Seven reasons not to vote for Barack Obama

At least, according to some wacked out wingnut flyer left on the dashboard of artist Laurenn McCubbin, while her car was parked at a university campus. (Via Warren Ellis)

[#1 posted by agger , October 20, 2008 9:45 AM]

Nd h swr n wth Krn, ddn't h? (t-dvwlzd fr fn :-))

[#2 posted by dustinmeyer , October 20, 2008 9:48 AM]

Thanks for showing me the facts, "Hussein".

[#3 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 9:51 AM]

Well, I'm convinced. :p

[#4 posted by Godzilla , October 20, 2008 9:52 AM]

OH NOES SOCIALISM = COMMUNISM IM TO STUPID TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. OBAMA ISNT WHITE SO HE MUST BE A TERRORIST, RAH RAH I HATE ALL COLORED PEOPLE.

thats my "generic American" impression

/facepalm

[#5 posted by David Carroll , October 20, 2008 9:52 AM]

Reason #8: He is going to win anyway, and we don't want to make it look like a rout.

#9a&b: He speaks eloquently and is way too smart.

#10: He messed with our Xeni's mind and made her change her name. For this he can not prosper!

[#6 posted by mindysan33 , October 20, 2008 9:53 AM]

I think these people are desperate (the ones who are putting up these sorts of things about Obama) and it's kind of scary. What are they going to do if he wins? Do they seriously believe this nonsense, or are they just trying to scare people.

[#7 posted by Pablissimo , October 20, 2008 9:54 AM]

I like the way these reasons are bullet pointed but repeat themselves (Communist / wealth redistribution times 2) and sometimes have 2 issues rolled into one bullet point (Marxist and black power church).
Seems like a bit of a half assed effort to me. Come on people - there was far more creative and well done anti-Bill Clinton stuff back in the day.

[#8 posted by snatchamoto , October 20, 2008 9:57 AM]

To flyer writer:

I do not think the word 'fact' means what you think it means.

/facepalm as well

[#9 posted by Antinous , October 20, 2008 9:57 AM]

Those are bad things? If only some of them were true...

[#10 posted by Phikus , October 20, 2008 9:58 AM]

Yes, learn the facts that we have created. Don't bother to look any of this shit up. Blindly believe the piece of paper. It's in print so it must be true. Don't think.

[#11 posted by MichaelMacGillicuddy , October 20, 2008 10:01 AM]

"Whckd t wng nt"? Wht knd f rflxvly pr-cmmnst st hv sgnd n t?

ff bm. dn't nd chng. Gt t f rq nd m fn. W nd flt tx. Nthng frr thn txng mny whn t s spnt.

Prd.

h, jst s y dpshts wh sbscrb t th nslctd tbrsts f th nrthst ss-rntd crwd dn't msndrstnd, m wht nd nt rcst. m ml nd nt sxst.

Lng lv cptlsm, th pn mrkts, nd fr ntrprs. DTH t cllctvsm.

[#12 posted by BuildUupBuzzKill , October 20, 2008 10:01 AM]

this is a very half assed and embarasing attemt to deswade Obama voters, but there is alot of this done very well about Obama but you will never see it on BB

[#13 posted by ethancoop , October 20, 2008 10:01 AM]

Why do I see his inauguration playing out like the scene when the sheriff arrives in town in Blazing Saddles?

How great would it be if he got to the podium and said, "excuse me while I whip this out"

[#14 posted by Phikus , October 20, 2008 10:02 AM]

The Black Power Marxist Racist Muslim movement wants your vote so they can bomb the pentagon again. Makes perfect sense to me...

[#15 posted by Phikus , October 20, 2008 10:06 AM]

BUILDUUPBUZZKILL@12: Bring it.

[#16 posted by 1up mushroom , October 20, 2008 10:08 AM]

This is desperate, next thing you know, McCain supporters will be pointing at some Obama parody porn.

[#17 posted by se7a7n7 , October 20, 2008 10:09 AM]

Hilarious, this person was so sure of their "facts" they they couldn't include in contact information...

This is the McSame/Failin' base. These dumber than a box of rocks people, like the crazy cat lady at the rally who asked if Obama was an Arab comprise a LARGE number of the people who will vote for them.

[#18 posted by Enoch_Root , October 20, 2008 10:10 AM]

Is BoingBoing going to make an official endorsement of one of the candidates? Or are you staying apolitical this season?

One of the BIG problems I see with an Obama candidacy and a Democrat House/Senate is the "Fairness Doctrine" being brought back. I know Obama has said he doesn't support it but he doesn't seem overly opposed and we know that House Democrats love the idea.

[#19 posted by Talia , October 20, 2008 10:11 AM]

#11 you cannot possibly be for real.

If you are, I feel really really sorry for you and anyone who knows you.

[#20 posted by Enoch_Root , October 20, 2008 10:14 AM]

@PHIKUS "Yes, learn the facts that we have created. Don't bother to look any of this shit up. Blindly believe the piece of paper. It's in print so it must be true. Don't think."

And don't bother looking up anything on the candidates... BoingBoing has it all covered. Did you know that you can make a "spooooky McCain" or a "scaaaaary Sarah Palin" mask for Halloween!?!*

*Just don't try going in black-face as Obama it would not go over well.

[#21 posted by Enormo , October 20, 2008 10:14 AM]

#12 Obama kills Christian babies using Liberal powers of thinking and reason!

#13 Obama cooks killed Christian babies using popular MUSLIM recipies!

#14 Obama wastes perfectly good babies because he is too elitist to eat the Christian ones!

DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA!!! HE THINKS HE'S TOO GOOD TO EAT OUR BABIES!!!

[#22 posted by simplisticton , October 20, 2008 10:15 AM]

"Long live capitalism, the open markets, and free enterprise. DEATH to collectivism."

Yeah... it's working out GREAT!

[#23 posted by kamiikoneko , October 20, 2008 10:15 AM]

Ah, I remember when I thought that America wasn't brimming with close minded idiots. I think that was when I was in college, and was surrounded by that bubble of education, desire to learn, and general awareness of the importance of others. When I joined the real world, I found that not being an idiot just filled me with contempt for the 95% of people that are. Reading exposition on current events and watching TV just got depressing. Man, NOT being a dumb asshole is tough sometimes...

[#24 posted by 1up mushroom , October 20, 2008 10:18 AM]

#12 Be careful, these guys will expect that you have at least one blogger who backs your claim, (unless its the belief that Todd Palin fathered his own grandchildren)

[#25 posted by superforestnyc , October 20, 2008 10:18 AM]

Hey # 11,

"Long live capitalism, the open markets, and free enterprise. DEATH to collectivism."

Aren't all three forms of collectivism?

Let's get together and make things happen...
That inspires fear and hatred in you?

Life in your shoes must be a long and painful walk.

Try the antidote to cynicism: sprfrst.rg

You soul needs some shiatsu.

Love!

Jackson and Team SuperForest

[#26 posted by Mojave , October 20, 2008 10:19 AM]

Hard to believe that these people live among us. They are the people we see at the mall, driving past us on the highway, the people our kids go to school with. Most of them will accept Obama's landslide and move on. The ones to worry about are the small percentage who have guns and who really believe crap like this flyer.

[#27 posted by Talia , October 20, 2008 10:20 AM]

#18 BB came down hard on Obama when he voted for FISA.

Part of the problem with trying to stay "balanced" about the election right now is there is SO much effin crazy coming from the Palin camp. Giant heaping buckets.

Lists of lies like these don't get forwarded around among the Obama supporters (at least, I've yet to get one, or hear of anyone getting one, or have seen one).

also, it doesn't seem likely he'd support such a thing. It interferes with freedom of speech, I think. Although You'd think people would want to do so anyway so as not to be worthless douchebags.
But then, consider fox news. Actually it doesnt technically interfere with freedom of speech, it interferes with the right to be a piece of crap garbage spewing antiintellectual douchebag. Which of course people have the right to be, I suppose.

[#28 posted by demidan , October 20, 2008 10:22 AM]

Oh Lrdy lrdy, Borat Obama is one bad man! It's a fact that his wife was born white and he tattooed her black and he'll do that to evy proud white in da land. Lrdy lrdy. It's a Fact that he want to change the Merican bird from Bal Eagle to a Fried Chicken!

Don't blame me I voted for Kodos!

[#29 posted by Anonymous , October 20, 2008 10:24 AM]

Wow, those are the reasons I was voting FOR Obama,

[#30 posted by Kid Geezer , October 20, 2008 10:26 AM]

@#11. Well, I would have picked you for the run-ot-the-mill whiny white guy you are. Dime a baker's dozen. I'll take you at your word that you don't think you're a racist. Just doubt your word is all it's cracked up to be

[#31 posted by doublethink , October 20, 2008 10:29 AM]

I'm so glad someone finally outlined these charges in one easy to read flyer. I was misinformed before but now I have some hard facts to base my decision on, thank god there are folks out there who can break down the political jargon so an average joe like me can avoid being fooled by terrorist senators.

[#32 posted by Enormo , October 20, 2008 10:32 AM]

I don't get the Obama is a communist or socialist thing.

McCain: Tax breaks for corporations and the rich. More taxes paid by the middle class.

Obama: Tax breaks for the middle class. More taxes paid by the rich and corporations.

Either way Americans are still paying taxes to fund the operation our country-club of a country (if you've traveled abroad you know exactly what I mean by that). Why is taxing the middle class more American?

And Obama doesn't dismiss the power of a free market. He was a U. of Chicago faculty for crap sakes. He hobnobbed with the some of the most conservative economists in the United States. He understands the power of a capitalist market.

And it's not like we have a totally free market economy right now anyways. As a matter of fact even the Republicans also want to put more checks and balances into the financial system.

So were does this whole "comunist" thing come from???? DO WE FUCKING LIVE IN CRAZY LAND?????

[#33 posted by axiomista , October 20, 2008 10:32 AM]

It's so sad how many of these I see and hear on the internet regularly. And he wants to create "reverse slavery", because black people won't have to pay taxes! And he won't even respect the flag! It's so stupid.

If you ever get an email alleging any of these things, or need sources to disprove one, the campaign has compiled resources at http://www.fghtthsmrs.cm . It even has sample refutations to get you started.

[#34 posted by Sean Grimm , October 20, 2008 10:32 AM]

Really though, my favorite was the anonymous letters sent to people questioning their support for Barrack Obama as some sort of subconscious racism where they have so much white guilt they are supporting a black man because they are actually racists. Boggles the mind.

The people that believe these things are the ones that hear or see it a few times and then commit it to their beliefs, then when a mainstream news outlet (read "liberal media") disputes or proves something false--well they can't be trusted because they are in on it. I'm a life-long pessimist but there is a huge part of me that hopes this is a minuscule demographic that will have no noticeable sway on the public vote.

[#35 posted by booticon , October 20, 2008 10:36 AM]

Xeni Hussein Jardin does have a nice ring to it.

