PoliGAF Debate #3 Thread of Hey Joe, where you goin' with that plunger in your hand

Status
Not open for further replies.
RapeApe said:
[IMGhttp://blogxilla.com/blog3/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/cid-1341.jpg[/IMG]

I'd like to thank this man for being a traveling agent of ignorance.

No helmet either. Natural selection at work - hopefully he hasn't bred yet.
 
RapeApe said:
cid-1341.jpg


I'd like to thank this man for being a traveling agent of ignorance.
:lol

*is black*
 
With no fillibuster, an impotent GOP house and Obama in the white house, how far are the Democrats willing and able to go? We could see some really remarkable legislation and even constitutional amendments would not be difficult to pass, but war/bailout/enormous preexisting debt float will probably make the kind of structural sea change I have in mind difficult or impossible. Fucker GW might have been able to stave things off just by starving the beast after all.

Darcy Burner is getting close now apparently. I really hope she can pull through.
 
Sorry if late but I did a search.

Republican Christopher Buckely backs Barack Obama for president and resigns from position at the National Review

Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama


Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
 
VPhys said:
Sorry if late but I did a search.

Republican Christopher Buckely backs Barack Obama for president and resigns from position at the National Review

Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama
It's old, but this part of it is new - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101402492.html?hpid=topnews

Buckley Loses National Review Column

Christopher Buckley knew he was venturing into treacherous territory when he endorsed Barack Obama: "It's a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They'd cut off my allowance," he wrote.

The penalty turned out to be more severe. William F. Buckley Jr.'s son said yesterday he had lost his back-page column in the conservative bible founded by his father, National Review.

"Within hours, poor NR was being swamped with furious mail, 'Cancel my subscription, this is betrayal, Judas, Benedict Arnold,' " Buckley said in an interview. "I thought the decent thing to do would be to offer to resign the column. Well, they accepted it."

Buckley can't be completely disappeared; the Washington author owns one-seventh of National Review and serves on the magazine's board. But he is the latest right-leaning pundit to be slammed by his side for criticizing or breaking with John McCain.

National Review editor Rich Lowry, a Bill Buckley protege, told readers in a posting that the younger Buckley had been writing the column for several months on a trial basis, although Buckley believed it was permanent.
After seeing how furious NRO bashed Frum for daring to peel himself away from the Palin 'starburst' circle jerk, it doesn't shock me.
 
That's actually kinda shocking, the magazine his dad, one of the most respected old-school conservatives, created tossed him off. That's as damning a sign of the failures of the modern Republican party as anything.

Kerry just brought up the Hussein lobbyist working for McCain on Maddow.
 
These McCain surrogates are looking more ridiculous by the day, if thats even possible. What an unenviable position.
 
What's funny is that FoxNews can't go 5 minutes without mentioned Ayers or Acorn...was watching some segment about Casey Anthony who's 2 year old went missing and it went something like, "Even though there is no body or smoking gun, much like Obama and Ayers, we can deduce through circumstantial evidence the true nature of what went on"

Actually that's just really scary. Someone needs to create some Ayers or Acorn porn so these guys can get their release.
 
I wonder how much play this McCain lobbyist-Saddam story will get, if any. If this was someone on Obama's team, you can bet your first child the McCain camp would have an ad up and running the next instant. This is Saddam Hussein, who was the most dangerous man in the world if you were to ask the right.
 
Slurpy said:
I wonder how much play this McCain lobbyist-Saddam story will get, if any. If this was someone on Obama's team, you can bet your first child the McCain camp would have an ad up and running the next instant. This is Saddam Hussein, who was the most dangerous man in the world if you were to ask the right.

Eh, I doubt the Obama campaign will jump on this. There's no need.
 
Amir0x said:
The black guy with the name Barack HUSSEIN Obama, coming up in a violently xenophobic country where a faceless islamic evil is the boogie man... is probably going to win. Against the culture warrior claustrophobic zealots on the psychopathic, fearmongering right.
Obama really does have the perfect answer to any question he can possibly be asked about racism. Fucking look at where he is. For all the hand wringing over empty platitudes like "hope" and "change", the man fucking defines them both.
 
