[unreality]

It's fast approaching! Discuss, vote, etc

Edited September 14, 2008 by unreality

[unreality]

Yeah McCain is clearly more passionate about the war overseas, but I think Obama has a lot of good merit too

[Guest]

i think that they both have some good points if i had my way though i would put mccain for foreign policy and obama domestic policy. thats just me though.

I can see that. I don't disagree with Obama across the board - he actually made a few good arguments last night that I was in agreement with. However, a few good arguments isn't enough for the President of the most powerful nation in the world to stand on. The US needs a LEADER not a spokesman.

[Guest]

yea i agree, obama is all talk from his liberal advisors, he was invited to dinner at the white house with mccain and President Bush and he argued with them about somehting they were not even talking about, back tracked, said something stupid and whinned about it all so everyone left... goes to tell you that obama is just a black guy, if mccain was black the election would have been over in the primaries, or hillary would have been the democratic canidate

Edited September 27, 2008 by DaGriller

[Guest]

I have to admit I didn't watch most of the debate, though I did just read the transcript, but McCain's insistence on "winning" the war in Iraq annoys me. That's nothing more than a talking point as what constitutes "winning" at this point in the game? We went in under false pretenses and then botched the job in its earliest days and now we have to "win"? What does that even mean?

I'm trying to think of an analogy for the situation, but the best I can come up with now is a game with a pipe that has many forks in the path like this:

			__W

	   __/

	 /	\__

__/

	\	   __W

	  \__/

		   \__

You have water flowing through these pipes, so you can only go in one direction and at each fork, you have to make a choice as to which path to take and some will lead to a win condition and others won't. You don't necessarily know which paths lead to win conditions, but you have to try to make educated guesses. We have already made a lot of very poor choices in Iraq thanks to the likes of L. Paul Bremer and the other neoCon hacks, who effectively squandered all of the good will of the rest of the world for our predicament and now I don't know if "winning" is even possible by any definition I know. The best we can do (as I see it) is to repeat Vietnam and declare victory as we withdraw...

I know I sound really pessimistic, but when you make a series of irrevocable, bad decisions, sometimes all of the good solutions disappear. If someone could find a way to win in Iraq, I'd be all for it, but I think we're too far down all of the wrong pipes to find that path now. If anyone is going to talk about winning at this point, he needs to explain what that means and how we'll do it. "We'll stay until we win" is not an effective solution, and that's what McCain seems to say to me every time he talks about the war. Yes, a stable democracy in Iraq would be ideal, but there has never been a form of government like that anywhere in the region and there is such a degree of mistrust among the different groups and sects, that a true democracy or republic may not be feasible in the current atmosphere. There needs to be some sort of reconciliation between the sides before peace can be truly possible and I don't see that happening in the near future. For democracy to work there needs to be some trust between the inhabitants and we can't expect people who have fought and feared each other for centuries to just overcome their differences overnight.

I know that there are a lot of reasonable people trying to tear down those walls of fear and hatred, but in order for that to happen, people are going to have to be willing to be in it for the long haul and I don't think that the American people are up to it, that the military has the numbers to protect our country and maintain peace in Iraq and Afghanistan (and wherever else way may end up... ) and we have to ask, "how much are we really helping?" There are a lot of people in Iraq who view our presence there as an occupational force and would be much happier to see us leave.

All of these things need to be weighed and considered when making a policy around Iraq and just saying "we're going to win" is no better than standing in front of a banner that says "Mission Accomplished." It would also help if McCain knew the difference between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, and it isn't at all clear that he does since Lieberman has had to remind him in the past...Obama's more nuanced responses regarding the war seem to indicate to me that he understands some of these issues, while all McCain says on the subject is "I am war hero, vote for me because I understand war." President Grant was an excellent general, but a terrible president, so one does not guarantee the other. Obama seems to be looking at things through a "global lens" and trying to see how all of the pieces fit together and which pieces are the most important to fit together now and which need to be set aside to be reexamined.