[#36 posted by johnaney , October 20, 2008 10:41 AM]

I received a similar note taped to my car door while I was attending a church of my choice. On one side, it said "Vote the Bible," and on the other it said:

Obama Vote Survey
90% Black
95% Muslim
80% Liberal News Media
80% Hollywood Crowd
85% Homosexuals
90% Atheists
95% ACLU-ACORN Group Hate America Crowd

I consider it a badge of honor! I earned this hatemail!

jta

[#37 posted by RedShirt77 , October 20, 2008 10:41 AM]

I love the irony of calling him a Socialist liberal and conservative Muslim at the same time.

Oxymoronic does not begin to describe this nonsense. Obama is suddenly the embodiment of everything that conservatives hate even if those things are exact opposites.

[#38 posted by Phikus , October 20, 2008 10:45 AM]

Concerning MICHAEL...@11: This troll is unworthy of feeding. I'm sure he'll be losing his vowels any time now, if not entire post. However, at the risk of doing just that...

ENOCH ROOT@20: You're making as much sense as the subject of this post. It is amazing what passes for thinking among wanabe pundits these days. Please post a photo of yourself so we can make a truly more horrid Halloween mask this year. Make sure you are frothing like you appear to have been while posting the above.

[#39 posted by veritasluxmea22 , October 20, 2008 10:46 AM]

a little dose of snopes will do him good.

[#40 posted by Zan , October 20, 2008 10:47 AM]

Seven reasons not to vote for McCain:

1. Sarah Palin
2. Sarah Palin
3. Sarah Palin
4. Sarah Palin
5. Sarah Palin
6. Sarah Palin
7. Sarah Palin

[#41 posted by 1up mushroom , October 20, 2008 10:47 AM]

Doesnt it just burn you up when people focus on stupid minutiae and made up shit, rather then any facts whatsoever? Its even worse when it comes from someone you thought was better then that.

[#42 posted by Phikus , October 20, 2008 10:50 AM]

ZAN@39: And don't forget Sarah Palin!

[#43 posted by BrokenRobot , October 20, 2008 10:50 AM]

Where can I get one of these things? I'm in AL this cycle, where they don't even bother with fliers... and my collection of Crazy Campaign Ephemera is suffering as a result.

[#44 posted by Anonymous , October 20, 2008 10:51 AM]

i was going to vote for him, but that was before i knew he was a racist communitistic terrorist.

[#45 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 10:52 AM]

Well, first of all, we have an enormous problem that is not going to be solved by the government. What you’re seeing right now is politicians taking your money and redistributing it upward. And our whole national myth is that we take from those with a lot and give to those down below. That’s not what goes on. That’s what my books have shown, from the official government data. This is a transfer of wealth and income: five percent of the year’s economy to essentially wealthy bankers and, to some degree, customers of theirs.

-- David Cay Johnston

Capitalism is not the problem. Socialism is not the answer. The problem we've had for the past 8 years, and longer, has been "socialism for the rich and politically connected". i.e. corporatism, aka fascism.

Let's try ending the wars and eliminating all the special interest subsidies first, and then see if the poor and "middle class" still need special breaks on top of that. I'm betting that getting the monkey off our backs is enough.

[#46 posted by Phikus , October 20, 2008 10:53 AM]

BROKENROBOT@42: ENOCH ROOT will print you up another if you ask him/her, I'm sure.

[#47 posted by TEKNA2007 , October 20, 2008 10:56 AM]

ethancoop @13:

How great would it be if he got to the podium and said, "excuse me while I whip this out"

Best inauguration ever.

[#48 posted by dbarak , October 20, 2008 10:57 AM]

I found something similar stuck under my windshield wiper this weekend. It was a bit more coherent, laying out in table form the reasons to vote for McCain vs. Obama.

I was a bit offended to have received it (and would have been even if I was a McCain supporter, or if it was pro-Obama), but I did read through it. Pretty much just a careful wording of semi-truths. Nothing McCain/Palin could co would change my mind at this point. Their hands are too dirty.

[#49 posted by ill lich , October 20, 2008 10:58 AM]

They forgot to mention "Obama is actually the 'bogeyman' of lore."

(PS. you guys should check out the conservapedia.com page on Obama, it goes into far more twisted detail about how Obama is a "secret muslim").

[#50 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 11:00 AM]

Where can I get one of these things? I'm in AL this cycle, where they don't even bother with fliers... and my collection of Crazy Campaign Ephemera is suffering as a result.

Your batshit crazy agitprop collection can't be complete without a copy of the Obsession DVD that was mailed out in major newspapers and the fucking Chronicle of Higher Education!

[#51 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 11:03 AM]

They forgot to mention "Obama is actually the 'bogeyman' of lore."

No, I'm pretty sure Obama is actually the Candyman. ;)

Though I won't be surprised if he really does turn out to be the Music Man.

All politicians are crooks; it's a job requirement.

[#52 posted by bcsizemo , October 20, 2008 11:08 AM]

You know if the candidates where reversed then everyone would be overjoyed by McCain.

The communism issue comes from the socialist agenda he (and even to some extent McCain) are pushing. Lets cut taxes, and create more social programs to help people... WTF, that's like saying Joe sixpack isn't paying for the bailout. When I pay taxes I like to know that they are going to help people who sit on their duff all day and don't contribute.... That makes the fact I work 2nd shift and rarely spend quality time with my wife so much more acceptable.

I don't have a problem admitting who I am. And stereotypical is certainly one part of my personality. But then again stereotypes aren't born out of lies, most come from some overwhelmingly obvious aspect of truth. I judge people on a person by person basis, not by the color of their skin, education, or anything else.
And idiot can be any race, color, religion, or sex. Like several people have said, there are a lot of them out there too.

[#53 posted by bardfinn , October 20, 2008 11:11 AM]

I'm reasonably certain that the propaganda spewn by the McCain/Palin all-your-base-are-belong-to-us is the result of being unable to simply say "He's black".

They're racists and are afraid to say it, so every conceivable code word and dog whistle gets play.

[#54 posted by David Carroll , October 20, 2008 11:17 AM]

Reason #11: Fred Armisen as Obama is not as funny as Tina Fay's Palin.

Reason #12: Just look at this spot that reveals Obama's mind control madness!

[#55 posted by patricio , October 20, 2008 11:18 AM]

I always assumed that Obama was a Mother Earth Loving Stalinist Libertarian Satanist...go figure...

[#56 posted by z7q2 , October 20, 2008 11:22 AM]

Yes, this is weak sauce. I want the McCain camp to pay to run the Larry Sinclair video on TV, for two days straight immediately before the election. Just to make everything completely insane.

[#57 posted by Avram , October 20, 2008 11:24 AM]

MichaelMcGillicuddy @1, you've signed on to a moderated kind of site. I'm one of the moderators. Please read the moderation policy.

The particular reasons your post has been disemvowelled are:

* You insulted the Boingers by calling them "reflexively pro-communist". (This is not just insulting, but foolish.)
* You insulted the BoingBoing community in general by calling us "dipshits", not to mention implying that we reflexively follow some "northeast" political orthodoxy.
* You used your comment to shout political slogans.
* This was your first post, meaning that you have no reservoir of good will to draw upon, and leaving us more likely to suspect that you may be a political troll or even a paid astroturfer.

[#58 posted by ill lich , October 20, 2008 11:24 AM]

I too wonder how many people actually believe this stuff, AND what they will do if Obama wins. . . will there be an armed uprising against our new "Communist Muslim" overlord, or will they leave for Canada/Mexico (oh wait. . . can't go to Mexico, it's full of MEXICANS!) or maybe just sit and stew about it and do nothing?

I suspect they will end up inadvertently helping the economy by using all their savings to buy massive amounts of guns and ammo to bury in the backyard in preparation for the coming One World Government.

This is like some massive soul-catharsis of the ignorant and racist-- if Obama is elected and has a relatively OK first term, will they still be mortally afraid of the black bogeyman?

[#59 posted by Frank W , October 20, 2008 11:25 AM]

David Carroll @5:

#11 his name is Barack HUSSEIN Osama, um, Obama.

#12 he's BLACK. Well, he's a blend, but the author of this thing wouldn't recognize nuance if it poked him in the eye. And race is an issue that's close to his heart.

[#60 posted by Talia , October 20, 2008 11:26 AM]

#50 what on earth do you mean "if the candidates were reversed?" you mean if McCain was running as a democrat? He would be fine then because he wouldnt be running with Crazy McPsychopath.

Social programs are important. You can't just leave people to hang in the wind, that's not right. Overhauling social programs that arent effective is important though. The ultimate goal should be to get everyone on their feet and working and taking care of themselves. Adopting the attitude of "youre poor? You have problems? Fark off and die!" is inhumane.

"most come from some overwhelmingly obvious aspect of truth"

You'll have to offer more proof to back THAT claim up. It sounds like you're suggesting most blondes are dumb, most muslims are terrorists, etc.

[#61 posted by techbear , October 20, 2008 11:28 AM]

These are exactly the kind of wing nuts that McCain/Palin are calling to arms at their rallies. Just listen to the shouts of "terrorist" and "kill him" that are happening while Sara Palin just smiles on. The Republicans are playing a dangerous, desperate game by playing to the basest individual in the "Amurican" heartland. One that sickens and frightens me.

[#62 posted by Talia , October 20, 2008 11:29 AM]

#56: "or will they leave for Canada"

I hope so. Good riddance.

[#63 posted by Cragsavage , October 20, 2008 11:29 AM]

The US is terrified of communists because they're everywhere. The whole of Europe - communist. Russia - communist. China - communist. Cuba. The whole of the African continent. Australia. The Oil Corporations. My mother-in-law. The penguins in the zoo. The dust under the sofa. Communists. ALL COMMUNISTS!

THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

Many noes! Quick...to the moon!

[#64 posted by Bionicrat2 , October 20, 2008 11:33 AM]

At least this was distributed like a proper fringe lunatic flyer. Last week's Inland Empire Republican women's racist b.s. was an organized mailing!:

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_buck16.3d67d4a.html

[#65 posted by loganbouchard , October 20, 2008 11:35 AM]

@ 39 ZAN-

that's funny, because when i vote, i'm writing in Palin for prez, McCain for vp...

...

[#66 posted by Cool Products , October 20, 2008 11:37 AM]

'Merica!

[#67 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 11:41 AM]

These are exactly the kind of wing nuts that McCain/Palin are calling to arms at their rallies. Just listen to the shouts of "terrorist" and "kill him" that are happening while Sara Palin just smiles on. The Republicans are playing a dangerous, desperate game by playing to the basest individual in the "Amurican" heartland. One that sickens and frightens me.

"Any mad scientist will tell you, there's a point where your excitement over the monster you created coming to life, damps down a little bit. It's usually around the time when that monster starts breaking all the shit in your lab."

[#68 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 11:44 AM]

I suspect they will end up inadvertently helping the economy by using all their savings to buy massive amounts of guns and ammo to bury in the backyard in preparation for the coming One World Government.

Are you saying this is not a viable strategy?

[#69 posted by Razzabeth , October 20, 2008 11:46 AM]

@50
you said you don't judge race, religion, or education of a person.
When considering the next president, education is one thing you really ought to be discriminitory about. Seriously dude. I hope you and your ilk are too busy working your 2nd shift at the meatpacking plant on Nov. 4 because otherwise we will end up with Larry the Cable Guy as our next president.