Slurpy said:
I wonder how much play this McCain lobbyist-Saddam story will get, if any. If this was someone on Obama's team, you can bet your first child the McCain camp would have an ad up and running the next instant. This is Saddam Hussein, who was the most dangerous man in the world if you were to ask the right.

It's basically insurance. Just another thing Obama can throw back at McCain's face tomorrow if he dares to bring up Ayers.
 
DigitalSoul said:
Does Fox news ever rag the republican candidates? Do they have some kind of vendetta against Obama or democrats in general?

Are you new to the world of American news media?
 
DigitalSoul said:
Does Fox news ever rag the republican candidates? Do they have some kind of vendetta against Obama or democrats in general?

FOX starts with What did liberals/dems do wrong today? I'm sure they mean to get to the republicans but time just runs out.
 
GhaleonEB said:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/in_his_first_ad_jim_webb_vouch.php

Jim Webb cuts a strong radio ad for Obama.

Headline on MSNBC.com:

BREAKING NEWS: Court rules Ohio must set up system to verify new voters before election

GOP fear-mongering at work, kids.


Some more story from AP.

CINCINNATI (AP) -- A federal appeals court has ordered Ohio's top elections official to set up a system by Friday to verify the eligibility of new voters.

The full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner must use other government records to check thousands of new voters for registration fraud.

A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit had disagreed last week, but the full court's ruling overturns that decision.

Ohio Republicans has sued Brunner, a Democrat.

Ohio GOP Chairman Bob Bennett called the ruling a victory for the integrity of the electoral process.

Brunner previously had said there was no way to implement the system with such speed.

I really don't get how verifying voter registrations is a bad thing.
 
DrForester said:
Some more story from AP.



I really don't get how verifying voter registrations is a bad thing.

Depends on what criteria you use to disqualify. What if there is a discrepancy in the listings, like a middle initial v. middle name? A clerk made a typo? etc.
 
Basically, people came to register under a set of guidelines and three weeks before the election, the guidelines have changed. That is BS.
 
DrForester said:
Some more story from AP.

I really don't get how verifying voter registrations is a bad thing.
There are already checks in the system for this.

There's not enough time to set up a new system.

The records they could be compared against are riddled with errors.

There is *zero* evidence these kind of problems result in any meaningful voter fraud.
 
DrForester said:
Some more story from AP.

I really don't get how verifying voter registrations is a bad thing.

Depends on the form of ID and whether a sufficient part of the population has access to the requisite forms of ID. For example, if it requires a photo ID, some folks who arrive with an older driver's license (I don't know the particulars for Ohio) may be denied. Or for seniors who no longer have a valid driver's license, they may not even have another form of valid ID.

Also, as Ghaleon mentioned, it's essentially a radical last second change in the rules that's not going to be disseminated to everyone in time.
 
DrForester said:
Some more story from AP.



I really don't get how verifying voter registrations is a bad thing.

It isnt in practice a "bad thing".

The problem is the people who want to "verify voters" dont actually want to do that. They want to use it as an excuse/bludgeon to keep real voters from voting.

There is little to no documented cases of people that dont exist voting. Their are rumors of it happening, there are allegations of it happening. There is no proof it has ever happened. Voter registration fraud is very real, happens all the time. Some dumbass who thinks its funny to register as Mickey Mouse, someone who gets paid by registration they turn in making them up, etc.

But there is no proof that has ever turned into a false vote. There is plenty of proof that requiring photo ID's, birth certs, etc has disenfranchised real voters. During the primaries a group of nuns couldn't vote because they didn't have ID's.

Besides, all voting places check the voter registration card vs. the registered voter list to make sure you have yet to vote that day, a second person verifies it. Those registration rolls are checked against drivers lic. databases to verify that you live where you say you do, and both parties have a shitload of lawyers on site challenging and defending peoples eligibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom