Can someone please explain the differences between Obama and McCain?

[NorCal510]

No essay... just some bullet points... I don't know enough and would like to know who I would prefer.

Thanks

[Don Quixote]

Long story short ...

McCain is a war hero and an unquestioned patriot. Obama has questionable associations, and his best friends hate America -- they think it's racist, bigoted, homophobe, etc. I don't think Obama goes quite this far, but it's still a marked contrast.

McCain wants to pretty much keep taxes where they are. Obama wants to raise them.

McCain is more likely to aggressively prosecute the war on radical Islam. Obama is likely to end it.

McCain is pro-life, Obama is pro-abortion.

McCain is more likely to appoint conservative judges (like Roberts, Alito, Bork). Obama will certainly appoint liberals. This is especially important because federal judges do not run for their offices, and hold it until they retire. These positions are very powerful.

McCain is more likely to try to curb "pork" and excess government spending, although Republicans are not particularly strong here. Obama will certainly continue giving existing entitlements, and search for more. If you think our government isn't big enough, then Obama might be the guy for you.

So that's the real short version of it. McCain is a moderate Republican, conservative in a few areas, but certainly not the conservative standard-bearer in the mold of Reagan or Goldwater. Obama, for all his talk about "change," is really an old-school liberal. If that's what you are, then Obama sounds like your man. They both believe in global warming, cap-and-trade, etc.

[Don Quixote]

Full disclosure: I am a conservative who will vote for McCain. I'm not exactly a "McCain supporter," but he'll get my vote.

I think this is actually the biggest difference between the 2. Obama has run his campaign largely around this theme of "hope" and "change." Many (but not all) of his followers certainly think he is the Second Coming! Vote for him, and the government will ensure peace, safety, prosperity for everyone. His followers see in him the realization of every imaginable hope.

Conservatives know better -- we tend to feel insulted when any candidate makes such promises. I know I do.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Nice Quixote, the kid asks you if you can give him a straight bullet point break down of the differences between the two, and you can't bring yourself to be unbiased for even one post. The only difference between you and boutons is the profanity... think about that

[Don Quixote]

I tried to be unbiased. By all means, you try.

[PEP]

One's a democrat and the other is a far left liberal.

[boutons_]

Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating is essentially identical to dubya and the disastrous, intentional Repug fuckups of the past 7 years.

In fact, as Old John, whose military experience of 35 years ago has fuckall to with being president (as we see with dubya), moves more into mainstream Repugancy is losing his supporters of decades who stuck with him because he wasn't mainstream Repugancy, while the mainstream Repugs, as Old John's mom said, will support him while holding their noses. Repug candidates will crash and burn, penniless from huge deficit in contributions, along with Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating.

Obama won't be able get all his changes done, but a lot of that will be from being badly hamstrung by the legacy of dubya's fuckups, and obstructionism of the tiny minorities in both houses come Jan 2009 (as we saw with the GI bill and other Repug obstructionism).

Obama will win, decisively, much more decisively than dubya in 2000/2004, precisely because he is at least the non-dubya, the non-Repug. Obama is the ABR, anything but Repug, anything but more of dubya, and that's more than sufficient to win.

All rejoicing aside, what platforms candidates have has very little impact on what they accomplish in office. Was the Iraq-war-for-oil, or even fighting terrrorism, front and center plank in the dubya 2000 platform? fuck no, but it was the Repugs/neo-c*nts primary, overriding objective in taking office.

[jochhejaam]

Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating ... dubya ... disastrous, intentional Repug fuckups
Old John, ... fuckall ... dubya), ... Repugancy ...Repugancy, ... Repugs, as Old John's ... holding their noses. Repug ... will crash and burn, penniless ... Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating.
... dubya's fuckups, ... obstructionism ...Repug obstructionism).
non-dubya, the non-Repug. Repug,


I'm sure that was helpful.

[Trainwreck2100]

-One's a Black Guy
-One's a White guy

[jochhejaam]

Long story short ...

McCain is a war hero and an unquestioned patriot. Obama has questionable associations, and his best friends hate America -- they think it's racist, bigoted, homophobe, etc. I don't think Obama goes quite this far, but it's still a marked contrast.

McCain wants to pretty much keep taxes where they are. Obama wants to raise them.

McCain is more likely to aggressively prosecute the war on radical Islam. Obama is likely to end it.

McCain is pro-life, Obama is pro-abortion.

McCain is more likely to appoint conservative judges (like Roberts, Alito, Bork). Obama will certainly appoint liberals. This is especially important because federal judges do not run for their offices, and hold it until they retire. These positions are very powerful.

McCain is more likely to try to curb "pork" and excess government spending, although Republicans are not particularly strong here. Obama will certainly continue giving existing entitlements, and search for more. If you think our government isn't big enough, then Obama might be the guy for you.

So that's the real short version of it. McCain is a moderate Republican, conservative in a few areas, but certainly not the conservative standard-bearer in the mold of Reagan or Goldwater. Obama, for all his talk about "change," is really an old-school liberal. If that's what you are, then Obama sounds like your man. They both believe in global warming, cap-and-trade, etc.

In a nutshell. I don't see any innaccuracies there.

[NorCal510]

Thanks guys

Can i get the pro obama side of the story now?

[ChumpDumper]

He's a Muslim sleeper agent who wants to establish a caliphate with Jeremiah Wright as Imam.