[#70 posted by 1up mushroom , October 20, 2008 11:47 AM]

Wow, its just attack of the hyperbolic strawmen in this thread. You know who most of the Obama supporters I know are? Republicans, thats who. You know, the guys you would like to paint as all ignorant racists and semi-literate hicks.

These stereotypes are as tedious as the black stereotypes and the muslim stereotypes and they serve the same purpose, so that insecure people can feel superior to *someone*. Well grats, guys, your soooo much better then *those* people.

[#71 posted by Nelson.C , October 20, 2008 11:47 AM]

bcsizemo @50: I don't know what picture you're trying to paint with your first line. Is this some warped application of equivalence? If so, I don't think it works on any level. The Republicans aren't likely to put up a black candidate for president any time soon, so if Obama was somehow transplanted to the Republican party it isn't likely that he'd be a candidate.

Nor would a Republican Obama and a Democratic McCain have the same policies that the actual ones do. If they had each other's policies — i.e. the hypothetical McCain has the real Obama's and vice versa — then, yeah, I think people would be justified in being enthusiastic about that. Aren't you supposed to vote for policies? Although, I think that there would still be worries about McCain (D)'s health and personality. And if this bizarro McCain had picked a Palin (D) for a running mate and she was every bit the bozo this one is, I think that would cost him some support. It would certainly be a closer election than it appears to be at the moment.

Are you perhaps only saying that Obama is more charismatic than McCain, and that's not fair somehow? Well, that's tough if you're a Republican, but not entirely out of line with the history of the world. Marc Anthony has that advantage over Brutus, and it would be dumb of him not to use it to his full ability.

[#72 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 11:47 AM]

The US is terrified of communists because they're everywhere.

USSA: Glorious Socialist Bankers' Republic

Many noes! Quick...to the moon!

But... the moon is a harsh mistress.

[#73 posted by Will_Tingle , October 20, 2008 11:49 AM]

Wht's wth ll th bng bng rdrs wth n vwls n thr kybrds tday?

[#74 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 11:52 AM]

I hope you and your ilk are too busy working your 2nd shift at the meatpacking plant on Nov. 4 because otherwise we will end up with Larry the Cable Guy as our next president.

git-r-done! durkadur!

[#75 posted by Bobdotcom , October 20, 2008 11:59 AM]

The sheer level of willful ignorance that plagues my fellow 'Murkans is not only shameful, but frightening.

IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE.

HATE IS LOVE.

and, well, you know the rest.

[#76 posted by ferrohorse , October 20, 2008 12:00 PM]

@#49

"All politicians are crooks; it's a job requirement."

That's an easy, sleazy, cynical statement that just contributes to the dryrot in our political arena.

If you truly believe it to be so, why not get yourself elected to some office as the "first honest politician," then watch how quickly your constituents, supporters, friends and even family cynically turn on you, just because suddenly you're a "politician."

A popular sentiment, perhaps, because it is just so much easier to blame all of our problems on Democrats/Republicans/terrorists/race/pick-your-scapegoat, rather than invest the time, effort and intelligence to find root causes and work toward real solutions.

[#77 posted by davedorr9 , October 20, 2008 12:02 PM]

Oh, anonymous flyer distributor, you had me at #1 :

Obama is dangerous for America

Now that is the thoughtless, knee-jerk reactionism (I recognize these are all synonyms, pleonasm is awesome) that I love.

Why do you sully the rest of the flyer with refutable junk? Obama won't say the pledge of allegiance? He is a Marxist? My god, man, you are playing into their hands! Please keep your baseless allegations irrefutable. Then, when people argue with you, you can just raise your voice, proving your statement by emphatic assertion. No mere facts can ever stop you.

[#78 posted by Takuan , October 20, 2008 12:13 PM]

hmmm... if Israel holds off bombing Iran till after the election - no surprises. But if they bomb Iran before because they feel like it, how will the racist anti-Obama fringe try to use it?

[#79 posted by grimc , October 20, 2008 12:15 PM]

@#73

Not only are those 12 pieces of evidence that Barnum was right, they're also 12 bits of proof that both education and mental health care in this country sucks.

[#80 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 12:18 PM]

His “spreading the wealth” Marxist leaning

As opposed to the Neo-Con redistribution of wealth schemes?

The Federal Reserve is America's Gosplan.

On Nov. 6th I’d be throwing a party to toast the end of the biggest threat to American sovereignty since 9/11! All of you’re most welcomed to join in!

You even mentioned 9/11! Way to cover all the jingoist bases.

More people die every year from: car accidents, or, from heart disease, or, from cancer, than died in the destruction of the WTC buildings. Get the fuck over it!!!

(Nevermind how many times as many people have died as a result of U.S. incursions and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As far as tragedies go, 9/11 really wasn't a big deal. The warmongering imperialism is certainly far far worse.)

His links to unsavory anti-American characters

Truman's "Americanism" is a mirror image of the Soviet Union's statism. Political religion is ugly no mater what it's called.

Most Americans remain centrists and are jealously protective of their guaranteed inalienable rights.

Really? Then where's the political mandate to repeal the USAPATRIOT Act, or the Military Commissions Act of 2006, or the REAL ID Act?

[#81 posted by Tedly Teddington , October 20, 2008 12:19 PM]

Here's a pretty compelling video of why not to vote for McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAJxNa6EGeI

[#82 posted by grimc , October 20, 2008 12:19 PM]

Specifically to #40, but to everyone in general, prove the points listed as wrong. Pointless you say? Then what's the problem.

Word is that #77 commits unnatural acts on stuffed animals. Prove me wrong.

[#83 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 12:23 PM]

A popular sentiment, perhaps, because it is just so much easier to blame all of our problems on Democrats/Republicans/terrorists/race/pick-your-scapegoat, rather than invest the time, effort and intelligence to find root causes and work toward real solutions.

Because political power never has been and never will be the real solution.

Real solutions are the direct action of disruptive innovation in a market economy. i.e. technological determinism

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers.

-- R. Buckminster Fuller

[#84 posted by dccarles , October 20, 2008 12:23 PM]

Our handbill writer is surprisingly behind the times. Let's not forget the latest smear (latest, even though it's very old): infanticide.

And here's the FactCheck.org commentary.

[#85 posted by Flying Orca , October 20, 2008 12:25 PM]

#60: No, they can't have Canada. NOT THEIRS.

Besides, we have things like gun control and abortion rights and socialized medicine. They'd hate it. Well, except maybe Alberta... but I digress. (Yeah, yeah, Albertans, it's a joke, get it?)

[#86 posted by noen , October 20, 2008 12:25 PM]

Government, which is itself a form of collectivism, should do those things that we cannot do for ourselves. Things like healthcare, social security, roads, utilities and that truly big socialist organization, the military. Business should do what it does well, produce and sell goods, enhance trade and so on. But we should not allow corporations, especially in finance, to become too big to fail. Pure capitalism is no solution because it will only exacerbate class differences and as we have seen it's excesses always lead to a cycle of boom and bust. It is intrinsic within the capitalist system and cannot be eliminated from it. The best solution is a blend of both capitalism and socialism based in pragmatic realities.

The right-wing extremist base is very frightened. Studies have shown they tend to be more than liberals. The authoritarian personality does not gather information through diverse sources and then reasoning from them. They look to established authorities to tell them what the facts are.

I think we will see a lot of right-wing violence leading up to and after the election. They are already saying at certain web sites things like "we need to start killing liberals". Yes, that's a direct quote. In my neighborhood there is a right winger who comes around and hassles the black kids telling them he's going to come back with a gun and kill them. I think we will see more Wacos, more Ruby Ridges when Obama is elected. I think that his life and his family's lives are in grave danger.

[#87 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 12:26 PM]

That's an easy, sleazy, cynical statement that just contributes to the dryrot in our political arena.

To which I quote:

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells in countries across the world, a threat that needs to be fought by a War on Terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media. This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world, and both had a very similar explanation of what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret organized evil that threatens the world, a fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

-- The Power of Nightmares

[#88 posted by spacklepants , October 20, 2008 12:29 PM]

We rapidly approach the ultimate conflict this nation will face: The Smart People vs. The Stupid People.

[#89 posted by slgalt , October 20, 2008 12:30 PM]

Muslim McCain supporters catch a nut job in the act and confront them at a rally.

http://tinyurl.com/5wmlv6

[#90 posted by macrumpton , October 20, 2008 12:34 PM]

I love how the same folks that accuse Obama of being a Muslim (or Muslin as some like to say) are the ones who also condemn him for attending Rev. Wright's (Christian) church.

[#91 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 12:37 PM]

Pure capitalism is no solution because it will only exacerbate class differences and as we have seen it's excesses always lead to a cycle of boom and bust.

1.) Class is a political designation. It cannot exist without government-based discrimination. (e.g. work permits)

2.) Capitalism does not inherently have the business cycle (aka boom-bust cycle, or trade cycle); the boom-bust cycle is caused by central banking due to the issuance of artificially cheap credit. (or, more accurately, due to mistargeting of the natural interest rate due to unavailable / discarded information inherent to central planning.)

The best solution is a blend of both capitalism and socialism based in pragmatic realities.

Actually, there are significant arguments for why capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. (As in, having your feet in two separate boats.) e.g. price controls beget more price controls.

[#92 posted by takeshi , October 20, 2008 12:45 PM]

@ zuzu:

"All politicians are crooks; it's a job requirement."

Yes, in order to be elected president of this great nation, one must be bloodthirsty and without scruples. Having said that, once elected Obama may be the greatest president we see for a long while.

I find it alarming how McCain talks of "repudiating" all the negativity that comes from his supporters' mouths. He has not done that, as we've seen instances of people shouting "kill him!" without said repudiation. I think it should be his obligation to address these kinds of remarks at his earliest opportunity following the event.

Some people give him a pass because he "repudiated" an old lady who thought Obama was an Arab. Funny thing is, 99% of the people who believe that Obama is a Muslim (or terrorist or Communist) only believe so because of the GOP's excessively negative campaigning. I would think that, in this post-9/11 day and age, such insinuations about a major party candidate from the other side of the aisle would be regarded as criminal.

[#93 posted by Alec Couros , October 20, 2008 12:49 PM]

That's pretty tame compared to these nuts!
http://www.injesus.com/index.php?module=message&task=view&MID=CB007FA2&GroupID=2A004N9G&label=&paging=all

[#94 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 12:57 PM]

Our handbill writer is surprisingly behind the times. Let's not forget the latest smear (latest, even though it's very old): infanticide.

I'm with Peter Singer on this; even full-term infants are born premature, in order for them to fit through the birth canal. The only legitimate question is, "How do we define personhood?" (Personally, I'm in the "kill the babies and senile, but maybe Great Apes and Artificial Intelligence could be people" category of thought.)

I would think that, in this post-9/11 day and age, such insinuations about a major party candidate from the other side of the aisle would be regarded as criminal.

Ugh, don't give any credence to that "post-9/11 world" (or is it called "game-changer" now?) line. Nothing changed (in the larger sense) because of 9/11, except the government's own ratcheting towards totalitarianism. The world's always been a fucked up place, and there's always going to be some determined, cunning, and violent people willing to take extreme measures. Just like we're always going to have airplane crashes, or new infectious diseases. But that's never a reason to discard our natural rights.

