IT Workers Split For McCain, Obama

antipeon alerts us to a presidential preference survey, done in late February and early March, indicating that Obama and McCain lead among IT workers with 29% each. Clinton follows with 13%, just ahead of Huckabee (11%) and Ron Paul (9%). The Computing Technology Industry Association commissioned the poll, and the article notes that this trade group claims the population of IT workers is four times as large as the Bureau of Labor Statistics thinks it is — the better to make a voting block whose views must be attended to.

I don't know about you guys...

[thatskinnyguy (1129515)]

...but on the ballot or not, Steven Colbert gets my vote!

Just be happy it didn't say THIS:

[tomhudson (43916)]

"IT Workers Strip For McCain, Obama"

The mounds of ghostly pale cubicle flesh, bruised by flying chairs, monitor-burned faces with sunken eyes dead to anything that isn't composed of pixels, fingers continually spasming in the 3-fingered salute, skin courtesy of a diet of twinkies and cola ... ugh!

Pardon me saying so...

[Project2501a (801271)]

but the idea of a "voting block" made up by geeks, is uterly inane. Why, you say?
We like to think ourselves (ie, us geeks) as a special part of our society, (us vs the ID-10T problem). it's a dipole, hence a false dilema. we're part of the US society as much as everybody else. We are workers ourselves, even if most of us make a well-to-do living from our work.

But in no-way do we differ from another working caste of this society. In this Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle [wikipedia.org] of the wheel, we got the upper hand, because we are techically inclined. But the wheel *will* make another revolution, and we'll be bottom-feeders once again.

My point is, in these comming elections do not vote such and such because you are a geek/woman/black man/white man/polka-dotted-man from mars. Vote vote according to your class: a working man trying to make ends meet.

Re:Pardon me saying so...

[Etrias (1121031)]

the idea of a "voting block" made up by geeks, is uterly inane.

Why? Hey, someone has to rig those voting machines.

Re:Pardon me saying so...

[ciggieposeur (715798)]

when most polls show Ron Paul at under 5%, why do 10% of IT people support him?

Because many IT folks were fed libertarian talking points throughout their adolescence in the form of American science fiction. American sci-fi is disproportionately libertarian, with even an annual award (the Prometheus Award) given out by the Libertarian Futurist Society. Many famous names in sci-fi including Poul Anderson, Robert Heinlein, Neil Stephenson, David Brin, Larry Niven, and Vernor Vinge are/were associated with establishment libertarianism, and even Heinlein (who was supposedly co-opted by the libertarians ("TAANSTFL")) did little to publicly correct the impression that he favored anarcho-libertarian ideology.

Now twenty years later many IT folks have libertarianism sunk in very deep indeed.

Re:RP

[by Anonymous Coward]

Basically, 91% of those people polled fall in the category of ID-10T because those 91% do not believe in the constitution.

I am so sick of hearing this from the Ron Paul crowd! Do you really believe that everyone that disagrees with your view of the Constitution must necessarily hold the document in contempt? Perhaps, just perhaps, those people read the same document and came to different conclusions about what it means. After all, the Constitution contains many ambiguous phrases ("general welfare", "unreasonable search and seizure", "due process", "privileges and immunities", etc. . ) on which reasonable people can differ.

In some sense this is emblematic of the greater problem facing American politics these days: the inability of opposing sides to acknowledge the proper scope of disagreement. Instead, we get the sort of thing in the OP: accusations that some people want to "shred the Constitution" or "sell the USA to the lowest bidder". If Obama supports getting out of Iraq, it must be because he hates America and wants us to fail. If McCain wants to stay in Iraq, it must be because he's a crazy warmonger.

After all, it would be so much harder to start by acknowledging that all the candidates wants to preserve the Constitution but differ as to what it means. Similarly, how could we ever acknowledge that the candidates all want what's best for the US (gasp!) but differ on how to achieve it?

~Oren

* Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul and the principles of limited Federal government (but I can't unequivocally endorse some of his other policies).

Huckabee? Paul?

[jfruhlinger (470035)]

You know, IT people are generally all kinds of smug how much smarter they are than everybody else, but 20 percent of them are apparently still backing candidates who dropped out of the race several weeks ago.

Re:Huckabee? Paul?