I've taken far too long writing this and I probably should revise this a lot, but that is how I see things at this point and I don't see how McCain is going to fix things. I think that Obama is a leader, not just a spokesman and McCain seems much more like the sort of "decider" that the world doesn't need right now...

[Guest]

this election is not for the world!, it is for the USA. All i hear from Obama is change, change, change. If i was to hear him talk without a script already written out for him, he would mess up and do the typical liberal steps:

1 open mouth

2 say something stupid

3 backtrack

4 deny you said it

5 blame the republicans

6 repeat step one

Obama is not a leader, he is an image not a leader, Mccain is a leader, personally he was not the best choice for the republicans. Mit Romney should have won the republican primaries, but McCain has more experience than Obama by far. IF Obama wins the election and the congress and senate stays liberal, then the country will turn into socialism and we are done for; 3 new judicial spots are opening up also , i believe 2 republicans and 1 democrat are resigning and i heard Hillary might be appointed to one of the spots if Obama is elected... So think about his election before u go with a fad and vote for Obama

[itachi-san]

I saw the debate and felt Obama made a better presentation (though I don't agree with his stances) on the economy, but fell short of McCain on Foreign issues by a long shot. McCain made a bunch of mistakes in the beginning by not refuting a bunch of what Obama said. IE, Obama always wants to throw money at our educational system, this has proven time and again to not be the answer. Money does not fix bad teachers, bad curriculum, or poor societal trends that lean heavily toward school violence and nonattendance. Part of the answer is to reward good teachers based on National standardized tests for each grade and fire bad teachers. Obama even went so far to say that funding the very young takes precedence over this current economic disaster (it would be a plan that he wouldn't give up due to current problems in budget). Not only will throwing money at schools be ineffective, he won't give it up and keep spending taxpayer money in addition to all this other spending.

McCain also didn't refute how taxing the top 5% of people, and cutting taxes for the other 95% makes no sense on a number of levels. For one, there are a ton of people in that 95% who don't pay taxes to begin with, so where do they factor in? Two, taxing the top 5% will not add up to the hundreds of billions of dollars Obama wants the govt. to have for the programs he is proposing, so where is the difference going to come from? Three, Obama will raise capital gains taxes and business taxes and if people think that these taxes won't effect every citizen, they are wrong. The costs of goods will skyrocket and consumers will eventually pay the price tag on all these taxes. The wealthy will remain wealthy and everyone will struggle along with the economy because product prices will no doubt skyrocket and people won't be inclined to buy stocks. High CEO and business taxes equals less jobs and less pay for the people Obama is supposedly fighting for.

On the foreign front, I thought McCain made Obama look like a real newbie. This is when I finally thought McCain started doing a good job. At first I said to the people around me "Wow, Obama is slaughtering McCain in this debate", but when the debate hit foreign affairs I thought it really turned around and Obama just said all the things he had been prepping to say for the last few weeks, which I had already known anyway. When McCain talked about Russia and specifically the Ukraine, Obama clearly had no idea what he was talking about and immediately changed the subject. I thought that was funny.

One other thing is that Obama doesn't show respect. Say what you will about McCain or Bush, when a politician doesn't show those positions respect it is a bad thing for us all. About half the time Obama called McCain, John, and at least twice actaully got his name wrong and called him Tim and Jim lolz. Also he said George Bush, not President Bush. Even when a President leaves office they should be addressed as President, especially by our own politicians. It demeans our nation to not do so and these debates are seen world-wide. Since Obama says we have such a poor image to the rest of the world (which I think is gradually getting better, but of course he won't say that), why is he going out of his way to make it look even worse? I guarantee McCain never called him Barrack in that debate. Presidents need to behave with maturity and respect and I don't see that coming from Obama.

Overall I'd say the debate came across as 50/50. I was disappointed in both of them at times, but of course, for different reasons.