[#95 posted by 1up mushroom , October 20, 2008 12:57 PM]

Tsk tsk #84 I have it on good authority (#49) that factcheck.org is a republican front group, please make a note of this.

[#96 posted by Takuan , October 20, 2008 1:09 PM]

nuts? nope, more typical really. "Mainstream republican".

[#97 posted by freeyourcrt , October 20, 2008 1:15 PM]

Seems like point #2 and #3 on the flyer are correct except for one little thing...there's no wealth to spread around - only debt.

[#98 posted by DeeDeeHeartsDiggers , October 20, 2008 1:16 PM]

It worries me that the accusation of being Muslim is seen as such a smear. If he were accused of being 'secretly' Jewish, it would be called anti-Semitic.

[#99 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 1:20 PM]

@95 1Up Mushroom

Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation. The current president, chairman, and sole director of the Foundation is Leonore Annenberg.

You can inspect the public record of Leonore Annenberg's political donations--lots of them, almost entirely to right-wing Republicans--here and here.

I suppose it's possible that an operation funded primarily by a billionaire Republican political donor who also happens to be the widow of a right-wing newspaper and magazine tycoon is an outfit we can trust to objectively judge who is and isn't stretching the truth in political discourse. It's also possible that the unopened milk carton in my refrigerator actually contains pirate doubloons made of 24-carat gold. I'm not betting on either proposition.

Um, the Annenberg School for Communication is totally legit, and actually one of the best in the USA if not the world on positive analysis of media theory (in the Marshall McLuhan tradition). In my experience, they're extremely scholarly, insightful, and honestly capable of value-free analysis of (i.e. education in) communications and media theory.

(Although I'm personally kinda pissed at them right now for ending on October 1st their satellite feed of the Annenberg Channel, from which many PBS stations rebroadcast for telelearning. Their video on demand sucks, both in its use of streaming Windows Media, and in its low resolution compared to 480p television.)

But I'll trust them that factcheck.org is not politically motivated, beyond the motivation that people empowered with the voting franchise should check their facts in juxtaposition to how "facts" are disseminated in mass-media.

[#100 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 1:27 PM]

It worries me that the accusation of being Muslim is seen as such a smear. If he were accused of being 'secretly' Jewish, it would be called anti-Semitic.

Indeed.

However, conversely, the Anti-Defamation League and others are really quick to throw the anti-Semetic label around.

Critical of Israeli settlers? "anti-Semite".

Think AIPAC has unusually large influence over the foreign policy of the United States? "anti-Semite".

At the same time, saying you're "anti-Zionist" is a loaded word because actual racists use it as code for being actual anti-Semites.

It's a linguistic minefield.

[#101 posted by Chris L , October 20, 2008 1:36 PM]

This entire process has given my dad and I plenty of stuff to discuss. He's going with McCain, I'm going with Obama. He holds that Barack is simply too liberal for his tastes, even though he's come to despise the Bush administration (even in the weeks leading up to Iraq war, I remember him saying what terrible idea it was).

He plays dumb, but I can tell that this sort of ignorance in his own party troubles him a lot, but not enough to vote for someone he disagrees with on fundamental issues. Its a really shitty situation for intelligent Republicans (braces for the incoming snark).

He does have a lot of respect for Colin Powell though, and has said many times that he would vote for him if he ever ran; I can't wait to find out what he thinks of his endorsement of Obama. I think I agree with him about McCain: he could have been a good president, but he decided to, or maybe had no choice but to, surround himself with neo-con campaign advisers.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a deliberate way to push McCain out of the picture so they can run someone more puppet-like in 4 years. Palin would be an obvious choice. They can keep her in the spotlight, let a personality cult form around her, groom her. McCain was never a Bush clone. Palin has that potential.

[#102 posted by SamF , October 20, 2008 1:37 PM]

Government, which is itself a form of collectivism, should do those things that we cannot do for ourselves. Things like healthcare, social security, roads, utilities and that truly big socialist organization, the military. Business should do what it does well, produce and sell goods, enhance trade and so on.

You're contradicting yourself there. Health care, utilities, roads, social security, the military...they can all be considered a good or service, or trade enhancement, that can be bought and sold. The only ones that the government should need to have anything to do with are a national military, and interstate commerce (interstate highway system). Local versions of the same (local law enforcement and local roadways) should be free from federal meddling.

All social interaction could be considered "collectivism". The problem is when you start mandating collectivism with government force. Government collectivism should be limited to enabling voluntary collectivism (e.g. providing interstate higheways to support inter state commerce, and providing a national military to protect national borders from invasion). Government should not be in the business of enforcing collectivism.

A poor but simple metaphor: Take two kids. Give them a toy that encourages two people to play (a board game, or some other naturally cooperative activity) and they will be more likely to play together. Give them a solo toy (a single car or some such) and try to enforce sharing, and you will have problems.

Unfortunately for us, both the candidates want to take away all our toys and just give us the toys they think we should have. I wish I could say that the Republican ticket is any better than the Democratic. But the choices we keep getting presented with get worse each election.

[#103 posted by Noelegy , October 20, 2008 1:48 PM]

"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." --Adlai Stevenson

We must remember that "freedom of speech" even includes that speech with which we don't agree.

[#104 posted by Takuan , October 20, 2008 1:58 PM]

freedom of speech: denounce Obama, get sneered at, denounce McCain, get lynched.

[#105 posted by jubz , October 20, 2008 2:01 PM]

7 Real Reasons not to vote for Obama

1) Voted in favor of giving the telecoms immunity for their illegal spying

2) Wants to expand the disastrous war in Afghanistan

3) Pushed for the criminally scandalous bailout package

4) Has said nothing in favor of ending the drug war and the prison industrial complex

5) Wants to build new nuclear plants that will do nothing to solve our energy problems, will waste billions of our money and continue to contaminate our land with nuclear waste

6) Staunchly in favor of supporting Israel at all costs

7) He's a Christian (lulz)

I'd still probably vote for him if he wasn't already in for a landslide victory in my district. McKinney/Clemente '08

[#106 posted by Katybeth , October 20, 2008 2:03 PM]

OMG you actually published something--even tongue in check (we hope) that does not support Obama. What we may be sorriest for after Obama wins the election, is why so many, asked so few questions.

[#107 posted by Takuan , October 20, 2008 2:09 PM]

it's patently obvious Obama supports some evil and is silent on others. The only alternative presented is infinitely worse. Rather like that classic definition of "democracy".

[#108 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 2:16 PM]

6) Staunchly in favor of supporting Israel at all costs

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," said Obama.

Also, like Sarah Silverman, I blame the Jews (in Florida). Although it's shaping up like Florida might not be such a key state after all.

5) Wants to build new nuclear plants that will do nothing to solve our energy problems, will waste billions of our money and continue to contaminate our land with nuclear waste

What's wrong with nuclear power? I'm more than happy to use it instead of coal, especially since modern pebble-bed reactors physically cannot meltdown. Sure, the nuclear waste is a long term problem, and the Yucca Mountain water table is a legitimate discovery that needs to be addressed (possibly scrapping that project). But anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are going to kill us in the next several decades.

(Although I'd also like to know why neither candidate mentions hot dry rock geothermal energy, but they both mention "biofuels" as if it weren't just code for fat subsidies to farmers.)

Bang-up job otherwise on that list. That telecom immunity vote still sticks in my craw.

[#109 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 2:18 PM]

Rather like that classic definition of "democracy".

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried." -- Winston Churchill

[#110 posted by Avram , October 20, 2008 2:19 PM]

EmptyCopper @101, as of a few minutes ago, when I checked, only 3 comments had been removed, out of 114 total received. (Another 3 of those were anonymous comments that hadn't yet been cleared.)

[#111 posted by nerak , October 20, 2008 2:25 PM]

I didn't bother reading most of this thread, seems like a lot of attacking going on. Anyway, I think everyone should watch the following video of Colin Powell explaining why he is endorsing Barack Obama. He has summarized the reasoning for his choice in a very eloquent manner, something that is refreshing for once. Enjoy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490

[#112 posted by romulusnr , October 20, 2008 2:29 PM]

I don't suppose it occurs to these people that, seeing as how the Pentagon is an unquestionably military facility, bombing it is not by definition a terrorist act.

Perhaps some of the other things W.U. did were terroristic, but that's not one. Just sayin'.

If it wasn't 2008, the W.U. would be described as "militant".

[#113 posted by seyo , October 20, 2008 2:31 PM]

"neither candidate mentions hot dry rock geothermal energy"

Actually, Obama has mentioned geo-thermal.

[#114 posted by acb , October 20, 2008 2:34 PM]

The thing that worries me most is not that Obama may lose but, if he wins (which is likely, though not overwhelmingly probable), him being assassinated. Considering that over the past 8 years, various parts of the US military and law enforcement apparatus have been stacked with Christian Dominionists, who favour America becoming a fascist theocracy, such an assassination (whether it's done with or without inside involvement) may trigger a military coup, in the guise of martial law enforced to "keep the peace" and quell rioting.

[#115 posted by Antinous , October 20, 2008 2:40 PM]

emptycopper,

I might have taken you seriously if you hadn't used three different identities so far today. Farewell.

[#116 posted by SamF , October 20, 2008 2:43 PM]

Seven Reasons Not to Vote

1) Voting usually results in a politician being elected. (Politicians have been proven to be bad for America.)

2) Voting is elitist! (Only AMERICAN CITIZENS can vote in American elections!)

3) Voting sends the message that "We're OK with this sort of thing."

4) Voting favors the wealthy! (Rich people can better afford to take off work early and spend gas money driving to the polls.)

5) Even Muslims and other terrorists are alowed to vote!

6) Voting is just a government plot to funnel money to the voting machine industry.

7) Voting promotes hate! (Every time you vote FOR one person, you are voring AGAINST everyone else!)

Learn the facts. Save America. Don't vote.

[#117 posted by Antinous , October 20, 2008 2:44 PM]

acb,

So....is that like a campaign slogan?

Vote McCain: He's Less Likely to Trigger a Military Coup!

[#118 posted by 1up mushroom , October 20, 2008 2:47 PM]

#114 When is the last time someone has tried to assassinate the president for reasons other than insanity? John Wilkes Boothe perhaps?

#112 The WU killed a cop in San Fransisco, does that count?

[#119 posted by Takuan , October 20, 2008 2:48 PM]

@114, true, what better way to keep them whipped into their place than to kill their hope on the eve of victory.

[#120 posted by Phikus , October 20, 2008 2:53 PM]

FERROHORSE@76: Well said.

ZUZU@99: The one you are quoting without citation here is our Moderator, Teresa Neilsen-Hayden. You have done nothing to refute what she said, in that other thread. No matter how much you link to Wikipedia and like to repeat your opinions to the very brink of astroturf, it does not make what you say true or hold more weight. Please let others share the lawn.

EMPTYCOPPER@101: Well, your comment is still here. What does that make you? 100% WRONG!