[wkitchen (581276)]

From the summary: "...done in late February and early March..."

you gotta be crazy

[by Anonymous Coward]

i cannot understand why ANYBODY would want to vote for the party that has done more to destroy the USA in the last 7 years than any other party in my memory the USA seems to now stand for war,torture, xenophobia, racism, corruption and financial mismanagement full of the same corrupt actors as the nixon era but worse (cheney et al), even "conservatives" are disgusted with what the current incarnation of rogues that are perverting the name of true conservatives have done (record debts, gov size) but hey you crack on, the rest of the world is busy making plans without you (witness the dollars slump) if the GOP get back in power you agree with all they have done and you deserve everything you get

Re:you gotta be crazy

[Jeremi (14640)]

There's a big difference between accepting someone's endorsement, and faithfully attending his church for 20+ years.

Care to explain what that difference is? From my perspective, it looks worse for McCain, since he clearly accepted the endorsement in full knowledge of the objectionable things Hagee said. Obama, on the other hand, was attending church long before Wright made his objectionable speeches, and it's a bit much to hold him responsible for not correctly predicting what somebody would say 15 years in advance.

Not that any of this has anything to do with what's best for the nation, of course. Perhaps we would be better off sticking to the issues and leaving the "gotcha" guilt-by-association memes by the wayside...

H1-Bs

[hemp (36945)]

From an IT perspective, since all of the candidates some how think that there is a massive shortage of IT workers in the US and we should increase the number of H1-Bs to solve this problem, it really doesn't matter who is elected.

Its her connection with Tata and outsourcing

[Tangential (266113)]

Looking at the Clintons' record on H1B visas and Hillary's deep connections with companies like India's Tata (remember this http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22654114_ITM [accessmylibrary.com]) its no surprise that IT professionals are rejecting her. She's all for sending our jobs overseas.

Net Neutrality

[MSBob (307239)]

McCain is against net neutrality (and I sense he doesn't understand the issue either) while Obama is for protecting net neutrality and - judging by the way his campaign is ran - is a lot more tech savvy than the other remaining candidates.

McCain is Bush #2

[jdb2 (800046)]

For crying out loud Bush *endorsed* McCain. To make it even clearer, McCain voted against the senate
anti-torture bill --1E6 hypocrite points-- and supports retroactive immunity for telecoms -- basically
indicating he's for the blatant and outrageous violation of the 4th amendment by Herr Bush even
though in public he disagrees with the policy - another 1E6 hypocrite points. If you still don't
believe me, he says that the U.S. needs the military option to deal with Iran. I rest my case.

jdb2

IT for McCain?

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

What could possibly make an IT person vote for McCain? He doesn't seem likely to even have a cellphone, let alone relate at all to anything IT people have to deal with. He's confessed he doesn't understand the economy. His Republican anti-immigration policies don't protect any IT jobs. What makes him seem like he could possibly represent their interests as president?

Re:IT for McCain?

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

It's pretty easy to see through your backwards glass just by considering that "Conservatives" have been spending this economy for 7.5-13.5 years (in the White House and Congress, respectively) into $10 TRILLION Federal debt, plus $10 TRILLION mortgage debt plus $10 TRILLION other personal debt. All of which has been centrally planned to squander, but oh so decentralized in actually wasting on little productive capital. Sure, they're as "Conservative" as the Soviets were "Communist", but likewise there are no real "Conservatives" or "Communists" once either of them get the power and the budgets.

The dollar wasn't "overvalued" when we could buy half a gallon of gas with it, or half a gallon of milk. The destruction of the dollar's value isn't a measure of lowered demand for US goods per se, but rather the fear of investing in the US economy. That "Conservative" economy.

The one that John McCain has been voting to run for over 20 years. The economy McCain helped banks "deregulate" most famously with the Keating 5 to lose over $1.5 TRILLION (in 1980s dollars in a GDP 1/4 today's). The banks that got the biggest handout in history with deregulated lending rules, no oversight, and nearly 0% wholesale rates (on money loaned them by taxpayers) on loans back to taxpayers that they marked up to several percent to people who couldn't do the math to be able to pay them back for more than a few years. A few years they lived on their credit cards (and flipped those houses to the next layer in the pyramid).

Including those Americans who don't have a job, but aren't "unemployed" because the government only counts Americans for a little while "actively seeking" work. Of course, the Feds count any Europeans without a job as unemployed, so we look pretty good, as long as we're willing to pretend.

