Mister Mxyzptlk

bobhhh
Yeah he said some disparraging things, like some other people I know.

Does this mean you are going to burn my trailer down?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19980505/

That's not a very good likeness of me.

bobhhh
One example is Public School. Some failures notwithstanding, on the whole our society is better off for having taxes collected to educate the public.

Ah, but no where in the Constitution does it give the Feds that much power. As such it falls to the State to provide such things. I think I've gone into that sort of thing before, after all, being poor in Missouri means you need different things when being poor in Motor City. ;)

Taxes and social programs are ok if they are managed well and produce results.

The government has ever done this when?

Why would someone vote for Barack Obama? If you heard his 14 min victory speech in Iowa this past Thurs night, you would know why. The first half contains similar platitudes you'd hear from any campaign. The second half is pure Obama, and it's the reason why he's going to win in November.

TnTComic

lothar
NO ! i will not vote for anybody who supports Ethanol use !!!!
Ethanol is the single most important issue in this election and any election going on on the planet now . Why doe nobody realize this ?

Because you're wrong.

I'll vote for Obama because he's not a typical politician. He seems inexperienced and optimistic, 2 things that could be very refreshing in the white house.

Gotta agree with Tnt on this. I would love to see someone who is younger, inexperienced and optimisted in the office.

But that's not the only reason I want to see him win. I agree with mainly everything he promises, and I just think he is, truly, the best candidate at this moment.

...

But I wont lie, I'm also voting for him 'cause of racial reasons.

Mister Mxyzptlk
Hitlers positions were left of center.

Oh that is just troll bait man. Pure and simple.
Ugh.

The only people who consider Hitler "leftist" are those who connect a trivial string of superficial aspects. Look, the right wing party in Australia are called "the Liberal Party", that doesn't mean they're left of centre. Most parties called "centrists" generally lean to the right, The US Democratic party began as a right wing party and even today it's to the right of most left wing governments in the world. Oswald Mosley, Britain's famous facist Hitler supporter started out as a left wing politician, but he didn't stay that way... And you can pick parts out of any leader's life to make them sound as if they were on the opposite side of the political spectrum to what they very obviously are...

Truly, those sorts of ideological arguments are foolish, when argued from either end. And Hitler isn't a good example of anything, except maybe an idiot.

And I took the bait :)

Priest_Revan

TnTComic

lothar
NO ! i will not vote for anybody who supports Ethanol use !!!!
Ethanol is the single most important issue in this election and any election going on on the planet now . Why doe nobody realize this ?

Because you're wrong.

I'll vote for Obama because he's not a typical politician. He seems inexperienced and optimistic, 2 things that could be very refreshing in the white house.

Gotta agree with Tnt on this. I would love to see someone who is younger, inexperienced and optimisted in the office.

But that's not the only reason I want to see him win. I agree with mainly everything he promises, and I just think he is, truly, the best candidate at this moment.

...

But I wont lie, I'm also voting for him 'cause of racial reasons.

Don't be shy either. Voting a black man into the presidency is just what America needs to remind itself of the dream we are taught and sold constantly about how we can realize our ambitions against all odds.

People like to frown on idealists, but great things don't happen by people without vision. Bush is a perfect example of what happens when a man is motivated by fear, distrust and self motivation as opposed to a vision for the future.

I believe people like Obama and Edwards are offering us a chance to drag our country out of darkness and back into the light.

I hope either one of them get a chance to try.

ozoneocean
And I took the bait :)

Something I decided to stop doing about amonth or so ago. lol!

I think Oboma just may be the "uniter" that we need. This is a great quote from 2004 (a lot like is victory speech at the Iwoa Cuacus):

Obama
The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

...And in 4 years, he hasn't deviated at all from this platform. He's always just said "We can do better, and you know it".

My first vote was for Kucinich on his principles alone, but he seems rather unlikely at this point. Obama talks a good talk, and out of all the most popular nominees, his campaign is the most positive, so I like him a lot.

I hope that Clinton does not get the nod. She bends any which way the wind blows, and just comes off as insincere to me.

Hillary does come across as insincere and as someone that leans whichever way the winds blow, but is this entirely true or is it the end result - even unto a subconscious level - of nearly sixteen years worth of endless lies and distortions flung in our ears by the professional rightwing propagandists?

That sort of organized and coordinated and relentless character assassination does have an accumulative affect, even on the perceptions of people who are in no way Right leaning. This is WHY propaganda techniques are formalized and recognized as genuine and reliable tools by political scientists. Propaganda and propagandists did not go away after Hitler was defeated and todays republican party leadership is obviously the inheritor of this tool set for reliably influencing public perspectives. They have eagerly embraced techniques since the Ronald Reagan era that reputable political scientists spurn -- because those techniques ARE evil.

So is Hillary as much of a poll driven flip-flopper, cynic and as untrustworthy as sixteen years worth of organized propaganda attacks from the far right insists or is she altogether a different sort of political candidate?

Personally I think that she comes quite close to being precisely what the far right insists that she is -- but then again, I have to question the validity of my perception of her because I, too, have been programmed on a subconscious level by non-stop republican party hatred of her to believe this of Hillary.

