLVED IN WRITING HIS POLICIES AND HIS SPEECHES!!! This guy who has been in the US Senate for four years and according to that article, has been collecting big donors for a Presidental run since before he was in the US Senate! How can you, who sees a conspiracy in almost everything NOT call that into question, even a little bit!!! I'm pretty laid back but I'm raising my eyebrow at that and think there needs to be HUGE FEC investigations into his donations.
This is just flatly denying reality. BUT YOUR E-SHOUTING CERTAINLY IS CONVINCING!!!!! The fact that Obama hasn't released all the names of his small contribution donors does not in any way prove that they don't exist. The fact that you even think it's possible shows how little you actually associate with Obama supporters IRL. I know tons of people who have donated. Shit, half of the regulars in this thread probably donated a little something. We're everywhere, dude. Also, there is no way Obama could've raised all that money during the primary with Clinton sucking up all the rest of the "old" Democratic donors' money.

And your gravity-defying edict on accountability really just comes off as dishonest. Do you really see every single criticism of your side as mere partisanship? Or is it just a defense mechanism so you can ignore stuff? When it comes to criticiszing liberals, you're anything but laid back, so you can quit praising yourself.
post #35 of 51
I just want to know what fuck all John McCain has to do with Obama selling his soul to Wall Street? Read Matt Taibbi's piece, read about the Clinton bag men now firmly entrenched like ticks on a dog's ass, or just realize that Wall Street is giving millions to Obama because they're hedging their bets and view Obama as a more likely winner.


Like I said in the Election thread, maybe Obama will be totally independent and none of this will matter but when you're in bed with a really pretty girl who wants to fuck you after you ask her to spend the night it's kind of hard to say no. Just because McCain is an asshat doesn't excuse Obama from anything.
post #36 of 51
Thread Starter 
No, but also be aware that part of the right's strategy is to blur the lines between Obama and McCain.
post #37 of 51
The idea that "they're both equally beholden" only helps the right.
post #38 of 51
Thread Starter 
This takes lobbyist influence to a whole new level...

Quote:
While Aide Advised McCain, His Firm Lobbied for Georgia
Campaign Dismisses Timing of Phone Call, Contract

By Matthew Mosk and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 13, 2008; Page A03

Sen. John McCain's top foreign policy adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.

The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington.

The McCain campaign said Georgia's lobbying contract with Orion Strategies had no bearing on the candidate's decision to speak with President Mikheil Saakashvili and did not influence his statement. "The Embassy of Georgia requested the call," said campaign spokesman Brian Rogers.

But ethics experts have raised concerns about former lobbyists for foreign governments providing advice to presidential candidates about those same countries. "The question is, who is the client? Is the adviser loyal to income from a foreign client, or is he loyal to the candidate he is working for now?" said James Thurber, a lobbying expert at American University. "It's dangerous if you're getting advice from people who are very close to countries on one side or another of a conflict."
ad_icon

At the time of McCain's call, Scheunemann had formally ceased his own lobbying work for Georgia, according to federal disclosure reports. But he was still part of Orion Strategies, which had only two lobbyists, himself and Mike Mitchell.

Scheunemann remained with the firm for another month, until May 15, when the McCain campaign imposed a tough new anti-lobbyist policy and he was required to separate himself from the company.

Rogers said Scheunemann "receives no compensation of any type from Orion Strategies and has not since May 15, 2008." Scheunemann declined to be interviewed for this story.

As a private lobbyist trying to influence lawmakers and Bush administration staffers, Scheunemann at times relied on his access to McCain in his work for foreign clients on Capitol Hill. He and his partner reported 71 phone conversations and meetings with McCain and his top advisers since 2004 on behalf of foreign clients, including Georgia, according to forms they filed with the Justice Department.

The contacts often focused on Georgia's aspirations to join NATO and on legislative proposals, including a measure co-sponsored by McCain that supported Georgia's position on South Ossetia, one of the Georgian regions taken over by Russia this weekend.

Another measure lobbied by Orion and co-sponsored by McCain, the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2006, would have authorized a $10 million grant for Georgia.

For months while McCain's presidential campaign was gearing up, Scheunemann held dual roles, advising the candidate on foreign policy while working as Georgia's lobbyist. Between Jan. 1, 2007, and May 15, 2008, the campaign paid Scheunemann nearly $70,000 to provide foreign policy advice. During the same period, the government of Georgia paid his firm $290,000 in lobbying fees.