Like pretending that all those profits we waste on private insurers are giving us healthcare comparable to our international competitors who pay less because theirs is all paid on the same basis as our Medicaid. Like pretending that GM and other big employers can compete with a fat, wasteful private insurance bill that Toyota doesn't pay, or that Wal-Mart could keep its employees well enough to peddle crates of Chinese products without government health insurance (or healthcare in taxpaid emergency rooms).

I see "trial lawyers" spending their money in the US (though they do get a lot more of those Bush/McCain taxfree holidays than most Americans), but Halliburton seems to have absconded directly to the Persian Gulf with all the $BILLIONS it stole, out of range of US jurisdiction, but somehow right in the laps of our enemies.

But really, it's that Iraq War that is John McCain's most obvious contribution. The one that's already cost over $600 BILLION already spent, headed to over a $TRILLION even if we shut it down ASAP. And that's not counting the collateral damage to our military, some of which we can rebuild for money, much of which will cost untold $BILLIONS for veterans injuries, and the further damage to an economy running on $4+ gallons of gas for the years while it runs out, prematurely inflated on endless fear and risk in the producing countries. Since the Iraq War is run on borrowed money, at least 80% of it borrowed (if you just count it equally with the rest of the discretionary expenditures), and borrowed from enemies like China, that's something like $600T * (.8 * 1.55) = $744 BILLION so far. After McCain's next 100 years (or more) there, the figures will be higher. All in an economy in recession, and eventually depression, with our reserves wasted for nothing but more violence, threats and uncertainty.

It's the Enron economy. Fake profits pitched under government cover without regulation, counting debt as assets. The "Conservative" economy, centrally planned from Dick Cheney's bunker, and eaten up by "Conservatives" like you. People who'd rather ignore all that to pretend that Europe is doing badly, that the US somehow is the opposite of "socialism" (with the greate

Re:IT for McCain?

[xaxa (988988)]

Like pretending that all those profits we waste on private insurers are giving us healthcare comparable to our international competitors who pay less because theirs is all paid on the same basis as our Medicaid.

Dude, you don't even know what you are talking about. International competitors do not have the same health insurance as we do in the USA because they ration health care to deal with scarcity wheras we charge more for it. To put it simply: my mother in law received an open heart bypass that she would not have received in the UK, but she had private health insurance and it paid the entire $100,000 tab.

My grandfather had a heart bypass on the NHS in the UK a while back. He's not the only one, it seems 28,000 people a year [www.nhs.uk] have them (that's the free ones, you can pay if you like -- you'll get nicer food, and a private room while you're recovering, but likely the same surgeons doing the operation). It costs about £5000-£20000 [heart2hearts.co.uk] ($10000-$40000).

Surprised They're Split

[Bob9113 (14996)]

I'm a bit surprised IT workers are split. While I voted for McCain for Senate while living in Phoenix, I feel Obama is much stronger on tech issues. Here's what really sold me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo [youtube.com]

Cthulhu '08!

[rlp (11898)]

Why settle for the lesser evil.

Read some more

[postbigbang (761081)]

Read his speech from last week. Think about leaders that you've disagreed with, too, but followed because you had faith in where they were going. There are lots of those in my history; we're not perfect beings and his pastor obviously has some issues with where America's been going. So do I. His pastor's not a showstopper for me. Given Clinton, who can't win, and McCain, who's too much of a turncoat and politico, Obama's the only remaining horse that can win this race and try to mend the mistakes made in two terms of an elected fear-monger.

Re:Read some more

[Deanalator (806515)]

What I liked to hear in the speech was that he has many friends and loved ones that he disagrees with, and that is all right. Can you imagine a politician who only surrounds himself with people he completely agrees with 100% on every issue? His pastor has some radical beliefs, and why the hell not? Understanding his perspective gives insight into the dissatisfaction of many Americans. Pastors don't get to where they are by being "politically safe".

Also note that Falwell blamed the ACLU, abortionists, pagans, feminists, gays, and lesbians for 9/11
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I [youtube.com]

And he pretty much shaped the religious aspect of the republican party for the past 28 years. In McCain's defense, he was one of the only republicans that ever attempted to distance himself from Falwell (in the 2000 primaries), but recently has voiced support for him again.