[Guest]

I think the only reason Obama is popular right now is because of the media which make President Bush look like an idiot, but he really isn't and people want to vote democrat now. I will bet anything that half the people in the USA have no idea what Obama is for except he is anti President Bush and they have no idea what Presiden Bush has done except the war and they do not know what is going on in the war anyways. That is the main reason Obama is so popular besides the fact that he is black, if he was white he would not have won the primaries!

I am not worried about the debates right now because most of America has made up their minds, but I know Obama is going to mess up again in the next two debates and the media will keep silent on it just like they have about Obama's step brother in Kenya who lives off a dollar a month and the Republicans are going to send him money and Obama is still not helping him. I am looking forward to see the vice presidential debates because that is the place that America will decide over. I guarentee that there will be horrible pictures of McCain and Palin and the best pictures of Obama and Biden after the debates.

[Guest]

One other thing is that Obama doesn't show respect. Say what you will about McCain or Bush, when a politician doesn't show those positions respect it is a bad thing for us all. About half the time Obama called McCain, John, and at least twice actaully got his name wrong and called him Tim and Jim lolz. Also he said George Bush, not President Bush. Even when a President leaves office they should be addressed as President, especially by our own politicians. It demeans our nation to not do so and these debates are seen world-wide. Since Obama says we have such a poor image to the rest of the world (which I think is gradually getting better, but of course he won't say that), why is he going out of his way to make it look even worse? I guarantee McCain never called him Barrack in that debate. Presidents need to behave with maturity and respect and I don't see that coming from Obama.

Overall I'd say the debate came across as 50/50. I was disappointed in both of them at times, but of course, for different reasons.

well I think that is all minor. If we want to talk manners then I was annoyed that McCain was cutting Obama off over and over.

I agreed in most of what Obama said. I didnt agree with McCain or McLiar at all. But I think that McCain did better because he lied his a** off!

[Guest]

One other thing is that Obama doesn't show respect. Say what you will about McCain or Bush, when a politician doesn't show those positions respect it is a bad thing for us all. About half the time Obama called McCain, John, and at least twice actaully got his name wrong and called him Tim and Jim lolz. Also he said George Bush, not President Bush. Even when a President leaves office they should be addressed as President, especially by our own politicians. It demeans our nation to not do so and these debates are seen world-wide. Since Obama says we have such a poor image to the rest of the world (which I think is gradually getting better, but of course he won't say that), why is he going out of his way to make it look even worse? I guarantee McCain never called him Barrack in that debate. Presidents need to behave with maturity and respect and I don't see that coming from Obama.

Overall I'd say the debate came across as 50/50. I was disappointed in both of them at times, but of course, for different reasons.

well I think that is all minor. If we want to talk manners then I was annoyed that McCain was cutting Obama off over and over.

I agreed in most of what Obama said. I didnt agree with McCain or McLiar at all. But I think that McCain did better because he lied his a** off!

[itachi-san]

well I think that is all minor. If we want to talk manners then I was annoyed that McCain was cutting Obama off over and over.

I agreed in most of what Obama said. I didnt agree with McCain or McLiar at all. But I think that McCain did better because he lied his a** off!

It's not minor though. Obama claims to be this great unifier. How's he going to "reach across the aisle" and make friends with republicans if he doesn't even show them respect. The truth is that that was a lie. Obama is going to make a very liberal administration and not reach out them. He's shown no sign of being a unifier within the country. And what about foreign affairs? Will he sit down with Putin and call him Vlad?

Also, I'd love to hear specific examples of McCain lying. Campaign ads don't count because they both have been filled with lies and are made by a group of people working within the campaign, not by the candidates themselves. So I'd like for you (or anyone) to name something McCain has said that has been a lie. I don't think he'll make the greatest President, but I don't see him as a liar. I do however see Obama as a liar and a worse Presidential choice.