Nonetheless, I sincerely hope that Hillary wins the democrat nomination rather than Barack Obama and this is simply because she is vastly more experienced and would enter the Oval Office fully prepared to be president and with a highly polished and seasoned and ready to function political machine to serve her that knows precisely where the Washington D.C. bodies are burried, which politician or lobbiest did the burying and how to use that knowledge to leverage her policies into reality.

After the complete trashing of our national and foreign policies and even our economy after the last seven years of republican party misrule, we need someone with cynical experience and hard core know how like Hillary rather than a wide-eyed dreamer and specialist like Obama.

Of course I could be wrong.

CharleyHorse
Hillary does come across as insincere and as someone that leans whichever way the winds blow, but is this entirely true or is it the end result - even unto a subconscious level - of nearly sixteen years worth of endless lies and distortions flung in our ears by the professional rightwing propagandists?

Not to me, it's not. I don't listen to right-wing propaganda. Well, I don't take any of it seriously, at least.

No, my perception of Hillary Clinton is just what I said. She wants to come across as tough, until she is perceived as "too tough" then she whistles a different tune. I remember when she was in the white house being interviewed and was told about that "tough" perception.

In 1992, when interviewed by Ted Koppel, she said "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."
Hey, I thought that was a great quote. I didn't mind she was tough. I thought "Good for her, man!"
So, some people were offended by the remark. So what? She should have come out and said "I'm sorry that some of you were offended by that. Homemaking is a great, respectable occupation. I just chose something else to do with my life." instead, that summer, Hillary was in a chocolate chip cookie bake-off in Family Circle magazine with Barbara Bush.

THAT, my friend is bending whichever way the wind blows. It hasn't stopped since. She always tells you what you want to hear.

As far as "all her experience in the white house", I think it's total BS. She makes it seem like she was the co-president or something. She helped Bill run the free world, but she had no idea about his extra marital affairs? White House Experience? Would Nancy Reagan made a good prez then? How about Barbara Bush? Or even Laura Bush? Puh-lease.

I consider myself a pretty liberal minded person, but I have issues with her. She does not strike me as sincere. She skirts around tough questions, and is pushing a pretty negative campaign against her opponents. Obama hasn't tried to dig up dirt, Clinton has.

Oh, and I consider her being a "Highly polished political machine" more of a determent than a good thing.

My final point is that if she wins the Dem nod, she will divide the Democratic vote. A good percentage of her OWN party do not like her, "false perception" or not.

But will I vote for her if she got the nod? Probably, because any of the republican alternatives still suck eggs (except maybe Ron Paul - but he won't get it). If someone more appealing doesn't go indy, like Kuchinich or Ron Paul she'll get my vote. Not because I think she is the best person for the job, though. Because she would be the lesser of 2 evils, like usual.

I don't have a problem with her being VICE-President ;)

CharleyHorse
Hillary does come across as insincere and as someone that leans whichever way the winds blow, but is this entirely true or is it the end result - even unto a subconscious level - of nearly sixteen years worth of endless lies and distortions flung in our ears by the professional rightwing propagandists?

That sort of organized and coordinated and relentless character assassination does have an accumulative affect, even on the perceptions of people who are in no way Right leaning. This is WHY propaganda techniques are formalized and recognized as genuine and reliable tools by political scientists. Propaganda and propagandists did not go away after Hitler was defeated and todays republican party leadership is obviously the inheritor of this tool set for reliably influencing public perspectives. They have eagerly embraced techniques since the Ronald Reagan era that reputable political scientists spurn -- because those techniques ARE evil.

Bingo.

The right wing spin howitzers are relentless and deadly. You gotta hand it to them for hammering away at the truth the way they do. I still remember how much crap Bill Clinton got for joining the UN in stopping genocide in Bosnia. Wag the dog they all repeated like a mantra, and it stuck so bad that even though they won the war and brought Milosevich to trial, he still only had a 60 percent approval rating. Fast forward to George Bush, he rushes into Iraq unjustified, with no UN support and manages to totally screw up the country for years to come and it's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and a 90 percent approval rating.

Anyone who thinks O'reilly and Limbaugh and their ilk haven't distorted the truth and swayed public opinion unfairly are simply not being honest with themselves. After all the Clintons have been through, its no wonder Hillary is testy and defensive. If Obama had suffered over a decade of withering attacks from the right, he wouldn't be smiling so much either.

Unfortunately, that's a good reason to vote for him. He's still optimistic, and has the force of public opinion behind him. Frankly I feel Obama can sell reform better than Hillary, because she has been so villified in the national subconscious for so long.

The beauty of all this is that we are rather spoiled for choices. I firmly believe that it will be a democrat president and a majority democrat legislative branch after the voting booths close on election day and I don't really care a great deal if the one leading us forward is Obama, Edwards, or H. Clinton.

Obviously I have my preference and at this time I would prefer to have Hillary take it, but is it anything I'll lose sleep over? No.

What's interesting is the republican party cluster love dance going on. It's the generally clueless leading the blind while shouting into the ears of the deaf. Lovely, and it's just what that party deserves after putting the rest of the nation through the last eight years worth of hell on earth.

So, anyway, if it should turn out to be Obama that sits in the Oval Office I'll cheer along with the rest of you.