JUBZ#106: You have the benefit of being in a sea of blue voters. I have some of the same reservations, but many of us are not in a place where we can afford to throw away our vote. You are lucky there are enough of us in your area voting effectively against McCain to allow you the luxury.

[#121 posted by Antinous , October 20, 2008 2:58 PM]

EMPTYCOPPER@101: Well, your comment is still here.

Check your caching. It was removed for (drawer full of) sock puppetry.

[#122 posted by Brainspore , October 20, 2008 2:59 PM]

Powell said it pretty well over the weekend: "ALL taxes are a redistribution of wealth" (or words to that effect). Examining how the tax code might be adjusted is not "socialism" and is certainly not "communism."

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the socialists have way better health plans than what Obama has been proposing.

[#123 posted by noen , October 20, 2008 3:00 PM]

Zuzu quoting The Power of Nightmares
This is one area where we are in agreement. I like all of Adam Curtis' documentaries. "The Trap" is especially good.

samf
Health care, utilities, roads, social security, the military...they can all be considered a good or service, or trade enhancement, that can be bought and sold.

No one really wants to live in that kind of world. Those who think they do are deluded about what the consequences would be. A world in which everything including the military is reduced to a private service that is traded and sold would result in the destruction of the nation and of society itself. All that would be left would be giant corporations, the aristocracy and us peasants. The order of the day would be a global feudalist dictatorship.

One cannot get from first principles to what ought to be. Therefore one should be pragmatic. People want universal healthcare. For-profit corporations cannot deliver that by their very nature. Therefore the best means of delivering it is through the state.

Government collectivism should be limited to enabling voluntary collectivism. [...] Government should not be in the business of enforcing collectivism.

I see, my participation in the collectivist state is voluntary? You really sure about that? 'Cause honey, that really frees me up quite a bit. Suddenly I can do anything and there is no limit placed on me what so ever. We've had societies like that in the distant past, it's anarchy. People didn't like it at all. What you propose is a pipe dream, a fantasy.

Kaybeth
What we may be sorriest for after Obama wins the election, is why so many, asked so few questions.

What questions ought we to be asking?

[#124 posted by Talia , October 20, 2008 3:01 PM]

#114 the threat of that kind of violence , the rioting and such I think is less than you think, because most of those who spew that kind of stuff are all talk and no action. Likely they'll bitch a lot and be hateful but continue to go along their lives as normal.

The assassination thing is definitely a concern, I've thought about it myself. But if we have, so have they you can bet, and I'd lay odds that he would be more heavily protected for just that reason than any other president in history.

[#125 posted by macguffin , October 20, 2008 3:11 PM]

This reminds me of the fliers I saw a guy handing out on the street recently. I didn't read them, but the covers read, "AL GORE: HALF MAN, HALF POSSUM. TOTAL MORON."

[#126 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 3:17 PM]

No one really wants to live in that kind of world. Those who think they do are deluded about what the consequences would be. A world in which everything including the military is reduced to a private service that is traded and sold would result in the destruction of the nation and of society itself. All that would be left would be giant corporations, the aristocracy and us peasants. The order of the day would be a global feudalist dictatorship.

I want to live in that world. We already have a kind of Feudalism, called nations.

Private police would actually make people accountable for the cost of war. It's really expensive.

As for healthcare, I'm an avid proponent of health consumerism on the basis of morphological freedom and self-ownership. I may pay to consult with a doctor for advice, but they may not have dominion over what I am or am not "allowed" to put into or do to my body.

Finally, I'm more than happy, I'm eager in fact, for "society" to dissolve. This doesn't mean we should all be assholes or step on the poor. But it does mean we should stop identifying with "groups" like "nations" and "race" and "gender", "class", and "political affiliation", and just acknowledge that we're all individuals interacting with each other on a peer-to-peer basis. Cultivate your inner life, instead of allowing other people to dictate it to you.

One cannot get from first principles to what ought to be.

But there is no what "ought to be" aside from personal preference, and that occurs at an individual granularity of scale.

[#127 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 3:29 PM]

@Phikus #120

The one you are quoting without citation here is our Moderator, Teresa Neilsen-Hayden.

The citation was inferred as I was replying to 1Up Mushroom's post which linked to her post.

You have done nothing to refute what she said, in that other thread.

Perhaps, as I don't have anything offhand to cite, in the same way that I'm not sure how I would cite that "MIT is a good school for engineers and mathematics". So I was sharing my own observations.

But how about this: The video interview with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who is a professor at the Annenberg school, from Bill Moyers Journal. How does her intelligence and critical analysis in the context of media theory and communication strike you?

[#128 posted by romulusnr , October 20, 2008 3:31 PM]

#116: 5) Even Muslims and other terrorists are alowed to vote!

I would like very much to know what the average McCain supporter thinks about the extension of suffrage to Muslims. Time and time again I wish I ran a polling agency.

#118: The WU killed a cop in San Fransisco, does that count?

Well, first of all, that doesn't appear to have been conclusively linked to them. But let's say it is. It's greyer than attacking a partially-civilian military installation, but it's still not quite the definition of terrorism, which is (or was, before ca. 2002) to make random attacks at civilian targets to instill fear (aka *terror*) into the populace. If the police are seen as an opposing force -- and US police are undeniably an armed force at that -- then it doesn't fit, no.

Proper terrorism involves acts that one would (or did, again, before ca. 2002) consider unconscionable in *wartime*.

[#129 posted by jimkirk , October 20, 2008 3:35 PM]

re #76, Meyer...

"Explain to me how the Obama tax plan isn't a redistribution of wealth, along socialist lines, when he's want to tax the "rich" more. The "rich" incidentally being defined by the folks that pay most (I've heard 95%) of the nations taxes."

Okay.

First of all, ANY tax is a redistribution of wealth.

The "rich" pay most because they have the most money. Here are the numbers... (the numbers aren't all from the same year, but are as recent as I could easily find. This may change the distribution slightly, but not enough to change the argument.)

Taxpayers-----% of taxes--------% of wealth
top 1%------------33.7%--------------32.7
top 5%------------53.8%--------------57.7
top 50%---------about 96%----------97.2

Depending on how one defines "wealth" (net worth, financial wealth, et cetera), the % of wealth becomes even more heavily weighted to the high end.

So even though we have a graduated tax system in the U.S. it turns out to be a pretty flat tax rate.

Should those who have benefited more and can afford more bear a greater share?

Oh, and the tax rate Obama is proposing is nothing more than what it was under Clinton, and the rich seemed to do pretty well back then, too.

re: the topic at hand, I think it was George Carlin who said "Picture the average American. Half of them are dumber than that."

Sources:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf

[#130 posted by romulusnr , October 20, 2008 3:38 PM]

#123: One wonders what the point of a national government is if it isn't to provide some manner of collective public services; whether it simply be a mint and a military, or whether it be unemployment insurance, public works, welfare, research, public health, education.

What I simply don't understand is how the Republicans, especially the rabid fringe like the originator of the above flyer, can consider Palin's windfall oil tax and social distribution as anything less than pure and simple socialism. She jacked taxes on oil companies (punishing the successful) and then spread that wealth around to every Alaskan (redistribution).

Yet McCain and his flock can attack Obama's widening of the progressive tax (in contrast to an ongoing widening of the class gap) as socialism.

See no evil, hear no evil...

[#131 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 3:42 PM]

Re: Annenberg and FactCheck.org

I actually meant to link to this more recent interview with Kathleen Hall Jamieson on Bill Moyers Journal, but I'm sure either will provide a useful enough impression.

It's been another rowdy week in media coverage of the 2008 race. Factcheck.org has already published a list of exaggerations by both candidates, saying: "Normally we post a 'Whoppers' compilation the week before Election Day. This time we've already seen such a large number of twisted facts, misleading claims and outright falsehoods that we are doing that now." And the media itself is getting criticism, with questions about Vice Presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill's impartiality, and the repeated charge from some sectors that they're picking on Sarah Palin. The JOURNAL turns to two experts in the art of media analysis to sort it all out, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Brooke Gladstone.

[#132 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 3:50 PM]

Yet McCain and his flock can attack Obama's widening of the progressive tax (in contrast to an ongoing widening of the class gap) as socialism.

McCain: It's not socialism when we do it.

;)

Seriously though, socialism, no matter who does it, has very grave and unintended consequences. But if there's going to be any welfare at all, it should be reserved only for the truly desperate individuals who's only alternative really would be dying. When businesses fail, they just dissolve and their capital is purchased by other businesses who then take the former's place. When people fail, that's called death, and I support all best efforts made to prevent that for the unwilling. (People choosing to end their lives is a separate matter.)

We could definitely provide a major overhaul and simplification to the income tax, welfare, and minimum wage systems if we changed over to a negative income tax system.

[#133 posted by takeshi , October 20, 2008 4:01 PM]

@ zuzu:

"Ugh, don't give any credence to that "post-9/11 world" (or is it called "game-changer" now?) line. Nothing changed (in the larger sense) because of 9/11, except the government's own ratcheting towards totalitarianism."

Let's call it modernity, where racism is more prevalent and recondite than ever. Simply put, my point is: Arab-Americans should be allowed to run for president without being labeled outsiders or terrorists, especially if the candidate isn't an Arab-American.

Furthermore, in my opinion, this is a particularly dangerous time to be pulling this kind of thing. If we are to believe that the far right loonies were somehow oblivious to 9/11, that their deep and abiding fear and hatred of brown people wasn't exacerbated by the GOP for political gain following the disaster, that this somehow, magically, means that it is just as safe for Barack Obama or anyone suspected of being a terrorist as it was in 2000, well...

"The world's always been a fucked up place, and there's always going to be some determined, cunning, and violent people willing to take extreme measures."

And today, information is more easily acquired, assassins and terrorists are more resourceful, and, as we have witnessed, a very effective conduit for xenophobia is aggression. Something very simple to exploit, yet so difficult to control. Hence, more fear and hatred, more violence. As our population grows worldwide, this will become more evident still.

"Just like we're always going to have airplane crashes, or new infectious diseases. But that's never a reason to discard our natural rights."

Our natural rights aren't in question. Not by me, at least. But more airplanes equals more crashes. The greater the capacity to destroy, the greater the resultant destruction. And the further along we get, the more heated the discussion. Religious fanaticism will continue to eat away at the fabric of this society unless it is either abandoned or relegated to the shadows as anathema.

Psychologists tell us not to diminish others' experiences, saying things like "oh, you think you had it so bad as a kid." The same could be said of history. Life is consistently messed up, yes, but it is not true that things now are exactly as they have been and shall always be. Feelings of hatred flare up on their own and are stoked, real and visceral horrors are perpetrated, groups of people are manipulated and worked into frenzies, and disturbing events become more commonplace throughout the world.

Take a look at school shootings. Sure, child-eating might not be as bad as it was in the caves, but that's hardly any consolation. We have almost reached the apogee of man's ability to destroy life. There's your game changer.

[#134 posted by dmduncan , October 20, 2008 4:03 PM]

R.J. Rummel (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM) lists deaths caused by communist governments en toto as somewhere around 110,000,000 people, with the Soviet Union accounting for around 61,000,000 of those, and those figures do not include the additional 30,000,000 lost in various communist wars.