Since 2004, Orion has collected $800,000 from the government of Georgia.

Rogers said Orion's representation of Georgia had no bearing on McCain's decision to speak with Saakashvili in April. "The Embassy of Georgia requested the call because of Georgian concerns over recent Russian actions dealing with South Ossetia and Abkhazia," he said.

McCain has said that he has worked closely with Georgia and its top officials since the mid-1990s. On the campaign trail yesterday, McCain referred to Saakashvili as a close friend.

But Rogers acknowledged that "Scheunemann and others on the foreign policy staff are involved in call requests and statements on foreign policy issues."

After the April call, McCain issued a statement that day voicing support for Georgia's position.

"We must not allow Russia to believe it has a free hand to engage in policies that undermine Georgian sovereignty," McCain said in the statement. "Georgia has acted with restraint in its response and should continue to do so."

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said it may be impossible to know whether Scheunemann's advice to McCain was truly unvarnished.

"The question is, whose views are you really espousing?" Sloan said. "Are they really your own views, or are they the views that are bought and paid for by the clients of your top aides? McCain probably would be sympathetic to Georgia regardless, but having a guy like Scheunemann as a top aide raises questions."

Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, said Scheunemann's business ties to Georgia raise questions about how much he influenced McCain's position on the Georgia conflict.

"It's these sorts of appearances of a conflict of interest that are a natural consequence of having a campaign run by lobbyists, staffed by lobbyists and being ensconced in a lobbyist culture for over a quarter of a century," Sevugan said.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
Source.
post #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
No, but also be aware that part of the right's strategy is to blur the lines between Obama and McCain.
Oh God........

You really need to stop insulting my intelligence. I'm really tired of this bullshit, that I have to overlook obvious and legitimate faults or legitimate criticism because he's Obama and everything is a conspiracy to destroy his campaign and win it all for McCain.
post #40 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
Oh God........

You really need to stop insulting my intelligence. I'm really tired of this bullshit, that I have to overlook obvious and legitimate faults or legitimate criticism because he's Obama and everything is a conspiracy to destroy his campaign and win it all for McCain.
WTF? What is it about the need to use hyperbole to make your point. Why not stick to the facts. I never asked you or anyone to overlook Obama's faults. He has plenty.

In terms of a "conspiracy," why don't you give examples of what you're talking about to be refuted or acknowledged?

And, lastly, how is it an insult to your intelligence to call out a quantifiable Republican strategy?
post #41 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
WTF? What is it about the need to use hyperbole to make your point. Why not stick to the facts. I never asked you or anyone to overlook Obama's faults. He has plenty.

In terms of a "conspiracy," why don't you give examples of what you're talking about to be refuted or acknowledged?

And, lastly, how is it an insult to your intelligence to call out a quantifiable Republican strategy?

I've said what I wanted to say and you dismissed it, like you always do, as Republican dirty tricks or some election stealing conspiracy. You came off as a condescending partisan hack to be honest.
post #42 of 51
yt, there are FAR too many people in this country that think they are above-it-all, and they perceive no difference between candidates of different stripes, and they are JUST SO PERCEPTIVE and UNIQUELY CYNICAL that they actually think Obama is the same as McCain. Or worse, they see themselves as some sort of moronic "balancing act" that periodically "fixes"" the country as if it were some junior-high social studies experiment. These people think the country is their beaker, and your freedom is just an ingredient to be used or removed as needed.
post #43 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
yt, there are FAR too many people in this country that think they are above-it-all, and they perceive no difference between candidates of different stripes, and they are JUST SO PERCEPTIVE and UNIQUELY CYNICAL that they actually think Obama is the same as McCain. Or worse, they see themselves as some sort of moronic "balancing act" that periodically "fixes"" the country as if it were some junior-high social studies experiment. These people think the country is their beaker, and your freedom is just an ingredient to be used or removed as needed.

Singer, I like you but what utter bullshit.

I apologize if my concern over millions of dollars being pumped into the Obama campaign by the same speculators on Wall Street that create and burst economic bubbles that kill the middle class and the poor raises an alarm bell.

I apologize if flip flopping on FISA makes my stomach turn. I'm sorry that if Obama cozying up to the slime that I loathe with every fiber in my being in attempt to appear pro-business makes my stomach turn.


