sweetheart-mine

dale, while i think obama is the better choice for the environment, the economy, and national security, and will make this a better country for your kids to grow up in, it is specifically his vision of the ways in which we need to work with the rest of the world that i think holds the most promise and is most important. i talked about this in a post about a month ago, which i'm copying and pasting here (slightly edited). sorry for the length! :

. . . mccain's downfall is that he sees most everything through a militaristic vision, a path of destruction and forceful control. even just as an end unto itself, and where does this lead? mccain's view makes him a real throwback in my eyes, and devoid of possibilities for a future world powered mainly by diplomacy and devoid of possibilities for long-lasting communications (even though they might never be complete agreements). no matter what the fallback means are (and they are usually militaristic), if continual, focused, all-out-effort diplomacy -- along with firm stances but without immediate last-resort invasions and bombs -- fails, then i think the world fails, we fail ourselves and others. not only are we no longer a beacon in the world, we are becoming its waterloo. and so i think we must try, much harder than until now, to keep at it and to persuade others of the future that lies there. otherwise, what future, for anyone? mccain keeps saying "country first," but what about "world first"? "country first" is not going to cut it in the long run; we've been doing that for quite a while now, and all it has brought is isolation and well-earned fear of others.

i don't understand when people don't put mass violence as only a last resort in their "arsenal." if we end up with a president, as we have now, who is eager to stick our sword in middle-eastern ground in this superficial and extremely prideful way, i think that if bush is not our last president, mccain may well be. the same sword-first people handle and advise them both. it would be like watching what we are supposedly (told we are) fighting for in iraq swirl right down our own drain. it's crazy.

who has the larger vision to see beyond the very old crap and to think and look ahead while leading? clearly it's barack obama. you know, i Really Don't Like politicians, but yet another one will be our next president, and i hope it's the one who sees the world through a broader lens and can conceive of many roads to peace, not only the bomb-them-out path. because that's a vicious circle. my friends . . .

wow. all that time i spent watching victoria jackson, i thought she was only acting like a crazy. just . . . wow.

Last night, as I was watching CNN's news feature called, Poll of Polls, there was a commercial for an upcoming news segment about Purity Balls. I thought I was watching SNL there for a moment.

happy birthday, bjorn, from a post admirer! have a great day.

Thanks for posting this - I really enjoyed.

that was a really fun read. thanks from me too. i noticed that louie back then predicted half the democratic ticket this year and the other half came oh so close. kind of amazing.

Nixon? I think one would have to argue that Nixon started it all with the EPA. Who knows if it was done mostly because Nixon wanted to actually do something before "accidentally" undermining his presidency, or because the Democrats strong-armed him into doing it, but he did it. Ironically, Nixon was way more Democrat than most people portray him to be.

NOW he looks positively democrat. that's how far right we've been taken.

Actually I've heard it stated here that a vote for Nader = a vote for McCain, I'd wager the majority here would have no problem with a groundswell of support for a third party candidate (like Perot) who would take votes from McCain.

well of course not. today, no third-party candidate is going to get elected. so the wisdom of such a vote, in principle, is questionable. if people do it anyway and it benefits the candidate i want, so be it, good. don't think i'm going to lie about it.

I wonder how some of you felt about third party voting when Ross Perot took quite a few votes from an incumbent George Bush possibly swinging the election in Clintons favor.

 

I know quite a few of you blame a third party Nader candidacy for Gores defeat.

i think anyone who voted for perot while thinking that clinton would be a disaster wasn't too bright. just like it wasn't too bright for me to vote for nader in 2000 when i thought bush would be pretty terrible (though i had no idea just how terrible).

if someone is passionate about this election (and millions are, myself included), what is the big surprise when he tries to explain to people sitting on the fence or blase (or both) why the differences between the candidates are important? i don't get that. even if i were a mccain supporter (hard to imagine, but for the sake of argument) i think i might find it refreshing when someone writes more than one-liners just to bait people because he's feels and believes strongly about the candidate and/or about the need to get this country out of the hands of bush/cheney and their band of neocons. geez, it's good to see some passion, and for something real, instead of o.d.ing on flippant cynicism. i love humor and a lot of people here make me laugh, but my catch-up read of the last five pages of this thread just now was kind of disappointing.

re: the bickering between mccain and palin aides, some are saying palin is looking to 2012 and some pundits are agreeing. has anyone read or seen anything real about this? even if she studies hard for four years, is there any way she will be able to convince people (aside from the charisma factor) that she has the "judgment" and knowledge of issues and grasp of big picture to actually win the republican presidential nomination in 2012? horrifying thought, and i hope it's just idle chatter.