Re:Read some more

[postbigbang (761081)]

The United Church of Christ along with any number of denominations are regularly investigated by the IRS. I find church ads generally offensive. That doesn't mean that in this race, it capitulates Obama. I think the whole 501c3/6 political endorsement mess is just a way to hassle churches, if from the pulpit. When religious orgs use funds to publicly endorse, then they go beyond the pulpit and their reach of free speech becomes unbalanced against the public's. Still, what of Swiftboating, and the morass of phantom orgs?

Re:Read some more

[gambolt (1146363)]

Think about it. If he's been there for 20 years and never heard him say that kind of thing, isn't it logical to assume that he didn't say that kind of thing a whole lot?

Look at when he said it. It was right after 9/11. Everybody was saying crazy shit for a few weeks after 9/11. People were seriously proposing that airline passengers be required to fly in hospital gowns. Pat Robertson was blaming the whole thing on the gays. I was ready to join the marines.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[avandesande (143899)]

I had the pleasure of growing up in one of the few really integrated towns/school districts. I had many black friends but none that would invite me over because they were afraid of what their father would say.
Rev. Wright is sadly enough the norm...

It would be nice if we could brush the situation under the rug, but we can't and we shouldn't. I don't believe that Obama shares the Rev. thinking, and I can understand why he doesn't disown him.

If you really want to find out the current status of race relations in the US watch some of the Chris Rock videos on youtube.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[assertation (1255714)]

Do you feel better about Hillary Clinton being a Walmart Board member during the 90s when they earned their deserved anti-worker reputation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart#Governance [wikipedia.org]

http://beforewisdom.com/blog/?p=276 [beforewisdom.com]

Please do not take any offense.

If she didn't care about workers getting health care as Walmart Board Member Clinton, why do you think she will care about people like you getting health care if she is elected?

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Um, McCain solictited and got the endorsement of John Hagee, an outspoken anti-Catholic pastor of a megachurch in Texas. Among other things, Hagee has called the Roman Catholic Church "the Great Whore" and says that Catholics are apostates (non-believers).

Of course, McCain now says he disagrees with Hagee's remarks on Catholics, but he hasn't renounced the endorsement.

Personally, I think these types of attack vectors are silly. People make all kinds of friendships and relationships throughout their lives, and to be held responsible for all the beliefs and actions of those friends or associates is just ridiculous.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[gambolt (1146363)]

Don't forget Hageee's whole idea that the goal of US foreign policy should be to promote apocalyptic war in Israel so Jesus can return and take all the white strait people away in the rapture.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"Um, McCain solictited and got the endorsement of John Hagee, an outspoken anti-Catholic pastor of a megachurch in Texas. Among other things, Hagee has called the Roman Catholic Church "the Great Whore" and says that Catholics are apostates (non-believers)."

While that is a bit extreme.....it is nothing unusual for religions to point at others to say they are wrong, or doing the wrong things. If they didn't , well how would they differentiate themselves and get people to believe in what "they" say, you know?

This is something MUCH more different than putting someone down for being of a certain race, or sex....something you don't have a choice in. You can decide what church you want to go to.

That being said...I think Obama got a HUGE slide on associating with that preacher who was giving some really, really racist 'sermons'. If someone white was known to be going to a church where the minister was extolling how the black man had been responsible for all the crime in the US or something equally distastful....I can imagine that white candidate would apologize enough or distance themselves enough to have a remote chance of staying in public office, much less run for high office. I was shocked how little this stuff Obama's preacher's statements initially was played on tv and discussed in the general media. It did finally get out there, but, it took a bit IMHO.

I still like a lot of what Obama says....I think he's a great orator....and I'll listen to what he has to say....but, I hate the double standard we have here in the US about what is generally tolerated by what minorities can say about whites vs what whites can say about minorities before the racist card is thrown and they are publically crucified.

Personally...I think both sides need to quit being so thinned skinned....and people shouldn't get so upset when someone says something offensive about someone. Free speech kinda negates freedom from offense.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[sheldon (2322)]

It's all political theatre.

Nobody is actually afraid of Rev. Wright. He's not a threat to society, or to anybody individually. And nobody actually believes Barack Obama agrees with any of this after he's said he does not, and has never shown in any of his writings or speeches that he agrees.

Someone thought they could avoid the issues of the economy, foreign affairs, the future of America in this world, etc... and undermine Obama with this cheapshot.

That's what politics is all about. Nobody actually pays attention to the important issues. How did GW Bush get elected? He's a guy you want to have a beer with, even though he's a fucking moron who couldn't find America on a map.