Am I cynical? Yeah, yeah I am and I'm proud of it. This country didn't start to go off the rails at the start of the Bush administration, it started when we placed Eugene V Debs in prison for speaking out against war, it started when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima because we were bankrupt, it started when we forget every lesson taught to us by the Great Depression so we could flock to the suburbs and greedily grab our own piece of prosperity before somebody (the Communists, the blacks, the Jews,) took it away.

I at least applaud the Nixon's, the Bush's, the McCains, the Reagans for letting me know where the enemy is, who is and what I have to do to fight him. That's extremely hard when you cloak yourself in populist rhetoric while wearing Goldman Sach's underwear.
post #44 of 51
I'm sure your folks are very proud.
post #45 of 51
Just to add, I like you too BA, but if Americans honestly think this election is the same as Snaieke's idea of good cop/bad cop, then I quit.
post #46 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Just to add, I like you too BA, but if Americans honestly think this election is the same as Snaieke's idea of good cop/bad cop, then I quit.
I agree but it's hard to reconcile my belief that this election is firmly rooted in class warfare and watch the candidate with the most potential (and Obama does have that. Make no mistake but it's still just potential we're talking about here) to help bring about significant change is taking money from the very people who profit from human misery and economic exploitation.
post #47 of 51
Thread Starter 
BA, as many have said in this forum before me, if you don't like the system as it is, you have to work to change it. That means getting involved. I don't like it either, and I'm trying to get involved. But for this election, November 2008, we have only two choices for President.

One of them has eight mansions and has voted with Bush 95% of the time. The other was raised by a single mother, spoke out against the Iraq war when it mattered, and has shown a lot of backbone voting in the Senate against big business in favor of regular Americans.

This country has a lot wrong with it, but a lot right with it as well. It's worth saving from the greedy, war-mongering, corporation-coddling elite who are trying to destroy it from within. But you don't do that by simply complaining about it. We all have to wake up from the stupor that has enabled this nightmare.

Buying into the Karl Rove-minted "Obama is as bad as McCain" meme is missing the forest for the trees.
post #48 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
... to help bring about significant change is taking money from the very people who profit from human misery and economic exploitation.

Understood.
post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
One of them has eight mansions and has voted with Bush 95% of the time. The other was raised by a single mother, spoke out against the Iraq war when it mattered, and has shown a lot of backbone voting in the Senate against big business in favor of regular Americans.
We both agree that these candidates have problems, McCain more so than Obama, but to use this as a basis for argument is silly. I understand your views on people with money, but to use that as the only basis to determine if someone is good or evil is also an issue that this country has wrong.

As I have stated before, there are a number of Dems that have cash, but they seem to be ignored in your book when people are chanting "tax the rich". I think that this bias of yours is the one that bugs me the most. I don't see the fault in working your ass off to become wealthy. Not everyone who has done this has done it by stepping on other people. You seem to feel this way unless that person is a Democrat. I'm sure the Clintons and the Kennedys have been honest and the up and up throughout their wealth building days.
post #50 of 51
Thread Starter 
Well, you're probably right that I come off as anti-rich. The fact is, I'm not anti-rich. The difference between the Kennedys and the Roosevelts is that they were raised with the principles of noblesse oblige -- a principal completely abandoned and unobserved by the Bushes and the McCains of the world.

When you are very rich and successful, when your family has attained dynasty status, that means you have benefited more than most from the privileges and resources afforded to you by the commons, meaning the system of government and culture that creates an atmosphere where the "American Dream" is possible. What you take out, you must put back in. That principal has disappeared. This class of moneyed elite are bent on stealing from the poor - who may have little but likewise have no ability to defend themselves -- and destroying the middle class by dangling in front of their eyes the false notion that tax cuts for the very rich somehow benefit them. This I find gut-wrenchingly revolting and evil.

That's the best explanation I can give you. You're right about the eight mansions thing being a weak argument, but someone born into a rich, affluent family, put through exclusive private schools, gaining access to privileges most of us can't even imagine, and then on top of all that, marrying into money -- for that guy to call Obama - who was again, raised by a single mother, afforded an education out of scholarships and self-determination, who started his career working with the poor and disenfranchised - an elitist just makes my blood boil. Neither one of their backgrounds precludes either being decent or being disgusting, but it's meaningful to me that Obama comes from the kind of people who have been edged out of the American Dream since the "Reagan Revolution." I have more confidence that he's dealing with reality than I do McCain (or Bush, for that matter).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › How to win Pt. II: Deny veterans the right to vote