[Mr. Peabody]

Long story short ...

McCain is a war hero and an unquestioned patriot. Obama has questionable associations, and his best friends hate America -- they think it's racist, bigoted, homophobe, etc. I don't think Obama goes quite this far, but it's still a marked contrast.

Right. McCain has absolutely no "questionable" associations. I guess he's never had to distance himself from people with whom he's associated.:rolleyes

Also, I like how all of a sudden Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers are Obama's "best friends." Also, nice way of trying to minimize your intellectually dishonest statement there at the end.:toast


McCain wants to pretty much keep taxes where they are. Obama wants to raise them.

Again, a gross oversimplification. Obama would raise taxes on individuals making over $250k. Your taxes would remain the same if you make between $75k and $250K. If you make less than $75k, you would see a tax cut.



McCain is more likely to aggressively prosecute the war on radical Islam. Obama is likely to end it.

If by "aggressively prosecute" you mean continuing the war in Iraq, then you are correct. Obama would begin to withdraw troops from Iraq after becoming president.


McCain is pro-life, Obama is pro-abortion.

I don't know that anyone is "pro-abortion" but I guess that's how talk radio taught you to phrase things.

Obama is against overturning Roe v. Wade. McCain has stated that he is pro-life, but also against overturning Roe v. Wade.


McCain is more likely to appoint conservative judges (like Roberts, Alito, Bork). Obama will certainly appoint liberals. This is especially important because federal judges do not run for their offices, and hold it until they retire. These positions are very powerful.

No doubt both candidates would make appointments in line with their respective philosophies.


McCain is more likely to try to curb "pork" and excess government spending, although Republicans are not particularly strong here. Obama will certainly continue giving existing entitlements, and search for more. If you think our government isn't big enough, then Obama might be the guy for you.

I know McCain speaks out fervently on pork, but I don't know his own record on spending and earmarks.

I know Obama passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online.

I also know that Obama revealed his own earmarks for public scrutiny.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama on Thursday revealed the 113 budget items he has requested in the Senate — known as "pet projects" or "pork" in the language of budget reform — and challenged his fellow presidential candidates to do the same.

Obama's more than $300 million in earmark requests range from $33 million made along with other senators for a nationwide project to promote civics among students to $125,000 to add turn lanes and traffic lights at an intersection in rural Oregon, Ill.

"As a matter of transparency and good government, Obama thinks it's important that voters know who their candidates are, what their sources of income are and whether they have any potential conflicts," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We would hope that other candidates follow suit in disclosing their earmarks as well."



So that's the real short version of it. McCain is a moderate Republican, conservative in a few areas, but certainly not the conservative standard-bearer in the mold of Reagan or Goldwater. Obama, for all his talk about "change," is really an old-school liberal. If that's what you are, then Obama sounds like your man. They both believe in global warming, cap-and-trade, etc.

That was a very...umm...thoughtful analysis.:rolleyes:toast:rolleyes

[Mr. Peabody]

No essay... just some bullet points... I don't know enough and would like to know who I would prefer.

Thanks

Here are some highlights from a recent Reuters article.


"On the two big-ticket issues, they couldn't be farther apart," said Dan Schnur, a California-based Republican consultant and a McCain aide during his 2000 presidential bid.

McCain was a prominent and ardent supporter of the decision to invade Iraq and vows to keep U.S. troops there until the war is won. He recently said 2013 was a reasonable date for achieving that goal and ending U.S. involvement.

Obama, an Illinois senator, was an early opponent of the war who has promised to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

The chasm is similar on taxes. McCain supports extending President George W. Bush's cuts and cutting corporate tax rates, while Obama would let Bush's cuts expire for wealthy Americans -- those making more than $250,000 annually -- and raise capital gains tax rates, another item that normally affects primarily high-income earners.

The two already have clashed over Obama's opposition to McCain's idea of a summer holiday from the federal gasoline tax. Obama called it a political stunt that would provide little help, while McCain said the idea could give a slight boost to struggling families seeking a vacation.

The two candidates have sharply different approaches to health care reform, which consistently ranks as the second-biggest domestic issue after the economy in national opinion polls.

McCain would use tax credits to help shift from employer-based insurance coverage to an open market system where people can choose from competing policies.

Obama would keep the existing job-based system and expand government involvement. He supports universal health coverage for the 47 million Americans without insurance, although he would only require coverage for children.

[NorCal510]

thank you mr peabody that was really helpful

[Don Quixote]

Well, my intention wasn't to write a long essay. As requested by the OP, I did a quick bullet-point analysis of the candidates. And I fully disclosed my endorsement of McCain.

As for calling him "pro-abortion," fine, have it your way. He's radically pro-choice.

Second, by all means, bring up McCain's questionable associations. I'd love to hear them. If it's the Parsley/Hagee thing, I don't think that qualifies -- they're hardly close to McCain. They're certainly not associated with him the way that Ayers/Wright/etc. are associated with Obama. And before anyone accuses me of being a right-wing scaremonger, I am more than willing to give the Anointed One the benefit of the doubt here. But if you're not bothered with the black liberation theology preached at Obama's longtime church (which is not representative of the black church in general), then good for you. But it bothers me.

Lastly, if anyone honestly believes that President Barry will aggressively go after the terrorists overseas, and take the necessary steps to protect us here (e.g., secure the border, a coherent and comprehensive immigration policy, and the Patriot Act or something like it), then I applaud your faith in him. I think McCain would be much tougher on terror.