You'd have to be a psychopath, or much worse, to think communism is a "good" idea. No — actually you'd have to be someone who thinks bad is good. So yeah, whatever you'd call that monstrousity, it's worse than "psychopath."

[#135 posted by acb , October 20, 2008 4:06 PM]

@Talia (124): The thing that worries me: what if there is an assassin among the Secret Service. Seeing how the leadership in branches of the government and military has been politicised by the Bush administration (witness prayer meetings at the FBI, Dominionist influence in the military, and so on), the idea that someone in the Secret Service (or elsewhere in the military) may hold partisan loyalties at odds with the government of the day, and be willing to act on them, is not easy to discount. (In the Roman Empire, the Praetorian Guard, an elite corps established to protect the Emperor, had a habit of assassinating emperors it found inconvenient.)

As for rioting as an excuse to impose martial law, the rioting wouldn't be on the part of rightwingers or militia types but on the part of Obama supporters enraged by his assassination. There doesn't actually have to be much real rioting; the powers that be just need to find or stage a few incidents, get partisan media (FoxNews and so on) to blow it out of proportion, and spread borderline-racist innuendo about black radicals/unruly negroes/communist revolutionaries/al-Qaeda operatives/fiendish fluoridators/(insert scare meme here), and then the powers that be can step into big-daddy protector mode, tightening the grip. Once the grip relaxes, it will be a different game and a different country.

I do hope that such fears have no bearing on reality, and wish they could be dismissed out of hand. Though after the last 8 years, I don't think that that's so easily dismissable.

[#136 posted by Phikus , October 20, 2008 4:16 PM]

NOEN: I continue to enjoy every one of your posts in discussions you engage in. =D

NERAK@111: Thanks for the link. This is a good thing to send to all conservatives we know, so they can hear his reasons for his endorsement in his own words.

JIMKIRK@129: Nice points and well cited.

ZUZU: Thanks for providing a citation for your opinion. In the interview linked, she does show intelligent insight in looking at McCain vs. other hopeful Republican nominees, but this is all aside from the point as to whether factcheck is totally impartial on issues relating across party lines. I have seen several instances where factcheck has been wrong, and argued the point elsewhere in BB discussions. I don't intend to entertain another threadjack to go into that again here.

You would seem to have a keen mind, and many things you say I agree with. I was merely attempting to point out that you are better when not trying to steer a discussion towards your favorite turf (i.e. Socialism vs. Capitalism.)

[#137 posted by Anonymous , October 20, 2008 4:23 PM]

They left out that we will all be forced to gay marry and that Obama has been plotting domestic terrorism since he was 8 years old with people he had yet to meet.

Also they forgot to capitalize "Pledge of Allegiance."

[#138 posted by fdeblauwe , October 20, 2008 4:34 PM]

grt crtn lmbstng ths phnmnn n th Rsns T B Chrfl, Prt 3 blg...

[#139 posted by Takuan , October 20, 2008 5:01 PM]

Indira Gandhi was murdered by her religious fanatic guards, yeah it's not much of a stretch to see the same in America.

[#140 posted by Jesse in Japan , October 20, 2008 5:10 PM]

Isn't that six reasons? I mean, the first and second reasons are essentially the same thing. Also, they forget to mention that he's black. Or that he's from Hawaii, which everyone knows isn't even a part of America, or that he opposes clinging to guns and religion (which are the two most fundamental American rights) or that he uses ACORN to get urban minorities who are supposed to be disenfranchised to vote.

[#141 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 5:18 PM]

Let's call it modernity, where racism is more prevalent and recondite than ever. Simply put, my point is: Arab-Americans should be allowed to run for president without being labeled outsiders or terrorists, especially if the candidate isn't an Arab-American.

Ok, yes, sorry if I diluted your point, which I fully support. I'm still often surprised myself at the renewed popularity of racism and nationalism in the USA. I feel like Dave Chappelle watching Mississippi Burning, "Wow... goddamn, that was... that was racist!"

And today, information is more easily acquired, assassins and terrorists are more resourceful, and, as we have witnessed, a very effective conduit for xenophobia is aggression. Something very simple to exploit, yet so difficult to control. Hence, more fear and hatred, more violence. As our population grows worldwide, this will become more evident still.

At the same time, I'm not convinced by, and I'm not sure why others are so willing to accept (agitating their xenophobia) Sam Huntington's Clash of Civilization thesis. It seems to me to rest on a pre-conceived notions that different cultures inherently cannot abide coexistence -- that they all demand conflicting moral absolutism. Yet the widespread existence of subcultures are not new, and do not result in perpetual conflict. I don't understand why value pluralism has been popularly rejected from consideration, nevermind the more radical perspectivism (though that seemed to jive with the rise in popularity of post-modernism in the 1990s).

It seems to me like people are baited into this framed thinking towards collective identity and hostility towards "outsiders". It is overtly part of the Neo-Con / Leo Straussian agenda, to say the least.

(Then again, even Neal Stephenson seemed to predict something of this sort in The Diamond Age, with the rise of neo-Victorianism and neo-Confucianism.)

Psychologists tell us not to diminish others' experiences, saying things like "oh, you think you had it so bad as a kid." The same could be said of history.

Fair enough. I am aware of my own propensity to be dismissive in this fashion, in particular circumstances.

You would seem to have a keen mind, and many things you say I agree with. I was merely attempting to point out that you are better when not trying to steer a discussion towards your favorite turf (i.e. Socialism vs. Capitalism.)

Call it central planning then. :)

I have seen several instances where factcheck has been wrong, and argued the point elsewhere in BB discussions.

Thanks, I'll read that.

Perhaps I tend to steer the discussion based on, basically, that I think both parties are doing it wrong. Government is being over-used as a tool; and I think our problems require the finesse of "the right tool for the right job". Drilling another hole in the hull of our boat is not going to let the water drain out any more than drilling the first hole did.

[#142 posted by twotonkatrucks , October 20, 2008 5:31 PM]

@PHIKUS

whether or not the bits quoted by ZUZU was authored by the moderator of this site or some joe schmo is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is bad reasoning. clearly, the bits that ZUZU quotes shows an example of worse kind of guilt by association. let's examine why.

to establish supposed systemic bias of factcheck.org, the quoted bits first establishes a link between annenberg foundation's head and the republican party by examining that individual's political donation record. this association then we are to presume, implies that annenberg foundation is tainted with political bias.. there's the first guilt by association. second, due to funding of annenberg school by annenberg foundation we are to presume that that implies that annenberg school is tainted with political bias. there's the second guilt by association. now, since factcheck.org is a project started by folks associated with the annenberg school we are to presume that that implies that factcheck.org is tainted with political bias. there's the third guilt by association. i hope you can see what is wrong with that logic. you need more than mere establishment of associations. let's look at the annenberg school for example. a cursory look at their faculty staff will show you that each faculty is a legitimate academic researcher in the field of communication with ample number of academic publications to legitimate academic journals. the current dean herself alone has published more than 90+ academic papers and several books on the subject of political discourse. these are not the characteristics of bunk research organization. it is in fact, the exact opposite.

this kind of reasoning what labels obama as a "terrorist supporter" or what have you. interestingly enough, the link between obama and ayers leads back to their link to "chicago annenberg challenge", which ironically was funded mainly, if not solely, by the annenberg foundation. so i ask you, what are we to imply from THAT?

[#143 posted by noen , October 20, 2008 5:43 PM]

Zuzu
Private police would actually make people accountable for the cost of war. It's really expensive.

There are better ways of doing that. Private police and private militaries would fracture our nation. Hell, even Canada could kick our ass (hey, maybe that would be a good thing?). That's why states like what you propose don't exist. They would be immediately conquered by stronger states.

I'm more than happy, I'm eager in fact, for "society" to dissolve. This doesn't mean we should all be assholes or step on the poor. But it does mean we should stop identifying with "groups" like "nations" and "race" and "gender", "class", and "political affiliation", and just acknowledge that we're all individuals interacting with each other on a peer-to-peer basis. Cultivate your inner life, instead of allowing other people to dictate it to you.

I share your ideals, I just don't think we get there by dissolving society. What usually happens in a failed state is that you get competing strongmen or warlords. Cultivating one's inner life then becomes a luxury you can no longer afford. I'm a pragmatist and as such I don't think it's very realistic to think that everyone is going to see themselves as individuals interacting as peers only. This nation contains everything from Klansmen and real Nazis to the Communist workers Party and anarcho-syndicalists. I just don't see how getting everyone to drop all that and adopt some ideal is going to happen.

We have in this country a right-wing that rejected Mike Huckabee because they thought he was too "socialist" fer cryin' out loud. Good grief!

NOEN: I continue to enjoy every one of your posts in discussions you engage in. =D

Thanks.

[#144 posted by zuzu , October 20, 2008 5:57 PM]

There are better ways of doing that. Private police and private militaries would fracture our nation. Hell, even Canada could kick our ass (hey, maybe that would be a good thing?). That's why states like what you propose don't exist. They would be immediately conquered by stronger states.

I think history has shown that occupation is astoundingly difficult. The "mission accomplished" part may be easy with the overwhelming force of a professional army, but then what? In a well-armed population (and even without), people seem universally willing to defend their home turf from hostile invaders.

Furthermore, military occupation creates nothing, but adds significant burden for sustaining that military force; in short, it's a money pit.

I'm not that much of a historical scholar, but my hunch is the only way an occupation has been historically sustained is either through genocide (e.g. Indian removal) or by interbreeding (at which point the distinction is lost).

[#145 posted by Antinous , October 20, 2008 6:20 PM]

twotonkatrucks,

A) Piffle.
B) Would it kill you to use your shift key?

[#146 posted by takeshi , October 20, 2008 6:41 PM]

@ 1up mushroom:

"When is the last time someone has tried to assassinate the president for reasons other than insanity? John Wilkes Boothe perhaps?"

John Hinckley, Jr. is the son of one of Bush's supporters in his primary bid against Reagan. His brother, Scott, had an appointment to dine with Neil Bush the day after Hinckley's assassination attempt.

@ zuzu:

I agree that Huntington is way off base on several points, but cultural differences do exist, and they are a point of contention for some. As our own society becomes more nationalistic, and as the far-right persuade those prone to xenophobia to vote against outsiders, we may see more of an intercivilizational rift in our own country, an "us against them" majority, and that frankly is what concerns me the most.

Thanks for posting links. For those who are unfamiliar with Clash of Civilizations, the Wikipedia article contains references to some of Huntington's critics, such as Amartya Sen, whose excellent book Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny is a must-read. The article also mentions the perception of Huntington's work as "the theoretical legitimization of American-led Western aggression against China and the world's Islamic cultures," which is accurate enough, but such an assessment fails to directly address the very real conditions, likewise referenced in the article, which have led to this kind of thinking in the first place. Namely, the idea that modernity is equivalent to Westernization. This notion is not uniquely American, I'm afraid.

"It seems to me like people are baited into this framed thinking towards collective identity and hostility towards "outsiders"."