Valium?

got any thorazine?

"Lots of red wine blush.gif" -- tried that last night. i'll try more.

I'm not sure that sitting here worrying about it is going to help anything, so I'm not going to worry. For now.

do you have any hints, tips, secrets for this feat? help!

That is Dan Haggerty and a child - from the commune scene in Easy Rider.

ahhhhhh, thanks. it's been a while . . . i'll wake up soon.

?

guess i'm stupid today, a-man! i need a word or two . . .

edit: p.s. oh my, was that jon-benet ramsey?

But look at what kind of society the federal government has to manage now. There are logistic elements that are much more complex. There are many theoretical forms of government that can work effectively over a population of a certain size. Anarchism, or more simply a total egalitarian system can work pretty well in a band of a couple dozen people living together. It breaks down once the population increases, and they are exchanging money and so on. I don't mean to say that Libertarianism is as extreme as anarchism, it is just an example.

i agree with this. the basic premises of libertarianism are very appealing in many ways, but it could truly work only if most or all people exercising their freedom from laws and so on are honest, trustworthy, and dependable, and treat others as they themselves would want to be treated. most or all people cannot cooperate on that level forever (see, anywhere you look, "human nature"). i think their ability to do it even in small bands of a couple dozen people is rare, never mind in a country of 300 million. (my husband saw his ideals about this smashed to bits firsthand over the course of several years in the '70s, while living in a commune and starting two businesses with no hierarchy in place. disaster, all of it.) besides, i have always worried about what would happen to art in such a set-up!

third parties can grow, as several have posted, only from the ground up. they have been dismal failures so far; we're a very long way from seeing any third party produce a viable presidential candidate. i'd like some kind of mix of libertarianism and democracy (maybe amounting to an effective socialist democracy?) but don't see it in the near future.

but what are the odds of that?

 

 

Here's today's my-head-is-going-to-explode offering from the right

 

Today in the Washington Post, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker suggests that Sen. John McCain

Well to me that misses the whole point of how ridiculous that statement is. Taxes pay for infrastructure. The infrastructure we need. No one ever says, "I believe my landlord will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would." Why? Because it is accepted that you pay for services. People seem to have this idea that government, military, roads, bridges and every other form of infrastructure that our taxes pay for just happens. And the government is just taking money for the hell of it because they don't trust us with our own money. I'm all for more fiscal responsibility in Washington, but BOTH parties have proven they aren't very good at that. Therefore our government needs funding and I'd rather pay as we go than continue to borrow from China.

of course. i agree with everything you say here. it doesn't mean that some of our tax money -- sometimes huge amounts (e.g., iraq) -- isn't wasted by washington politicians, including republicans. i think that's about as obvious as is our need for taxes to pay for infrastructure and services.

"The homeless choose to live in the street. I choose to live in the White House. That's what makes this country great - you can CHOOSE to live anywhere you want".

 

-Ronnie the Ray-Gun

and choose ketchup as your vegetable.

It tickles me to share what my Republican friends are passing around:

 

1. I’m voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

many favorites on there, but i have to choose number one for the top of my list.

they believe republicans don't throw their money down the toilet!

folks, point me to your cave, i'd like to live there too.

Dems Mobilize Against GOP in Ohio -- Plan Showdown at Ohio Polls

 

Republicans intend to place 3,600 paid recruits inside Ohio polling places on Election Day to challenge the qualifications of certain voters. Today the Obama campaign told OffTheBus it intends to counter with the most massive voter protection effort Ohio has ever seen. "Democrats learned their lesson in 2004," said the high-level spokesman.

i wondered how many more years they were going to wait around, watching and scratching their heads. all riiiight! :thumbup

was it a nightmare, or did he have barry manilow on after manilow beat out colbert for some prize?

i saw it somewhere, either in my head or on the tv.

QUOTE (sweetheart-mine @ Oct 24 2008, 10:40 AM) *

sympathy? smile.gif

QUOTE

Florida voting back in spotlight this Election Day

By TAMARA LUSH, Associated Press Writer Tamara Lush, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 24, 4:44 am ET

MIAMI – Let us count the ways things could go wrong on Election Day in Florida:

• Thousands of new voters might not be able to cast ballots because of discrepancies between their registration forms and government records like driver's licenses.

• An unprecedented number of new voters, combined with multipage ballots in some counties, will likely create long lines and confusion at the polls.