[unreality]

On a different note, what do you think of that Palin wolf-hunting controversy? Being the governor of Alaska she should want to perserve Alaska's unique wildlife, not painfully slaughter them

And Itachi, before you jump to answer, think for a bit. I know you're a Palin supporter, but an open mind is better than a quick response (or so the saying goes - the saying I just made up ;D hehe. I'm a modern Ben Franklin! ). You don't need to justify her actions, unless my news is wrong, but just tell me what you think about it (that goes to everyone). I'm curious about all the highly conflicted opinions on Sarah Palin

and on ANOTHER note, my vandal has struck again Anyone mind giving this 5*? hehe

[itachi-san]

On a different note, what do you think of that Palin wolf-hunting controversy? Being the governor of Alaska she should want to perserve Alaska's unique wildlife, not painfully slaughter them

And Itachi, before you jump to answer, think for a bit. I know you're a Palin supporter, but an open mind is better than a quick response (or so the saying goes - the saying I just made up ;D hehe. I'm a modern Ben Franklin! ). You don't need to justify her actions, unless my news is wrong, but just tell me what you think about it (that goes to everyone). I'm curious about all the highly conflicted opinions on Sarah Palin

and on ANOTHER note, my vandal has struck again Anyone mind giving this 5*? hehe

Just because we don't agree on politics, doesn't mean I'm thoughtless <_<

0) one thing I've noticed from my own experience is that the people voting liberal this election are much more mean-spirited about this issue. NBC fired Olberman and Mathews from their shows because their hatred was so obvious viewers couldn't stand it. I've seen people like Sean Hannity talk. Hannity is a die-hard Republican, but he never wishes harm on people. There are always liberal articles saying how much they want McCain or Bush to die. Things of that nature. I haven't seen anything like that come from conservative writers. If there is, please show me. This is a very ugly election and I can't wait for it to just be over now. I'm just hoping whoever gets elected does the right things, but it's hard to trust that either will.

1) don't worry about the stars. this clearly isn't a 1 * topic. It's an important discussion and has generated a lot of responses

2) i don't agree with the killing of the wolves, but to think she goes out of her way to painfully slaughter them is silly. The whole idea is based on a stupid environmentalist ideal to keep species in check. I say, let nature be. If a species goes extinct, it goes extinct. That's been happening well before we evolved.

3) on another note: pretty much everything environmentalists do now-a-days is just silly and detrimental in my book.

4) and on another note: how can I argue with a modern-day Ben Franklin?

5) furthermore: there is an alternative to the 700 B$ Bailout NBC's version This article struck me as funny because NBC is very liberal. They once again make the thoughtful Republicans look like fools in this matter when the Bailout was actually a horrible, socialistic idea. In addition to that, the Democrats could have passed the bailout themselves, but they don't want to be the only ones voting for it because they know it's a failure. Wow, I'm so fed-up with our govt.

[Mekal]

5) furthermore: there is an alternative to the 700 B$ Bailout NBC's version This article struck me as funny because NBC is very liberal. They once again make the thoughtful Republicans look like fools in this matter when the Bailout was actually a horrible, socialistic idea. In addition to that, the Democrats could have passed the bailout themselves, but they don't want to be the only ones voting for it because they know it's a failure. Wow, I'm so fed-up with our govt.

Ya, as of now, the canidents are mainly just pulling each other down. What is really getting on my nerves is that by the time we get to the election, the canidents will be so exploited that their private lives will never be private again! Some democratic senator's son already hacked into Sarah Palins email, and it was her personal G-Mail!!! That is why i would never run for president... to have all of my secrets exposed... it makes me shiver...

But about the bailout... I think that it's BOTH partys fault. That isn't an issue that can only be 1 partys doings...

[unreality]

Itachi, I never said you were thoughtless I just wanted your opinion on the matter

And to say everything environmentalists do is silly/detrimental is a pretty wide statement. I care about the environment, and just cuz "species go extinct" is no excuse to not try and prevent that from happening. When our societies die, we don't leave behind our political systems - we leave behind our Earth (yes I just made that up. Like I said, modern Ben Franklin ;D I'm signing autographs tomorrow, be there )

[itachi-san]

Itachi, I never said you were thoughtless I just wanted your opinion on the matter

And to say everything environmentalists do is silly/detrimental is a pretty wide statement. I care about the environment, and just cuz "species go extinct" is no excuse to not try and prevent that from happening. When our societies die, we don't leave behind our political systems - we leave behind our Earth (yes I just made that up. Like I said, modern Ben Franklin ;D I'm signing autographs tomorrow, be there )

I believe in keeping the Earth as clean as we can. I believe in environmentalism, it's just the lobbying environmentalists that I don't believe in there's a lot of things they do that block important legislature. One big thing though is Global Warming aka manbearpig. The sun causes most of it because it's getting hotter. Sure we should make sure everything we do is clean, but to put the blame on the US and then use that for political expedience is unacceptable. Then there's the Anwar drilling issue, which I find hard to believe is even an issue, and there's the nuclear issue which is also rediculous. The US will not become energy independent if we don't start using nuclear power. There's a ton of issues I don't agree with environmentalists on.

Also, Palin is dropping in my esteem. I saw her recent interviews with katey Kurich and they were bad. Palin couldn't name one thing McCain had fought for reform on. It's not that he hasn't, he has, but she couldn't name any? As VP she should know all about her running mate and his past deeds.

And then she was asked to name a controversial decision that the Supreme Court made and she couldn't even name one. How can a Gov. of any state (or any politician) not be able to name a controversial SC ruling? I can name a few without even thinking too hard. Her lack of knowledge is totally unacceptable to me.

So I contrast this with Biden think FDR went on television to talk about the stock market crash in 1929 and Obama saying he visited 57 states and had 2 more to go and I get 3 rejects...

Also, McCain totally blew it on the Bailout. He should have stuck to his guns and changed the whole bill with the alternative insurance plan. But instead he caved, looked weak, and showed up to the debate after he said he wouldn't. He lost a lot of credibility with me too. Some Maverick ...make that 4 rejects. If he had played his cards right with this bailout, I think he would have been a shoo-in for Pres. now I think Obama's got it wrapped up. It's all very discouraging. I just hope the winner can overcome this despicable election and do some good.

[Guest]

So I contrast this with Biden think FDR went on television to talk about the stock market crash in 1929 and Obama saying he visited 57 states and had 2 more to go and I get 3 rejects...

Itachi please tell where you saw this. I want to see it.

[Guest]

So I contrast this with Biden think FDR went on television to talk about the stock market crash in 1929 and Obama saying he visited 57 states and had 2 more to go and I get 3 rejects...

Itachi please tell where you saw this. I want to see it.

I saw the Biden/FDR thing on The Daily Show.

EDIT: That is to say, they played the clip.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Alyanna

[Guest]

So I contrast this with Biden think FDR went on television to talk about the stock market crash in 1929 and Obama saying he visited 57 states and had 2 more to go and I get 3 rejects...

Itachi please tell where you saw this. I want to see it.

Google, "biden fdr" and "obama 57 states". You Tube and news articles pop up.

[Guest]

One other thing is that Obama doesn't show respect. Say what you will about McCain or Bush, when a politician doesn't show those positions respect it is a bad thing for us all. About half the time Obama called McCain, John, and at least twice actaully got his name wrong and called him Tim and Jim lolz. Also he said George Bush, not President Bush. Even when a President leaves office they should be addressed as President, especially by our own politicians. It demeans our nation to not do so and these debates are seen world-wide. Since Obama says we have such a poor image to the rest of the world (which I think is gradually getting better, but of course he won't say that), why is he going out of his way to make it look even worse? I guarantee McCain never called him Barrack in that debate. Presidents need to behave with maturity and respect and I don't see that coming from Obama.