Anyway, better to get this bullshit out now instead of waiting until October like they normally do.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[MichaelSmith (789609)]

Overall I think this is working in Senator Obama's favour. As long as he is publicly associated with a wacky Christian it is hard to accuse him of being a Muslim.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[jdfox (74524)]

McCain also solicited and got the endorsement of the Reverend Rod Parsley, pastor of a megachurch who recently published a book calling for the destruction of Islam [motherjones.com].

>Personally, I think these types of attack vectors are silly. People make all kinds of friendships and relationships
>throughout their lives, and to be held responsible for all the beliefs and actions of those friends or associates is just ridiculous.

Certainly, a candidate shouldn't be judged on their friendships alone, nor should those friendships be evaluated out of context. But McCain has publicly accepted the endorsements from Hagee, Parsley, and other unsavoury characters. These are not simply business associates or friends, whose political views he happens to disagree with. McCain publicly calls them his "spiritual guides". That seems like poor judgment at best, and hints that he might have some private views which voters should get to know more about before granting him control of the most powerful military on the planet.

The same standard should apply to all candidates, not just McCain and Obama, but also Hillary Clinton, whose connections with "The Family" [thenation.com], a church group from the rightwing Dominionist [sourcewatch.org] movement, deserve similar scrutiny.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[Khaed (544779)]

Oh no, he got an endorsement from a kook.

He didn't associate with Hagee for twenty years. He didn't admit last year to running every major decision by Hagee. He didn't get married in Hagee's church, and Hagee hasn't worked for his campaign.

also, while Hagee has a negative opinion of Catholics, he has not said the horrible racist and conspiracy-theory-idiot things Jeremiah Wright has. I've seen video of the man claiming the government knew about 9/11, claiming Israel was involved in 9/11, and that the government lied about Pearl Harbor. In addition, he's apparently said HIV/AIDS is a government conspiracy to kill black people.

That's a whole hell of a lot more vicious and personal than "omg u catholics are teh suck." The Protestant/Catholic divide is pretty mean-spirited as is. The last thing this country needs, however, is a president in thrall to a racist lunatic. (I know someone will post something or another about how GWB is, but he's not on the ballot, and his term is coming to an end.)

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[Zymergy (803632)]

I'll add another log onto your flame war bait fire....

John McCain is the *ONLY Candidate* (of the three) who can claim "IANAL".

We can all admit to ourselves, that there are FAR MORE Lawyer jokes then Honored Veteran & Hero Air Force Pilot jokes... Just saying...
To serve in the military is NOT the same as to serve in any elected office.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[jmac1492 (1036880)]

Hero Air Force Pilot

Someone's going to call you on this eventually, so you should know that he was a Hero Navy Pilot.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[hedwards (940851)]

I largely agree, I like McCain and he's the candidate that will most likely receive my vote in November. It's really not surprising that he'd be getting most of the Republican votes out of the IT sector.

I too was really disappointed that sen. Obama didn't take the opportunity to say on the record that racism is racism and that black people shouldn't behave in a racist manner either. Just seems to me to be common sense, as well as common courtesy. Race relations are largely a mess because of the differing standards that come into play. As well as the willingness to not play well with other minority groups.

As far as McCain goes, he's the only Republican candidate that has an official statement on how he plans to remedy global warming. It isn't as strict as the ones pushed by most Democrats, but it does exist. He's officially on the record as saying that the government spending is largely out of control; furthermore has declared that earmarks need to be eliminated. Presumably cut in some instances and moved into the regular budget in others.

That's not to say that I don't agree with some of his view points, but at least I can respect that he's come by those viewpoints honestly.

OTOH if Obama manages to get gov. Richardson as his vp., candidate, that would definitely make it a tougher choice. Richardson was the only Democrat who could make a meaningful list of accomplishments which required making deals across the aisle. Richardson was the best candidate that the Democrats fielded this election, it's really a shame that he wasn't able to capture the attention of the Democratic party early enough to get his campaign going.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[spleen_blender (949762)]

I hope you enjoy war with Iran and a never ending war on an intangible concept that can't technically be defeated. Real bright decision there, chief.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[GodfatherofSoul (174979)]

I too was really disappointed that sen. Obama didn't take the opportunity to say on the record that racism is racism and that black people shouldn't behave in a racist manner either. Just seems to me to be common sense, as well as common courtesy. Race relations are largely a mess because of the differing standards that come into play. As well as the willingness to not play well with other minority groups.

