bobbob1313

And 50% of them, apparently, want '4 more years of Bush'. That is what I don't get. If Bush has such low approval ratings, and the democrats keep hammering home that McCain is 4 more years of Bush, why isn't Obama running away with it? Either half of the country does't believe he is 4 more years of Bush, or half of the country thinks he's a much better choice than Obama, despite it.

To me, it feels like in 1984 when they talk about eternal war. Both sides need the other in order for their side to stay in the position they are in, which is why despite their policy difference, I feel like an argument could be made that they are just two wings of the same party. If that makes any sense.

Seems like an overreaction.

You cannot pretend to know what the rest of the country wants. If you did know, then McCain wouldn't stand a chance.

I'm not sure if you can hear me from all the way up where you are anyways, I might have to shout from down here. I don't believe Obama's economic plans will help bring us out of the recession we are in. I don't buy that he will get us out of Iraq in 18 months or whatever his timeline is, and I don't buy that it's the right move anyways. I don't buy that we will see any more legitimate change in energy policy under Barrack as McCain (and at least McCain supports domestic drilling, which could potentially buy more time for alternative sources). I don't buy that McCain would be able to overcom

I can't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean I have to vote for one of the two parties if I feel neither represents me. Why would I support a group I am not philosophically aligned with and which I think perpetuates a system that leaves the voice of most of America unheard? And it really irked me that you brought up Obama's race there at the end. Yuck. And I don't think anyone has given me a legitimate reason why minority parties shjouldn't be allowed in national debates with the two main candidates. The only reasons I've seen are that there are "too many",

I'm just going to repost what you responded to and maybe it'll work this time. "And Bjorn, the implication there is that I inherently disagree with all of those things. I'm not far left. There is actually a lot of doubt in my mind about most issues, because every issue is not always black and white, which is how a two party system has to represent it."

So because there are two many other parties, we should just keep it the way it is? That's stupid. Do it by past success, or ballot access, or registration. There's no excuse besides just the two parties being afraid of losing their grip on power. And Bjorn, the implication there is that I inherently disagree with all of those things. I'm not far left. There is actually a lot of doubt in my mind about most issues, because every issue is not always black and white, which is how a two party system has to represent it. Hey Louie, being condescending isn't a good way to get your point acros

I'd rather not help perpetuate a system that promotes evil. And I'd love it if someone could give me one good reason that the debates should be kept between the two major parties. They don't represent every opinion in our country, and shutting out legitimate voices from the public is nothing more than a bullshit tactic to perpetuate the current system.

voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil, then. If you don't vote with your conscience then you have no right to bitch.

I actually like Obama the person, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama the democratic nominee.

He's probably not convinced that Obama is the right choice.

I just think it is funny that people that actually lived with these guys rule have a very different opinionnof them than do random people in America.

It's not just him that disliked Castro. Most of the refugees that come here do, that is what you are missing. In principle, Castro might've helped the poor, but that is not the reality from the people who left.

But it's better than a life in chains born from opression and belligerence.

My grandfather was Cuban, and he lived there his whole life, working as a singer. He had spoken out against Castro, and was forced to flee in the night. I'm really not willing to give Castro the benefit of the doubt, since I've seen first hand what people from before he took over and much more recently think of him. I'll take the word of people who have lived in his country over Noam Chomsky's word.

And from everything I'm hearing down here, the Castros are not dealing with the effects of this hurricane season. I've seen reports of the government confiscating cameras from people who were trying to take pictures of the destruction. I'll take the flaws of our country over the inability to speak my mind in the simplest ways.

I'll agreebthat our national policy with regards to Cuba is pretty fucked up, but I also don't believe for a second that Castro would be helping his people without the santions. They are just a convenient excuse for him to throw his hands up and say 'look, I can't do anything.' I'm not sureif you've heard, but there are quite a few Cuban refugees living in south florida. It's a lot easier to romanticize Castro if you don't see and hear, everday, the resentmet many of them have for him. (not to mention my grandfather had to flee the country the night Castro took over.)

the very fact that you are free to post stuff like this on an alt.country band's message board says a lot about the things you take for granted here.

I'm guessing this wasn't the response the OP was looking for.

Not very, though Saddam and the Taliban weren't very freedom loving. I don't think support for Israel is freedom loving nor freedom hating. And as bad as Bush is, Chavez is way worse. It's easy for you to criticize from where you are, but talk to people who's family's left when he took over and you'll see how well liked he is. People romanticize these guys because they "stand up" to the US, but that alone doesn't make them admirable figures.

Like castro, hugo Chavez has a lot of support from white, college aged stoners, but the people who left venezUala when've took over aren't nearly as fond of him.

Yeah. Hugo Chavez is a great leader. Ok. Cool.

They are also not at the type of the wild card without Youkilis and Drew. I'm not saying he's a terrible choice, but I think there are better choices. actually, to say he might win it by default is pretty accurate. Quentin and Bradley would both be better choices if not for injury. A-Rod would be a better choice if the rest of his team didn't suck.

If Quentin didn't get hurt he was having a much better season. If you take position into account, Pedroia's a very good choice. But Pedroia isn't the obvious choice. Hell, Youkilis is almost as valuable. AL OPS leaders: OPS Bradley-TEX 1.029 Rodriguez-NYY .986 Quentin-CHW .965 Huff-BAL .950 Youkilis-BOS .948 Drew-BOS **.930 Hamilton-TEX .920 Morneau-MIN .910 Dye-CHW .909 Granderson-DET .897 Adjusted OPS+: Adjusted OPS+ Bradley-TEX 171 Rodriguez-NYY 158 Quentin-CHW 149 Huff-BAL 147 Morneau-MIN 144 Youkilis-BOS 143 Hamilton-TEX 141 Ibanez-SEA 139 Granderson-DET 135 Kinsler-TEX 135