[Wild Cobra]

How about explaining it this way.

McCain is a leftist.

Obama is so far to the left, he's fallen off!

[Don Quixote]

I wouldn't say McCain is a leftist. He is certainly a compromiser when it comes to political ideology, but he's not really a lefty either.

Obama, though, most certainly is. And I'm fine with him running as a liberal, BTW. He ought to be upfront and honest about what he believes. I'd welcome it.

[balli]

The only thing McCain is a compromiser about is what he formerly believed in. These days he's completely flip-flopped from where he was 4+ years ago and considering his tax plan for those making $250,000+, his stance on the war, his stance on healthcare and his empty promises to make government smaller, I'd say he's not only a conservative, but rather a broken man pandering to the most dangerous neo-conservative wing of the Republican party.

I don't know what that makes him other than a schill to crazy ideologues, but to classify him as a leftist is idiotic.

[xrayzebra]

I wouldn't say McCain is a leftist. He is certainly a compromiser when it comes to political ideology, but he's not really a lefty either.

Obama, though, most certainly is. And I'm fine with him running as a liberal, BTW. He ought to be upfront and honest about what he believes. I'd welcome it.

I don't think he is capable of being honest about much of anything. When called on any of his "agenda" he backs off and changes his position or friends. He is a party hack made in the Daly Democractic party machine. Pure and simple.

[boutons_]

"He ought to be upfront and honest about what he believes"

dubya/dickhead/Repugs/neo-c*nts were NOT upfront in 2000 about their primary commitment to invade Iraq, but you're surely OK with that.

[Don Quixote]

I dunno. I think Barry is fairly honest about who and what he is. Moreso than the Clintons anyway. He's had to dance a bit after being held to task for his associations, but overall the public has learned enough about the man to (potentially) make an informed judgement. I am skeptical that his radical leftism will get him elected, though.

[johnsmith]

Is it just me or is it damn near impossible to make sense of anything Boutons posts at this point?

[MannyIsGod]

I dunno. I think Barry is fairly honest about who and what he is. Moreso than the Clintons anyway. He's had to dance a bit after being held to task for his associations, but overall the public has learned enough about the man to (potentially) make an informed judgement. I am skeptical that his radical leftism will get him elected, though.

Man, when Obama is a "radical lefist" I really wonder how far from extremes we've come.

Seriously, radical lefist eh?

Crazy.

[Don Quixote]

You don't think he's a far lefty? Maybe not boutons-lefty, but he's pretty far left. He shouldn't run from it, though. He should embrace it. He ought to rock it.

[AZLouis]

McCain helped write and voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:

Obama opposed it and voted against it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BIylNUkmvo

There is one example of the differences twixt McCain and Obama.

More recently you can research the GI Bill and the gas tax issue.

Or you can read http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm This has a decent summarization of their stances on issues and their voting record.

[MannyIsGod]

You don't think he's a far lefty? Maybe not boutons-lefty, but he's pretty far left. He shouldn't run from it, though. He should embrace it. He ought to rock it.

He's liberal within American politics but he's no where near a radical anything much less leftist.

Barak is also more conservative (in the true sense of the word - not the stupid current political usage of it) than McCain in many ways - especially socially.

You could never construe him as a far leftist in any true political sense. Maybe in the way our media discusses things, but our media's classifications are so far from the true political usage of liberal and conservative its not even funny.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif

[jochhejaam]

He's liberal within American politics but he's no where near a radical anything much less leftist.

Barak is also more conservative (in the true sense of the word - not the stupid current political usage of it) than McCain in many ways - especially socially.

You could never construe him as a far leftist in any true political sense. Maybe in the way our media discusses things, but our media's classifications are so far from the true political usage of liberal and conservative its not even funny.


Conservative and Liberal don't always carry the same meaning in other Countries, but Barack and McCain live in America, so it would be absurd to label them by anything other than that which is defined by American standards.

And yes, he is a left-leaning Liberal according to American definitions of Left and Liberal.


Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/?loc=interstitialskip

[NorCal510]

lol @ my knowledge seeking thread turning into a flame war

[JoeChalupa]

lol @ my knowledge seeking thread turning into a flame war

You know you are the shit when it comes to making classic threads. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Conservative and Liberal don't always carry the same meaning in other Countries, but Barack and McCain live in America, so it would be absurd to label them by anything other than that which is defined by American standards.

And yes, he is a left-leaning Liberal according to American definitions of Left and Liberal.


Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/?loc=interstitialskip

And none of that makes him a "radical leftist" as I said above. Context is a beautiful thing. I never said he wasn't a "left leaning" liberal. (that really should go in the no shit column) I said he wasn't a radical leftist.

[jochhejaam]

Context is a beautiful thing. I never said he wasn't a "left leaning" liberal.

Sure you did


He's liberal within American politics but he's no where near a radical anything much less leftist.

and we'll move on to this;


Definitions of leftist on the Web:

believing in or supporting tenets of the political left
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:leftist&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Context my arse

[spurster]

Who would increase the deficit more? McCain.

Who would continue our torture the enemy policy? McCain.

Who would continue our spy on America policy? McCain.

Who would nominate more Supreme Court justices to deny habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial, and the right to vote? McCain.

Who would stay in Iraq indefinitely? McCain.