Overall I'd say the debate came across as 50/50. I was disappointed in both of them at times, but of course, for different reasons.

I've been MIA here for much of the last week--had a project deadline, but that's over with now, so I have some breathing room. As such, I want to dig up this slightly older post that I think is unfair. Now, I'll start by saying that I didn't watch the debate, but I did read the transcript and early in the debate, Obama was referring to "Senator McCain" and then "John" when Jim Lehrer interrupted him with this exchange:

LEHRER: Say it directly to him.

OBAMA: I do not think that they are.

LEHRER: Say it directly to him.

OBAMA: Well, the -- John, 10 days ago, you said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. And...

MCCAIN: Are you afraid I couldn't hear him?

LEHRER: I'm just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I'm going to try.

Jim Lehrer was trying to get them to have a gentleman's discussion, and considering that they have been in the Senate together for two years, I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that they would be on a first name basis in private. So, I don't see that as a sign of disrespect on Obama's part. As for Obama calling John "Jim," I'm not sure to which part of the debate you're referring, but the moderator's name was Jim Lehrer, and Obama often spoke directly to him. You also mentioned that Obama called McCain "Tim." I didn't read that anywhere in the transcript, but there was this one point where he accidently called John McCain, "Tom," but that was because he was trying to refer to Tom Coburn.

Obama: ...Tom -- or John mentioned me being wildly liberal. Mostly that's just me opposing George Bush's wrong headed policies since I've been in Congress but I think it is that it is also important to recognize I work with Tom Coburn, the most conservative, one of the most conservative Republicans who John already mentioned to set up what we call a Google for government saying we'll list every dollar of federal spending to make sure that the taxpayer can take a look and see who, in fact, is promoting some of these spending projects that John's been railing about.

One that I have heard that seems disrespectful to me is the fact that Senator John McCain, never once looked at Obama during the entire debate. If it's not disrespectful, then it's at least pretty odd. Especially with the moderator trying to get them to talk to each other and Obama tried to work with that, but McCain never even looked at his opponent the entire time. I've always heard that it's important to make eye contact with the person you are speaking to. In any case, I don't really see respect being an issue in the debate.

I can't answer to Obama calling Bush "George Bush" or whatever and not using "President," but that doesn't bother me very much because I don't feel that he's ever earned the title. Just being sworn in is hardly sufficient in my book--you have to win an election first --and then do something that actually shows leadership. "President" Bush has hardly done anything that is actually worthy of being called presidential as I see it and I think that he and his cronies all should have been impeached years ago, but the Republican congress never would have taken done one of their own, and the Democrats are too afraid to rock the boat. Of course, to compound the issue, Kucinich presented some of the worst Articles of Impeachment for Dick Cheney that I've ever seen the first time around. I've heard that the new ones are better, though I haven't read them, and of course that's a nonissue as Pelosi has made it very clear that such actions are not on the table. I know that Nixon got to be called President Nixon, despite being forced to resign and I know that Nero will always be a Caesar of Rome, but when a person screws up the job badly, why reward them with a title they don't deserve? Sorry about the Bush bashing, but I really couldn't help it. His presidency has been dragging on far too long and I've felt that he didn't belong there from the get go so I'm getting anxious for the door to hit him on the way out.

[itachi-san]

So I contrast this with Biden think FDR went on television to talk about the stock market crash in 1929 and Obama saying he visited 57 states and had 2 more to go and I get 3 rejects...

Itachi please tell where you saw this. I want to see it.

[unreality]

He obviously meant 47, with 1 more to go to, then Alaska and Hawaii off limits (2 more). While he said 57+1+2 = 60, he meant 47+1+2 = 50. I personally don't care if a candidate slips up their speech every now and then, of course they're going to. But if he actually thought there was 57 states, that would be really bad But the numbers fit so perfectly that if he pronounced "forty" as "fifty" instead, I find it hard to believe he actually thought there was 60 states

[TwoaDay]

even though i cant vote i still try to follow politics

and what i've found oout is i hate them

people can back up their opinions and i dont want to argue

obama ftw

political shirts are awsome

VP debate is on tonight!!!!!

[Guest]

Is there anybody who can misspeak like George W. can?

[Guest]

I've been MIA here for much of the last week--had a project deadline, but that's over with now, so I have some breathing room. As such, I want to dig up this slightly older post that I think is unfair. Now, I'll start by saying that I didn't watch the debate, but I did read the transcript and early in the debate, Obama was referring to "Senator McCain" and then "John" when Jim Lehrer interrupted him with this exchange:

Jim Lehrer was trying to get them to have a gentleman's discussion, and considering that they have been in the Senate together for two years, I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that they would be on a first name basis in private. So, I don't see that as a sign of disrespect on Obama's part. As for Obama calling John "Jim," I'm not sure to which part of the debate you're referring, but the moderator's name was Jim Lehrer, and Obama often spoke directly to him. You also mentioned that Obama called McCain "Tim." I didn't read that anywhere in the transcript, but there was this one point where he accidently called John McCain, "Tom," but that was because he was trying to refer to Tom Coburn.

One that I have heard that seems disrespectful to me is the fact that Senator John McCain, never once looked at Obama during the entire debate. If it's not disrespectful, then it's at least pretty odd. Especially with the moderator trying to get them to talk to each other and Obama tried to work with that, but McCain never even looked at his opponent the entire time. I've always heard that it's important to make eye contact with the person you are speaking to. In any case, I don't really see respect being an issue in the debate.

I can't answer to Obama calling Bush "George Bush" or whatever and not using "President," but that doesn't bother me very much because I don't feel that he's ever earned the title. Just being sworn in is hardly sufficient in my book--you have to win an election first --and then do something that actually shows leadership. "President" Bush has hardly done anything that is actually worthy of being called presidential as I see it and I think that he and his cronies all should have been impeached years ago, but the Republican congress never would have taken done one of their own, and the Democrats are too afraid to rock the boat. Of course, to compound the issue, Kucinich presented some of the worst Articles of Impeachment for Dick Cheney that I've ever seen the first time around. I've heard that the new ones are better, though I haven't read them, and of course that's a nonissue as Pelosi has made it very clear that such actions are not on the table. I know that Nixon got to be called President Nixon, despite being forced to resign and I know that Nero will always be a Caesar of Rome, but when a person screws up the job badly, why reward them with a title they don't deserve? Sorry about the Bush bashing, but I really couldn't help it. His presidency has been dragging on far too long and I've felt that he didn't belong there from the get go so I'm getting anxious for the door to hit him on the way out.

Thank you for these points. I agree. I never have thought of George as a president, much less mine. There is some crazy scary stuff going on.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Is a good site to see what I am talking about. It has the list and data to back it up.

If you dont want to click on the link then the following may be helpful.

14 POINTS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

Does any of this sound familiar? As America sinks deeper and deeper into corporate greed will this country continue to be a democracy by the people and for the people or will it be ruled by the few? Will the trinity of money, power and greed over come one of the greatest countries in the world? Only we, the people, can keep it free.

SPEAK OUT AND LET YOUR THOUGHTS BE KNOWN...ONLY BY SILENCE WILL WE BE DEFEATED!

I realize this is long...sorry but I edited it is much as I could w/o making it useless.

Edited October 2, 2008 by crazypainter

[itachi-san]

Is there anybody who can misspeak like George W. can?

No. Bush is the worst public speaker ever. I don't particularly like using sound bites as incriminating evidence, because they all must be exhausted, which is another reason to shorten this extremely long and painful election process. I'm just throwing more fuel in the fire. Biden's comment was pretty bad though; it was obvious he was thinking clearly. He's made a few crazy/inaccurate comments, but they have been overshadowed by Palin's.