No argument there, but if we are to assume that such thinking exists, does it not merit consideration? Whether people are "baited" or independently bigoted, I cannot help but to feel that some Americans are more strongly opposed to "outsiders" than ever before, and that fear and anger can be translated into violence quite easily.

Your point is solid, though. The neoconservative agenda is mostly responsible. One more reason why the right is so fractured at the moment. Centrist fiscal conservatives, moderate social conservatives, Libertarians; many of them could have been counted on to vote for McCain in this election, were it not for the GOP's ill-advised cultural posturing. All he's left with are the Christian Zionists. So, that one's in the plus column, I guess.

[#147 posted by Anonymous , October 20, 2008 8:19 PM]

Re: the Fairness Doctrine:
Barack Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine, according to his press secretary, Michael Ortiz.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," press secretary Michael Ortiz told Broadcasting & Cable's John Eggerton.
He says that Obama supports media-ownership caps, net neutrality, public broadcasting, and increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Re: Geothermal Energy
From Obama's Energy Plan --
"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will: 
Establish a 10% federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 % of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind, and geothermal by 2012."

[#148 posted by ill lich , October 20, 2008 8:38 PM]

#114 ACB

the US military and law enforcement apparatus have been stacked with Christian Dominionists, who favour America becoming a fascist theocracy,

Well, Halloween is coming up, so part of me likes to entertain this possibility in order to send shivers down my spine, but (like the idea that Obama is a "secret Muslim"), when you really think about the logistics of it, it looks extremely doubtful. Even if the upper echelons of the military were stacked with Christian Dominionists it doesn't mean they could ever hope to turn the US into a police state theocracy, they wouldn't have enough (loyal) troops to quell the mass demonstrations that would inevitably result, demonstrations populated by as many liberals as libertarians and moderates, and even non-Christian Republicans. The Christian Right is nowhere near the majority they think they are. I don't think rioting would immediately erupt like after MLK's assassination, times have changed (maybe I'm wrong). Of course if they're bat-shit crazy that wouldn't stop them from trying a coup, but if they failed they would set the Christian-right wayyyyy back (so let em go for it then).

(In Obama's case, if he really were some secret terrorist plant, why didn't his handlers give him a more common American name, like "McCain" for example? Of course the great thing about conspiracy theories is you can explain anything away: "aahhh, but they knew that would be TOO perfect!")

[#149 posted by Takuan , October 20, 2008 8:43 PM]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html

[#150 posted by noen , October 20, 2008 8:46 PM]

Zuzu
I think history has shown that occupation is astoundingly difficult.

And yet something is lost in your switch from the view of the Nation as a whole to the individual view. If US society were to collapse as you appear to favor I may well survive but something unique and I think valuable would be destroyed by whatever armies rushed into the vacuum.

The "mission accomplished" part may be easy with the overwhelming force of a professional army, but then what?

So you concede my point?

[#151 posted by SamF , October 20, 2008 8:54 PM]

A world in which everything including the military is reduced to a private service that is traded and sold would result in the destruction of the nation and of society itself."

Obviously you missed the statement I made in the sentence after the one you quoted. The one where I said that the government should be in charge of a national military. That however does not preculde private police or military services.

People want universal healthcare.

No, people do not want universal healthcare. Not all people anyway. My family is different from that of a single individual. My health care needs are different from theirs, or yours. I don't want to have to pay more for my family's health care than what we use, and I don't want someone else to have to foot the bill for my family's health care if they are perfectly healthy.

I see, my participation in the collectivist state is voluntary? You really sure about that? 'Cause honey, that really frees me up quite a bit. Suddenly I can do anything and there is no limit placed on me what so ever.

Wow, you're really reaching there. Absence of government coercion does not equal absence of government, or absence of rules, or absence of consequences.

[#152 posted by Antinous , October 20, 2008 9:16 PM]

I don't want to have to pay more for my family's health care than what we use, and I don't want someone else to have to foot the bill for my family's health care if they are perfectly healthy.

Ah. So you don't have insurance. Because my premiums are high because I'm subsidizing you not to eat as well as me and not to exercise as much as me. My premiums are high because I'm subsidizing your kids immunizations. Unless of course you don't have insurance. Because if you do, you're one of the 'socialism for me and free market for everyone else' crowd. And from the last part of that sentence, a social Darwinist to boot.

Are we going to de-socialize education, too? Because I don't see why I should be paying for your kids to go to school. Funnily enough, if all of us who don't have children stopped paying into that money pit, your education costs would skyrocket.

Soupy thinking.

[#153 posted by jimh , October 20, 2008 9:28 PM]

It constantly amazes me that the people who stand to benefit from the tax plan Obama is suggesting are the people who are objecting on "principle".

No one was screaming "redistribution of wealth" when Bush was cutting taxes for the rich, time and time again. Because the rich deserve the most tax cuts. The middle class deserves to pay and pay.

Obama isn't even completely undoing Bush's tax cuts. Are people under some misconception that what we have now is a flat tax? We have a progressive tax system, and it changes all the time, historically by transferring the tax burden down the scale, away from the most powerful lobbyists, the upper class.

Why the outrage from Joe six pack when we try to move in the other direction? Could it be that Joe is easily suggestible by the powers that be to argue against his own best interests at the invocation of the spectre of "socialism"?

[#154 posted by oligore , October 20, 2008 11:30 PM]

I thought Obama Bin Laden was paid by the US government to fight against the communist occupation of Afghanistan.

[#155 posted by Phikus , October 20, 2008 11:57 PM]

JIMH@153: Bingo. Head meet nail.

TWOTONKATRUCKS: Although ANTINOUS said it well, my $.02 is:
A) Take it up with Teresa. I was merely pointing out in this context that the attribution of the quote was lacking.
B) However, I agree with the point she makes. It is not merely guilt by association. Anyone who purports to have some kind of monopoly on the facts should be challenged in what they assert, and who funds them is relevant in determining where the bias they pretend not to have may in fact be.

Faux News are the first to say things like "We report. You decide" and "Fair & Balanced" when what they really mean is Bill O'Reilly's favorite phrase to his guests: "SHUT UP!" repeated ad nauseum if you don't believe what they're spewing, straight from Karl Rove's ass like it were the word of Gawd.

If it is truly factual at factcheck, then you should also be able to corroborate their stories from any respected journalistic source, so why bother with the middleman, especially when they offer themselves as a shortcut to thinking?

In debunking their debunking of myths about Sarah Palin, I went to the sources that broke those stories in the first place, the NYT and the Washington Post, and did not find any retraction to those two stories in question (follow the link I cited above if you want to know specifically which) by these respected and responsible media outlets. I don't know about you, but I tend to believe those closest to the story who have A)A reputation for journalistic integrity seldom matched in this country, and B) No hidden agenda in possibly pre-determining the facts. Are these papers contributing to either party's campaign? No.

[#156 posted by Frank W , October 21, 2008 12:27 AM]

ACB @ #114:

re: the topic at hand, I think it was George Carlin who said “Picture the average American. Half of them are dumber than that.”

JimKirk @ #129

Carlin forgot to tell us that the dumber half won't trust someone who's smarter than they are with the finger on the red button.

This election cycle is all about the War on Reason. See Zan @ #40 for seven reasons not to vote for McCain. The alternative to Barack Obama is to hand the nation over to the theocrats right away, WMDs and all.

If your scenario would play out, at least the Wizard couldn't hide behind the curtain anymore.

[#157 posted by Beanolini , October 21, 2008 2:26 AM]

He turned me into a newt.






(I got better)

[#158 posted by ridl , October 21, 2008 2:41 AM]

I just read all of this. Every post. Why did I do that? Why am I even awake?

Um... Socialism! But also Anarchy! With Communist Democracy! And Occasional Fast Food! Obama! But really ¡Chavez! He's my favorite.

Is that off topic? He's supposed to hate freedom, too. Ask... um... every media outlet in this entire country... It'd be funnier if it was just wacko fliers on windshields and internets.

Seriously, though, kind of, anybody here every read the new Venezuelan constitution? It's really neat.

Am very happy this election is almost over. Hoping we'll get at least a week after Inauguration before the 2012 Primary candidates begin their campaigns.

/Doubleplushopechange to you all, my droogies. And goodnight.

[#159 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator , October 21, 2008 4:28 AM]

Goodnight, Ridl. Get some sleep.

SamF @151:

A world in which everything including the military is reduced to a private service that is traded and sold would result in the destruction of the nation and of society itself."

Obviously you missed the statement I made in the sentence after the one you quoted. The one where I said that the government should be in charge of a national military. That however does not preclude private police or military services.

It doesn't work, Sam. The necessary characteristic of police and military is that they can exert greater force than civilians. Introduce that, and you'll find that you've acquired bosses, not employees.

You'll also have given the rich and powerful the right to maintain private police or military forces (the distinction collapses) that aren't loyal to the general public good, and have no particular regard for you and your rights, beyond what you have the power to enforce at any given minute.

There's a reason why one of the constant themes in the development of Western civilization has been the movement away from private revenge and toward public law and justice; likewise the movement away from private force, and toward police and military forces that are supported by and answerable to the general public.

You look at the world around you, and imagine it would be better if you didn't have to pay for infrastructure and services that benefit others. You're mistaken. You are already the beneficiary of vast amounts of social good paid for by others. You're a fish, and it's the water you live in.

[#160 posted by andrewc167 , October 21, 2008 7:21 AM]

Did he really hang out with a terrorist?

[#161 posted by SamF , October 21, 2008 8:16 AM]

Ah. So you don't have insurance.

No, I do have insurance because current health care costs are artificially inflated due to the additional overhead of catering to insurane companies. If everyone paid for their own health care, almost everyone would end up paying less over their lifetime for health care.

Are we going to de-socialize education, too? Because I don't see why I should be paying for your kids to go to school. Funnily enough, if all of us who don't have children stopped paying into that money pit, your education costs would skyrocket.

As a matter of fact, I would LOVE to take the government out of the education business. They do an absolutely horrid job. Which is why my wife and I homeschool our kids. I would love to have that tax money back, too, so I can invest it in my OWN kids education, rather than everyone else's.

@TNH: I guess I'm just not explaining myself very well. I agree that the federal government is there to handle things like national defense, interstate commerce, and other major national infrastructure, as you said. My point was simply that having a national military does not mean that private security forces cannot exist as well. They do already. Large corporations cannot rely on the police to manage their internal security. Some military functions are handled by private military companies. Militias exist ostensibly with the idea that if our government ever becomes too corrupt or evil that the people have the power to take control back of the government (I personally believe that so long as we elect leaders who respect the constitution that they won't vote themselves enough power to do that, but that's another issue).

So yes, I do believe that government provides several essential services. I may disagree on what a lot of those services are, but certainly national defense, interstate commerce, arbitration of constitutional law issues, and a few other "big picture" items are on the list of must-haves.

I look at the world around me, and imagine it would be better if I didn't have to pay for infrastructure and services that benefit noone. I look at the world around me, and imagine it would be better if I didn't have to pay for infrastructure and services that benefit only the politicians. I look at the world around me, and imagine it would be better if I didn't have to pay for infrastructure and services that benefit only those in some distant locality. I look at the world around me, and imagine it would be better if I didn't have to pay for infrastructure and services that benefit people who are too lazy to work to pay for infrastructure and services that they could pay for themselves.

[#162 posted by gmr2048 , October 21, 2008 9:00 AM]

Coulda been worse, they coulda left a dead bear cub covered in Obama posters on her windshield:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/21/uselections2008-barackobama3

[#163 posted by Takuan , October 21, 2008 10:14 AM]

beat it, turfy.

[#164 posted by Antinous , October 21, 2008 10:46 AM]

SamF,

Every aspect of everyone's life is partially subsidized by government. That is the nature of our reality. What you are saying is that you want to keep the parts where someone else is subsidizing you and ditch the ones where you're subsidizing them. The answer is no. Pretending that we are not all completely interdependent is an adolescent fantasy.

[#165 posted by Phikus , October 21, 2008 10:48 AM]

GMR2048: I am shocked and stunned by your insensitivity at being snarky about an animal's life being taken in this act of... yes, terrorism. Whatever your political views are, to slaughter a poor bear cub and then take the opportunity to make this a statement about a political candidate shows the lowest nadir of human psychotic behavior.

So they've finally managed to set a new low in a political campaign. To be so cavalier in glorifying this insanity makes you almost as culpable as those who perpetrated this crime. It could always be worse, so what really is your point? What a sad sick fuck you must be.

[#166 posted by Takuan , October 21, 2008 11:11 AM]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/20/muslim-for-mccain-not-all_n_136324.html

[#167 posted by Phikus , October 21, 2008 11:44 AM]

TAKUAN: From your linked article:

Daniel Zubairi, a Muslim McCain grassroots organizer who told racist rally attendees in Woodbridge, Virginia that the campaign didn't "endorse that behavior," was for some reason not allowed to talk to CNN about the incident. [My italics added.]

What reason would that be? The McCain campaign is afraid to admit in a huge public way that they have a Muslim working for their campaign because they enjoy exploiting the ignorant racial hatred that is the only fuel left in their campaign, maybe?

Colin Powell was right about this one. What is wrong with being Muslim in this country that is supposed to be at the very least tolerant of all religions? And what the fuck is wrong with these people? It always amazes me how easily compelled people can be to hate one another, vehemently and blindly.

[#168 posted by Steaming Pile , October 21, 2008 12:45 PM]

@#57 - Seriously? The McCainanites have money to pay people to drop steaming turds on people's websites? That's gotta be a good gig if you can hold your lunch down.

[#169 posted by minTphresh , October 21, 2008 1:10 PM]

steaming pile, they have been doing it since his campain officially began. for those that'll do it for free, he offers something called "mccain points". i never got far enough into the site to determine exactly what those are...prolly nuttin to do with that spike on top of his dunce-cone of a head. oh, wait. that's palin. ( or is it?)

[#170 posted by Takuan , October 21, 2008 1:17 PM]

Astroturfing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the artificial grass, see AstroTurf.

Astroturfing in American English is a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising which seek to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf.

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual pushing a personal agenda or highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, non-profits, or activist organizations. Very often the efforts are conducted by political consultants who also specialize in opposition research.

[#171 posted by dlelash , October 21, 2008 1:19 PM]

"What did he say?"
"He said the President is near!"

[#172 posted by Takuan , October 21, 2008 1:21 PM]

and now for the laurel, and hearty handshake

[#173 posted by romulusnr , October 21, 2008 2:09 PM]

he's from Hawaii, which everyone knows isn't even a part of America

And for the record, the place McCain was born isn't, ...either. (Uh, ok, anymore.)

And the place Palin was born has the nation's largest secessionist group, one she is intimately familiar with.

[#174 posted by Phikus , October 21, 2008 2:41 PM]

The reason we have 50 states is because of the inclusion of Hawaii and Alaska, y'all. Look at a map sometime, willya?

[#175 posted by SamF , October 21, 2008 3:36 PM]

What you are saying is that you want to keep the parts where someone else is subsidizing you and ditch the ones where you're subsidizing them.

That is not what I'm saying at all. I want to ditch the ones where the government is subsidizing anything that is not strictly a federal matter. Non-interstate roads. Local parks. State museums. Roads to nowhere. I also want to get the government out of the business of protecting people from their own laziness and stupidity. Welfare, education, health care, retirement. These are all things that most of us can provide for ourselves.

And to be clear here, I'm talking about the federal government. As you go down the food chain, you get more granular. That's how the constitution was set up. Give the essential powers to the federal government. Let state governments enumerate their own powers. The rest of the power is in the hands of the people.

Government in general is a wasteful bloated entity that's mainly in service to itself. The further removed you are from each individual person, the more exagerated the bloating becomes.

[#176 posted by assumetehposition , October 21, 2008 4:57 PM]

See? Who says BoingBoing is biased!

[#177 posted by iveexa , October 21, 2008 5:04 PM]

"Learn the facts. Save America. Don't vote for Obama."

This message brought to you by advocates for double-digit IQ's ...

[#178 posted by Beanolini , October 22, 2008 1:47 AM]

Welfare, education, health care, retirement. These are all things that most of us can provide for ourselves.

And for those that can't at the time they need it? Just tell them to fuck off and starve/ remain uneducated/ die/ starve?

I can't believe you are suggesting that people should pay for education. As a non-parent and taxpayer, I have no problem with my taxes going towards someone else's education; anything that raises (however little) the general level of education has to be a good thing.

As the child of poor parents, I am extremely grateful for the state support of my education (up to PhD level). This contributed to my getting a well-paid job that now sees me paying taxes to allow other people to be educated in turn...

[#179 posted by SamF , October 22, 2008 8:14 AM]

You'd be surprised at how generous and resourceful people can be when their neighbors and community are in trouble. Welfare in this country used to be handled by charity. Now that the government does it, people don't feel the need as much.

And people pay for education all their lives, they just don't get much value for it. The reason there's such a low general level of education is because education and standardized testing is aimed at the lowest common denominator. If people had more choices than just federally-funded schools, a lot more kids would have better opportunities.

There are tons of kids right now who barely attend school, and whose parents don't even try to make them. And yet we still pay for a full education for them. And then we pay them welfare so that they don't have to face the consequences of their poor choices. Making a mistake is one thing. Deliberately making poor choices for your entire life and being rewarded for it is just insane.

If people didn't have close to 30% of their pay taken away from them every year in taxes, they would have more money to invest in their local school programs, and charity programs. And instead of having 30 cents of every education tax dollar going to a school, they could have 70 cents of every donated dollar going directly to the eduation of a child in their community. Or if their community is wealthy, they could donate to poor communities in the area.

People always assume that "the other guy" won't voluntarily give to some of these things to help out their neighbors, and so the government has to do it. But if there are enough people who vote for programs designed to help others, then you have a good start on a large base of people who would pay for them voluntarily if the government didn't take care of them. Instead of saying "something needs to be done, let's pass a law about it" they could say "something eneds to be done, let's do something about it."

But no, it's easier to complain how taxes hurt the poor while simultaneously voting for programs that require tax money to function. Programs that help people who don't really need it. Programs that a lot of time end up hurting the people they're designed to help.

Republicans claim to want to give you economic freedom at the cost of personal freedom. Democrats claim to want to give you personal freedom at the expense of economic freedom. I'm not sure why people have such a knee-jerk reaction against Libertarians who want people to have economic AND personal freedom. We want everyone to be fed, educated, healthy, and safe, too. We just don't think the federal government is efficient and effective enough to do those things.

[#180 posted by Cybercorrespondent , October 29, 2008 8:02 AM]

Qstnng th mrcn Blshvk vws
1. s wlth rdstrbtn tkng mny frm stckhldrs nd rdstrbtng t t ths wh dn’t py txs?
2. s t mr mprtnt t mk sr tht llgl vts r nt dsnfrnchsd r mkng sr tht grps lk CRN d nt nllfy hnst vts.
3. Wld prmtr .S. wthdrwl frm rq grnd jhdsts vctry nd mk ll f r ccmplshmnts, mny spnt nd lvs lst bg wst?
4. Cn ths cntry ffrd t grnt sclst Dmcrts ttl cntrl f th gvrnmnt nd llw thm t scrfc r sfty by cttng th mltry bdgt by 25%?
Nw cms th bg qstn. Hw d w stp sclsm frm rnng r lvs?
Th nswr s smpl. Dn’t vt mrcn Blshvks nt pwr nd byctt th sclst prpgnd md nt bnkrptcy.
http://www.ytb.cm/wtch?v=vjvBKrGkD
Cybrcrrspndnt
[e-mail]
http://cybrcrrspndnt.blgspt.cm

[#181 posted by Takuan , October 29, 2008 8:44 AM]

remember the Peace Corps? Maybe America needs to send significant numbers of young people abroad to other countries and see how they do it.

[#182 posted by FoetusNail , October 29, 2008 9:22 AM]

Cybercorrespondent

No, wealth redistribution is taking money from taxpayers and giving it to corporations who have proven they can't manage their investments.

ACORN, hmm, anyone who still thinks anything of the ACORN non-issue is spreading lies upon lies. Wasn't McCain recorded voicing his support of ACORN among others?

A big waist, maybe you should have paid more attention in that socialist reegamacation school you attended, I'm hopin' you didn't pay for that spelin' class. But to your foolishness, leave Iraq, we will never leave Iraq, even Obama doesn't believe that BS, Camp Anaconda will be there until the last drop of oil is out of the ground.

Can America afford what? I'll have two of whatever your drinking. The publicans had almost total control for 6 years and where are we? We went from projected budget surpluses to borderline bankruptcy and dragged the whole world economy down with us. Well done, burnt to a crisp.

You are without doubt a delusional poorly educated propaganda eating fool if you believe anything you are writing. Though I suspect you are doing the same most publicans are doing about now, trying to find reasons to justify the disaster your last two ?victories? have visited upon America. It must be hard facing the truth that you sold your country down the drain to criminalize abortion and stop gay marriages.

[#183 posted by Takuan , October 29, 2008 10:10 AM]

abortion and gay marriage? Wait till you see the Bush Legacy New War. Oh yes, it's coming. And everyone outside the USA won't know or care that Obama didn't start it. Obama will have to deal with it though. My money is on Iran. Though Syria and Pakistan have already been attacked and no American seems to know it.

[#184 posted by FoetusNail , October 29, 2008 10:22 AM]

Don't you just love all the talk of the rule of law, while we violate sovereign borders.

BTW, did you ever hear from ROSSINDETROIT?

[#185 posted by Takuan , October 29, 2008 10:24 AM]

not yet; Rossindetroit, where are you? Are the duckies OK?

[#186 posted by Anonymous , November 3, 2008 3:26 PM]

Ok listen, I am tired of Obama supporters denying the truth. Just because Obama doesn't say this himself and McCain is horrible at speaking it is not posted in the news. But Obama's record shows that he does want to distribute the wealth and all of the other things too. So take some time and actually look some of this up.

[#187 posted by Antinous , November 3, 2008 3:43 PM]

Moderator note:

I approved Anonymous @186 because it's so blindly certain of its view that it doesn't occur to the commenter that Senator Obama's supporters would cheer it.