[ChumpDumper]

I saw Obama give a terrorist fist jab to Rachel Ray.

[Supergirl]

Check out the facts:
McCain is far more intelligent than Bush, but when it comes down to it, he has voted EXACTLY the same as he has something like 98% of the time. So if you think the war in Iraq is going along splendidly (no exit strategy in sight, increased terrorism in the region since it began, massively in debt as a result) - well, by all means vote for him.

Also, if you don't value things like freedom of expression, freedom to dissent, and freedom from government interference in your daily life - by all means, vote for McCain. Because he has shown no signs of slowing down the fascist shift this country has taken since Bush took office.

Obama is a fairly moderate Democrat. So is Clinton, by the way. McCain talks like a moderate Republican but votes the party line, which for the past 10 years has meant voting the way the corporations and evangelical Christians want him to vote. When those two entities conflict, the corporations usually win.

[cajunspur]

Check out the facts:
McCain is far more intelligent than Bush, but when it comes down to it, he has voted EXACTLY the same as he has something like 98% of the time. So if you think the war in Iraq is going along splendidly (no exit strategy in sight, increased terrorism in the region since it began, massively in debt as a result) - well, by all means vote for him.

Also, if you don't value things like freedom of expression, freedom to dissent, and freedom from government interference in your daily life - by all means, vote for McCain. Because he has shown no signs of slowing down the fascist shift this country has taken since Bush took office.

Obama is a fairly moderate Democrat. So is Clinton, by the way. McCain talks like a moderate Republican but votes the party line, which for the past 10 years has meant voting the way the corporations and evangelical Christians want him to vote. When those two entities conflict, the corporations usually win.

How has the government interfered in your daily life? Have you not been able to express yourself in the past 8 years? I have said whatever the hell I want and I am free. The government has not interfered with me, besides taking money from me in taxes. Fascist? are you serious? First you make terrible points about basketball, now politics. Please stick to discussing cooking and cleaning like I told you before.

Obama has the most liberal voting record of all Democrats. There is an articled above discussing. He is not moderate at all.McCain has gone across party lines to write up some bills. I don't always agree with them, but he has done it.

Please answer my first couple of questions

[xrayzebra]

okay.
Obama is a dimm-o-crap and
McCan is a RINO=Rublican in name only.

The media loves Obama because he is an activist, liberal,
dimm-o-crap.

They used to like McCain because he went against the grain of the Pubs. BUT!.

But now McCain is running against one their own, the medias, folks so he is the enemy.

Now you want the rest of the story, Google it. Or just try using your simple, wasted brain.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama is a journalist?

[Supergirl]

How has the government interfered in your daily life? Have you not been able to express yourself in the past 8 years? I have said whatever the hell I want and I am free. The government has not interfered with me, besides taking money from me in taxes. Fascist? are you serious? First you make terrible points about basketball, now politics. Please stick to discussing cooking and cleaning like I told you before.

Obama has the most liberal voting record of all Democrats. There is an articled above discussing. He is not moderate at all.McCain has gone across party lines to write up some bills. I don't always agree with them, but he has done it.

Please answer my first couple of questions

You know, when you reduce yourself to making sexist remarks, you simply look like an ignorant ass. If you'd like to actually have an intelligent discussion, please let me know and show up looking intelligently.

But for the education of anyone else who might actually be trying to do this:
The Patriot Act has done tremendous damage to our country - that is what I am referring to. "Fascist shift" is a cautious term I am using (borrowed from Naomi Wolf's book The End of America) to describe the slow erosion of democracy in this country. In it, she outlines the 10 ways in which the very tenets of democracy our founding fathers painstakingly put in place are being chipped away. Our democracy is being closed down, little by little. Is there time to reverse this? Yes. But it takes a lot more work to keep a democracy open than it does to shut it down. And most of the fascist or authoritarian regimes of the 20th century WERE ELECTED DEMOCRATICALLY. That includes Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and many of the Latin American dictators.

Wolf's list, by the way:
1. Invoking an internal or external threat
2. Setting up secret prisons outside the rule of law
3. Develop a paramilitary force
4. Survey ordinary citizens
5. Infiltrate citizens groups
6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
7. Target key individuals
8. Restrict the press
9. Cast criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"
10. Subvert the rule of law

She goes on to explain in fairly thorough but conservative ways how America has started down the path of each of these, but has the potential to reverse this trend.

[MannyIsGod]

Sure you did



and we'll move on to this;



Context my arse

Ugh whatever. Thanks for your wonderful contributions to this thread. I say one thing - you come and say NO THATS NOT RIGHT THIS IS when not even denying what I said.

Nice.

[MannyIsGod]

You know, when you reduce yourself to making sexist remarks, you simply look like an ignorant ass. If you'd like to actually have an intelligent discussion, please let me know and show up looking intelligently.

But for the education of anyone else who might actually be trying to do this:
The Patriot Act has done tremendous damage to our country - that is what I am referring to. "Fascist shift" is a cautious term I am using (borrowed from Naomi Wolf's book The End of America) to describe the slow erosion of democracy in this country. In it, she outlines the 10 ways in which the very tenets of democracy our founding fathers painstakingly put in place are being chipped away. Our democracy is being closed down, little by little. Is there time to reverse this? Yes. But it takes a lot more work to keep a democracy open than it does to shut it down. And most of the fascist or authoritarian regimes of the 20th century WERE ELECTED DEMOCRATICALLY. That includes Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and many of the Latin American dictators.

Wolf's list, by the way:
1. Invoking an internal or external threat
2. Setting up secret prisons outside the rule of law
3. Develop a paramilitary force
4. Survey ordinary citizens
5. Infiltrate citizens groups
6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
7. Target key individuals
8. Restrict the press
9. Cast criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"
10. Subvert the rule of law

She goes on to explain in fairly thorough but conservative ways how America has started down the path of each of these, but has the potential to reverse this trend.

You're better off ignoring the kid.

[xrayzebra]

You know, when you reduce yourself to making sexist remarks, you simply look like an ignorant ass. If you'd like to actually have an intelligent discussion, please let me know and show up looking intelligently.

But for the education of anyone else who might actually be trying to do this:
The Patriot Act has done tremendous damage to our country - that is what I am referring to. "Fascist shift" is a cautious term I am using (borrowed from Naomi Wolf's book The End of America) to describe the slow erosion of democracy in this country. In it, she outlines the 10 ways in which the very tenets of democracy our founding fathers painstakingly put in place are being chipped away. Our democracy is being closed down, little by little. Is there time to reverse this? Yes. But it takes a lot more work to keep a democracy open than it does to shut it down. And most of the fascist or authoritarian regimes of the 20th century WERE ELECTED DEMOCRATICALLY. That includes Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and many of the Latin American dictators.

Wolf's list, by the way:
1. Invoking an internal or external threat
2. Setting up secret prisons outside the rule of law
3. Develop a paramilitary force
4. Survey ordinary citizens
5. Infiltrate citizens groups
6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
7. Target key individuals
8. Restrict the press
9. Cast criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"
10. Subvert the rule of law

She goes on to explain in fairly thorough but conservative ways how America has started down the path of each of these, but has the potential to reverse this trend.

Supergirl. Study a little history and come back and talk to me. okay?

[cajunspur]

You know, when you reduce yourself to making sexist remarks, you simply look like an ignorant ass. If you'd like to actually have an intelligent discussion, please let me know and show up looking intelligently.

But for the education of anyone else who might actually be trying to do this:
The Patriot Act has done tremendous damage to our country - that is what I am referring to. "Fascist shift" is a cautious term I am using (borrowed from Naomi Wolf's book The End of America) to describe the slow erosion of democracy in this country. In it, she outlines the 10 ways in which the very tenets of democracy our founding fathers painstakingly put in place are being chipped away. Our democracy is being closed down, little by little. Is there time to reverse this? Yes. But it takes a lot more work to keep a democracy open than it does to shut it down. And most of the fascist or authoritarian regimes of the 20th century WERE ELECTED DEMOCRATICALLY. That includes Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and many of the Latin American dictators.

Wolf's list, by the way:
1. Invoking an internal or external threat
2. Setting up secret prisons outside the rule of law
3. Develop a paramilitary force
4. Survey ordinary citizens
5. Infiltrate citizens groups
6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
7. Target key individuals
8. Restrict the press
9. Cast criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"
10. Subvert the rule of law

She goes on to explain in fairly thorough but conservative ways how America has started down the path of each of these, but has the potential to reverse this trend.

You didn't answer my 2 questions which were "How has the government interfered in your daily life? Have you not been able to express yourself in the past 8 years?" Please answer those. I know you won't. You will probably copy someone elses points again just like you do when you try to talk basketball. I am wearing a polo with a nice pair of slacks, so I would say I have shown up to this discussion looking intelligent.

[cajunspur]

You're better off ignoring the kid.

Probably so. Otherwise you will get embarrassed like Mannyisgod

[MannyIsGod]

Probably so. Otherwise you will get embarrassed like Mannyisgod

Wut

[cajunspur]

Wut

You are doing it to yourself now. Keep flipping that camera off. Go tell some Chuck Norris jokes, and rick roll someone.

[Ignignokt]

Manny is lactating, leave him alone.

[Ignignokt]

Hows Obama for change?

awnsers, it's been 20000 threads allready and no awnsers.

Change does not mean adopting every platform from liberal interest groups in the party.

What kind of third rail issue is Obama taking?

None.

Move on Twats.

Obama is not for Change, but for Rehashing Socialist policies.


End of story.

[Mr. Peabody]

Hows Obama for change?

awnsers, it's been 20000 threads allready and no awnsers.

Change does not mean adopting every platform from liberal interest groups in the party.

What kind of third rail issue is Obama taking?


Well, recently, his attempt to bring evangelicals into the Democratic Party has ruffled the feathers of the progressives.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Evangelical_biographer_warms_to_Obama.html

His stance on Pakistan is contrary to the passives in the party.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1925

His refusal to accept money from lobbyists and PACs has angered traditional Democratic Party insiders

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/10/politics/politico/main4167551.shtml

Those are just some examples....

[braeden0613]

One's a democrat and the other is a far left liberal.
I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

[braeden0613]

And by the way, Mccain's statement that giving those accused at Gitmo an actual trial was one of the "worst decisions in history" should keep anyone that's read the Constitution from voting Mccain.

[Ignignokt]

His refusal to accept money from lobbyists and PACs has angered traditional Democratic Party insiders


Those are just some examples....

By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | August 9, 2007

Using campaign appearances, e-mails to supporters, and Iowa TV ads, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly reminded voters that his presidential campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, casting his decision as a noble departure from the ways of Washington.

He hit the theme hard again in Tuesday's Democratic debate in Chicago as he sought to capitalize on rival Hillary Clinton's remark last weekend that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans."

"The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."

But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that after seeing the influence of lobbyists firsthand during his two years in Washington, Obama decided before he entered the presidential race that he would take a different approach to fund-raising than he had in the past.

"He's leading by example and taking steps that he feels need to be taken on the national stage to clean up the undue influence of Washington lobbyists on the policies and priorities of Washington," Psaki said. "His leadership on this issue is an evolving process."

Psaki said Obama believes that healthcare lobbyists have blocked progress toward universal health coverage, and that oil company lobbyists have blocked badly needed changes to America's energy policies.

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.

"If you're running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean," said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. "While he's getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he's really got to be careful."

From the day he entered the presidential race, Obama has projected an outside-the-Beltway persona, positioning himself as the Washington change agent that Americans are pining for. Last week, his campaign began running a new TV spot in Iowa, in which the narrator says, "He's leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today."

In the Democrats' previous debate, on July 23, Obama was unequivocal when challenged by former Alaska senator Mike Gravel about who his donors were.

"Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money," Obama said, touting his work on an ethics reform bill that just passed Congress. "That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States."

And on June 25, right before the second quarter ended, Obama sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to contribute to his campaign to make up for the lack of special-interest money.

"Candidates typically spend a week like this -- right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline -- on the phone day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks," the e-mail said. "Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees."

Obama's main Democratic target on the issue of lobbyist and PAC contributions has been Clinton, whom Obama has been working to paint as a figurehead for the broken politics of Washington. Through June, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton had collected $413,000 from lobbyists and $533,000 from PACs -- leading all 2008 presidential contenders in both categories. Clinton has also raised about $3 million from PACs and $400,000 from lobbyists for her Senate campaigns, according to the group.

Clinton's campaign declined to comment.

Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Iowa, said Obama, given his record of raising special-interest money throughout his political career, was taking a "gamble" in holding himself up as a beacon of purity.

"He probably will be hurt if he's put in a position where he's trying to draw very fine distinctions between his present campaign and his past behavior," Squire said.

Obama's campaign is relying almost exclusively on an unprecedented network of grass-roots donors and activists -- nearly 260,000 of them had given him money through June alone.

And some good-government activists say that, past fund-raising practices aside, Obama has genuinely been a champion for ethics and campaign reform, both in the Illinois Legislature and in Congress.

"On the one hand, sure, he rose to power as many people do in this town, which is to raise money from the people who have the money," said Gary Kalman, of the advocacy group US PIRG.

At the same time, he added, Obama has championed public financing for elections and he fought hard to pass the federal ethics reform bill.

Scott Helman can be reached at [email protected].

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

[Ignignokt]

And by the way, Mccain's statement that giving those accused at Gitmo an actual trial was one of the "worst decisions in history" should keep anyone that's read the Constitution from voting Mccain.

Where does the constitution allow constitutional protection for foreign fighters.

No president in the past from Washington to Lincoln and Clinton practiced that.

RIF.

[Mr. Peabody]

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.



The funny thing is that my donations and my former colleagues' donations count toward that figure. And we weren't solicited by his campaign for donations (I can't say the same for his Republican counterparts), we were just intrigued by his campaign.

Hell, I also volunteered for his campaign, so he got my money and time.

[braeden0613]

Where does the constitution allow constitutional protection for foreign fighters.

No president in the past from Washington to Lincoln and Clinton practiced that.

RIF.
All that stuff about due process and a jury trial just flew over your head i suppose. We cant even give that to american citizens (see jose padilla).

[Supergirl]

Supergirl. Study a little history and come back and talk to me. okay?

I suspect I've studied more history than most people on this forum. I read history for fun, and my dad is a history teacher who has been teaching me history all my life.

[cajunspur]

I suspect I've studied more history than most people on this forum. I read history for fun, and my dad is a history teacher who has been teaching me history all my life.

Are you going to answer my question?

[NorCal510]

...I don't understand this politic language...

[Wild Cobra]

"One's a democrat and the other is a far left liberal."


I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

Agreed. I often call McCain a RINO. I once said his idea of working across the isle is working with republicans.

[Wild Cobra]

I suspect I've studied more history than most people on this forum. I read history for fun, and my dad is a history teacher who has been teaching me history all my life.
He must be one
of the U of I instructors. (University of Indoctrination)

[Ignignokt]

All that stuff about due process and a jury trial just flew over your head i suppose. We cant even give that to american citizens (see jose padilla).

were does it say it applies to foreigners. If the past presidents saw it your way they would of practiced it as you implied. Taking prisoners of war to court, that's idiotic and even Jefferson would have laughed your ass off.

Don't act coy.

You know very damn well in which those cases apply to.

[Don Quixote]

Shoot, we're giving enemy combatants, terrorists who want to vaporize us and destroy our civilization, a Bill of Rights. Brilliant.

I don't want to hear again how the US is racist, bigoted, or unjust against its people. We are so compassionate -- we are evidently going out of our way to be fair to these terrorists. If anything, we're being too nice to them.

[jochhejaam]

Ugh whatever. Thanks for your wonderful contributions to this thread. I say one thing - you come and say NO THATS NOT RIGHT THIS IS when not even denying what I said.

Nice.