• And there's always Palm Beach County. Using new voting equipment mandated by the state, the county lost 3,500 ballots in a close judicial race in an Aug. 26 primary. The ballots were eventually found but it took three recounts before a winner was finally declared a month later.

Ah, Florida ...

It was the laughingstock of the nation during the 2000 presidential election, when a contentious, 36-day recount resulted in George Bush winning the state (and, therefore, the White House) by 537 votes over Al Gore. The fragility of the state's voting system was exposed via hanging chads and butterfly ballots; the bungled election inspired an HBO movie and years of fodder for late-night TV hosts.

As Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain battle to the wire for every presidential vote in this state, the question remains: Will Florida be ground zero for another voting scandal?

Of course, nobody knows.

"There's plenty of reasons to be concerned about this election in Florida," says Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's state chapter. "And not just because it's Flori-Duh. You have to be a cockeyed optimist not to be concerned about this election."

Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, says the voting landscape has improved dramatically since 2000. For one thing, Florida now offers two weeks of early voting.

"Uniformity has been the guiding principle," he said, adding that recount rules, ballot designs and pollworker training are now the same in all 67 counties. "We have a pollworker manual now."

And unlike 2000, there is now a clear paper trail that shows voter intent in case of a recount. Voters now use pencil or pen to mark paper ballots, which are then counted by machine. Punchcards and their chad are no more.

Still, Browning, and most county elections supervisors, are cautious when it comes to declaring a trouble-free election. About 2.5 million more voters are expected than in 2000. And with 376,000 new voters registering between Sept. 8 and Oct. 6 alone (there were only about 504,000 new registrations in all of 2007), there will be long lines at the polls and other pitfalls, despite the early voting.

In some counties, the ballot is four-pages long — which means voters will take their time, adding to the lines. On Monday — the first day of early voting — lines of 50-plus people stretched around some precincts while voters inside spent 10 minutes or more with their ballots.

In addition, the state's "no-match, no-vote" law requires elections officials to verify the identity of new voters by matching their registration to their driver's license or Social Security card by using government databases.

Advocacy groups predict thousands of people, mostly the poor and minorities, will be denied the right to vote through no fault of their own because of the new law. Browning disagrees; he says recent changes make the system "much more voter-friendly." He adds that voters who must cast a provisional ballot because of address discrepancies have two days after the election to confirm their information with the local supervisor of elections.

As far as voting machine or ballot problems, officials are hoping for the best after hours of training and dry-runs. But Florida's most populous counties have changed voting systems three times since 2000, from punchcards to touchscreen computers to optical scan machines.

"It's very confusing to voters to keep changing," said Rod Petrey, president of the Collins Center for Public Policy in Miami.

The August primary election did little to restore confidence. In Palm Beach County — where the problems of the 2000 election first surfaced — a candidate for judge was ahead by 17 votes after the initial count of 91,000 ballots.

That triggered a recount. Officials determined that 3,500 ballots were missing. Weeks later, officials announced they had sorted out the missing votes. But then they had more votes than had been recorded on election night.

"The accuracy that the public in this country demands in elections does not exist," said Judge Barry Cohen, head of Palm Beach County's canvassing board.

Both the Obama and McCain campaigns are watching closely.

Hayden Dempsey, chairman of Florida Lawyers for McCain, says the Republicans are concerned that Democratic poll watchers may try to illegally "assist" voters.

Obama's Florida campaign has opened a toll-free hot line in Florida so voters can ask questions about the elections process; the campaign said it received thousands of calls before early voting began, including questions about early voting and even whether a voter could wear a campaign T-shirt to the polls.

"We want to bring in as many voters as possible," said Luis Vizcaino, an Obama campaign spokesman.

________________________________________________________________________________

a-man, yes, that's what i'm afraid the real answer is.

How the hell is McCain gaining ground in FLA?

sympathy?

October Surprise.

 

This this has hoax written all over it.

if the B was carved, i'm wondering why 12 hours later it just looks a semi-pale red with no blood or other evidence of actual cutting or carving. if that thing had been carved with a knife, some skin would have been broken and there would be dried blood. it does look fishy.

too bad no one loves obama enough to do this to herself. i don't; gee, i almost feel guilty.

Awesome. So you spend a paragraph railing against something no one said, then agree with what was actually said, all the while

chipping a statue to your position that everyone simply has to vote for the candidate you like. Same tired bit from the last

election.

 

Okay, carry on.

 

maybe he was responding to your reference to lobbyists in this post you wrote yesterday afternoon?:

"I don't think any of that elevates this election over any other or the next one. If anything I think they grow less important until there is some reform in place to clean up the process and take our[out?] the influence of lobbyists."