Uhg/Wut

Sorry MIG, but you don't get Carte Blanche on this board anymore than anyone else does. You posted that Obama was "no where near leftist", a fallacious statement indeed, and you were taken to task for attempting to foist it off as fact.
Pay attention to what you post, or bone up on the political leanings of Obama, and quit whining (or continue whining if you wish).

[AZLouis]

I suspect I've studied more history than most people on this forum. I read history for fun, and my dad is a history teacher who has been teaching me history all my life.

My dad is a cop and he teaches me investigative techniques, I like Law and Order, and I read lots of true crime.

Guess that makes an amateur detective! :downspin:

[Supergirl]

"Just as habeas corpus, or some equivalent procedure, is the cornerstone of virtually every democracy, so a secret prison system without habeas corpus is the cornerstone of every dictatorship...without the real threat of such a secret prison system, citizens speak up, activists are forceful, and democracy is stubborn." (The End of America, pg 46)

She goes on to elaborate how it is not that Guantanamo is currently at the same level as the Gulag under Stalin or the early prisons for Communists and Social Democrats in Germany - but the precedent is setting the stage. For now, we *THINK* that Guantanamo is holding suspected terrorists. But then why not hold them and prosecute them under our judicial system? Why hold them where no rule of law exists and no accountability exists? It sets a precedent for the possibility that eventually, anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" (a vague term made up by the Bush administration with no real definition) could be held in these prisons, which could mean anyone who expresses dissent.

Are we there yet? No. But our democracy is slowly being eroded to set the stage for this to occur.

[cajunspur]

"Just as habeas corpus, or some equivalent procedure, is the cornerstone of virtually every democracy, so a secret prison system without habeas corpus is the cornerstone of every dictatorship...without the real threat of such a secret prison system, citizens speak up, activists are forceful, and democracy is stubborn." (The End of America, pg 46)

She goes on to elaborate how it is not that Guantanamo is currently at the same level as the Gulag under Stalin or the early prisons for Communists and Social Democrats in Germany - but the precedent is setting the stage. For now, we *THINK* that Guantanamo is holding suspected terrorists. But then why not hold them and prosecute them under our judicial system? Why hold them where no rule of law exists and no accountability exists? It sets a precedent for the possibility that eventually, anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" (a vague term made up by the Bush administration with no real definition) could be held in these prisons, which could mean anyone who expresses dissent.

Are we there yet? No. But our democracy is slowly being eroded to set the stage for this to occur.

So you can agree with me that the government has not interfered in your daily life in the past 8 years, and you have been able to express yourself any way you would like?

[ElNono]

So you can agree with me that the government has not interfered in your daily life in the past 8 years, and you have been able to express yourself any way you would like?

Have you tried arguing with a TSA employee in an airport? Have you ever tried to tell a bomb joke on an airport?

[Supergirl]

So you can agree with me that the government has not interfered in your daily life in the past 8 years, and you have been able to express yourself any way you would like?

I think that your question is a little too vague. "Interfered" with my daily life? Well, yes and no.

But my point about is not really about me - I am deeply concerned about the shift in this country. Bush has expanded the powers of the president in dangerous ways, in ways our founding fathers were concerned about when this country was created. They were much more aware of the potential for an executive to seize power than Americans are today, because we have had 200 years or so of democracy.

With the expansion of powers Bush has given the office of the president through things like the Patriot Act, our democracy is weakened, and therefore vulnerable to a dictator seizing power in the future. I am not sure Bush fully understands the implications of the things he has done while in office, so I am certainly not saying he had any intentions to become a dictator. But he has weakened our democracy and made it vulnerable.

As far as how personally I feel affected by this - well, let's just say that there are several reasons why I fear I would be one of the first to be targeted if we had a hostile takeover of our government in the future. I'm Jewish, I support workers' rights, I support women's rights, I can't help but speak my opinions even if they aren't popular. All these things have made people targets in less open societies in the past.

[DarkReign]

Shoot, we're giving enemy combatants, terrorists who want to vaporize us and destroy our civilization, a Bill of Rights. Brilliant.

I don't want to hear again how the US is racist, bigoted, or unjust against its people. We are so compassionate -- we are evidently going out of our way to be fair to these terrorists. If anything, we're being too nice to them.

While I understand the argument you make, talking out of two sides of your mouth is never an effective strategy.

We cant invade a country under a (multi-revised) pretense of "bringing freedom" only to subvert such a notion in our own backyard.

[Ignignokt]

"Just as habeas corpus, or some equivalent procedure, is the cornerstone of virtually every democracy, so a secret prison system without habeas corpus is the cornerstone of every dictatorship...without the real threat of such a secret prison system, citizens speak up, activists are forceful, and democracy is stubborn." (The End of America, pg 46)

She goes on to elaborate how it is not that Guantanamo is currently at the same level as the Gulag under Stalin or the early prisons for Communists and Social Democrats in Germany - but the precedent is setting the stage. For now, we *THINK* that Guantanamo is holding suspected terrorists. But then why not hold them and prosecute them under our judicial system? Why hold them where no rule of law exists and no accountability exists? It sets a precedent for the possibility that eventually, anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" (a vague term made up by the Bush administration with no real definition) could be held in these prisons, which could mean anyone who expresses dissent.

Are we there yet? No. But our democracy is slowly being eroded to set the stage for this to occur.

Clinton expanded the use of extradition and secret prisons in his administration, i'm not blaming him.

Guantanamo is holding enemy combatants on the battlefield. THe Constitution still protects citizens, John walker lind went to court.


It is clear that the law protects private citizens, no need to create conspiracy theories.

You want to secure your rights, define the word enemy in the law, don't erase a vital tool in our war.

[Ignignokt]

While I understand the argument you make, talking out of two sides of your mouth is never an effective strategy.

We cant invade a country under a (multi-revised) pretense of "bringing freedom" only to subvert such a notion in our own backyard.

I guess lincoln, FDR, Jackson, Polk, even Washington all were tyrants with the way they handled POW's.

[cajunspur]

I think that your question is a little too vague. "Interfered" with my daily life? Well, yes and no.

But my point about is not really about me - I am deeply concerned about the shift in this country. Bush has expanded the powers of the president in dangerous ways, in ways our founding fathers were concerned about when this country was created. They were much more aware of the potential for an executive to seize power than Americans are today, because we have had 200 years or so of democracy.

With the expansion of powers Bush has given the office of the president through things like the Patriot Act, our democracy is weakened, and therefore vulnerable to a dictator seizing power in the future. I am not sure Bush fully understands the implications of the things he has done while in office, so I am certainly not saying he had any intentions to become a dictator. But he has weakened our democracy and made it vulnerable.

As far as how personally I feel affected by this - well, let's just say that there are several reasons why I fear I would be one of the first to be targeted if we had a hostile takeover of our government in the future. I'm Jewish, I support workers' rights, I support women's rights, I can't help but speak my opinions even if they aren't popular. All these things have made people targets in less open societies in the past.

haha so you really think there is a possible hostile takeover of the government? You are way more wacky than I thought. I am fine with the patriot act. As long as there are no more terrorist attacks, they can have stricter policies at the airport, listen to suspected terrorists phone calls, etc...People are trying to act like the US government is big brother which is ridiculous.

So once again you can agree with me that you have not personally been affected in the past 8 years of government? I understand that since you are a jewish womens are workers rights supporter that you are scared for a hostile takeover which is pretty funny. But up to know you havent been affected.

[Extra Stout]

why go to the trouble of a formal coup when you can just take over both parties and continue having sham elections?

[bobbybob0]

You don't think he's a far lefty? Maybe not boutons-lefty, but he's pretty far left. He shouldn't run from it, though. He should embrace it. He ought to rock it.

You've really lost tracks of what a leftist is, even more a "far-leftist".

There's a world between democrat-socialism and communism.

Oboma would be centrist leaning to the left in Europe.

[MannyIsGod]

Uhg/Wut

Sorry MIG, but you don't get Carte Blanche on this board anymore than anyone else does. You posted that Obama was "no where near leftist", a fallacious statement indeed, and you were taken to task for attempting to foist it off as fact.
Pay attention to what you post, or bone up on the political leanings of Obama, and quit whining (or continue whining if you wish).

He's not leftist. He's only leftist if you look at politics in a narrow sphere and whether or not the majority of Americans fall into that sphere does not dictate what the entire spectrum of political beliefs in.

You want to "take me to task" based on a semantics argument when you know exactly what I'm saying and what my point is.

[Spuradicator]

What is scary about Obama is his lack of experience for me.

[AZLouis]

What is scary about Obama is his lack of experience for me.


Actually, I think my experience is my greatest strength. I don't have some of the traditional experience of folks in Washington, although I would put my record here in Washington next to my competitors'. But I think my work as a community organizer, as a civil rights attorney, as somebody who taught constitutional law for 10 years, and as a state legislator provides me with insights into solving problems at the federal level and at the local level and at the neighborhood level that I think is what's needed right now."

Articles that discuss Obama's experience factor.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/16/politics/main3720763.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3720763

http://aunk.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/22/1317945-obama-has-more-government-experience-than-clinton
(informal rundown of sponsored bills)

[DarkReign]

I guess lincoln, FDR, Jackson, Polk, even Washington all were tyrants with the way they handled POW's.

No, I dont. Not when you take into account the era they lived/reigned in and the circumstances of their wars and vice versa of our current era and circumstances of war.

Can we not agree (at least I hope we can) that the value of human life has grown immensely in the past century? I know it isnt like that in all the world (one example, when Saudis build a new pipeline, there is a line item to account for the human deaths associated with said project...it isnt a small number, China, etc) but damnit if it isnt in the West, especially America.

We are better because we have the will and resources to be better. Better than our enemies, better than our competition, better in every facet of human life. We have that potential, even in the midst of war (if thats what you want to call the War on Dru...I mean, War on Terror).

Jackson/Washington were slave owners. Commonplace back then. Not so much anymore. The battlefields of then were bloodbaths. One step above swords+shields. Honorable, sure. Deadly for a soldier doesnt begin explain the nature of being a commander then.

"Ah, yes, mere infantry - poor beggars..."
-Plautus

More to the point, I never accused Bush/Cheney/the Army/America of being "tyrants with the way they handled POW's". I simply say, if we are to portray ourselves as better and above then we should be such things we purport.

[boutons_]

"What is scary about Obama is his lack of experience for me."

HUSSEIN! has succeeded better and longer in many more areas than dubya has or ever will. Is dubya scary for you?

[T Park]

Is "dubya" running for president in 08?

[JoeChalupa]

Is "dubya" running for president in 08?

Yes, but under the name of "John McCain".