Did you read the speech? The whole point was that people have reasons for their flawed beliefs, and we should empathize with what the origins are, but he in no way endorsed them. I think a lot of people haven't gone any further into this subject than "Wright is Barack's pastor" and a few 10 second YouTube.com clips. As for standards, they're different because people in this country have historically been treated differently. I think the speech was historic in that it spoke at an adult level. Now, if you chose to evaluate his words at the same old bumper-sticker level, then that's your fault.

Richardson was the best candidate that the Democrats fielded this election

That's obviously a very small minority opinion. Resume bullets are only a small part of the job interview. Remember, GWB had great resume bullets as well.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[pohl (872)]

Well, he did run the tap at that awesome kegger...

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[GodfatherofSoul (174979)]

Hell yes Bush did. He looked GREAT on paper:

• Graduate of Philips Academy
• Degree from Yale
• Air Force National Guard pilot during Vietnam War (he bragged about this often neglecting to say he never served in theater)
• MBA from Harvard
• Son of U.S. President (that alone opens any door in this country for you)
• Two-term governor of one of the largest states in the Union
• CEO of several corporations
• GM of Houston Texans (I think)

My point is that resume bullets look good when you don't have to give the details; i.e. rejected by law school and daddy got him into the Guard to duck combat service, CEO of several failed companies, ripped off tax payers of Houston on the stadium deal then turned around and sold team to reap profit from stadium tax, only got into Yale because of legacy, etc.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[Metasquares (555685)]

Taxes must be raised or spending must be cut. The current economic situation demonstrates that stimulus policies based on debt spending do not work in the long term. Sure, it worked sort of well for a few years, but the bubble just burst and now we're all paying the price for it.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[YttriumOxide (837412)]

I don't live in the US, but I am currently here on a business trip.

I spent yesterday in NYC, as a sort of small holiday before travelling on to Connecticut where I've got my meeting.

In NYC, I took one of those tour bus things to take a look around as I didn't have much time or knowledge of the city to really spend it looking around on my own. One thing that sticks in my mind is a statement that the tour guide guy said. "The average income of a person in Manhattan is $1500 a month". He went on to clarify that that is of course taking in to account the millionaires as well as the dirt poor, however I think it may still be a fairly representative figure, but was clearly attempting to say that $1500 a month is a lot of money (basically attempting to impress the tourists about how wealthy Manhattan is). That surprised me a lot - from what I saw, it's NOT a cheap city to live in at all, and $1500 USD a month is NOTHING compared to the average wage back home, which is also a much cheaper place to live. If the US dollar continues to fall, I can really imagine places like Manhattan very quickly becoming slums.

Note that this is just "first impression" and I could well be wrong, but as an outsider's perspective, it's pretty scary. Whoever you do, as a nation, vote in next, I really hope it's someone that is capable of doing something about your economy.

As a side note: I'd also hope it's someone that can do something about your security policies and free speech... I almost got arrested for "public disturbance" at the Statue of Liberty for arguing with a couple of Americans about the meaning of "Liberty" and how excessive security erodes it. I was ALMOST tempted to continue the argument and let them arrest me just for the irony of being arrested for a discussion about the meaning of the word Liberty when standing only metres away from that icon that is supposed to represent it. (I decided instead to apologise to the "nice officer", shut-up and leave, as it would REALLY not make a good impression on my company to miss the business meeting due to being arrested in New York City)

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

I want McCain. He's the only one who's proven his courage and loyalty under fire.

<sarcasm>What, by getting shot down?</sarcasm>

Seriously, whatever young John McCain, fighter pilot, may have done four decades ago, it's clear that old John McCain, politician, has no integrity left today. Look at the way he rolled over and showed his throat for Bush's people after the smear job they did on him in the 2000 campaign. Look at the way he talked tough about banning torture by the US military and intelligence services, then voted for the Military Commissions Act. He's a cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican, and anyone who falls for his "straight talking maverick" act is a fool.

If McCain had associated with a minister who was a white supremacist and KKK supporter, he would have been kicked out, just like that.

Bullshit. McCain is closely associated with -- in fact, has courted and embraced -- right-wing preachers like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, who are on record with views that are at least as extremist as anything Jeremiah Wright has ever said. And yet somehow, the "liberal media" has failed to pick this up. Just like Bush, McCain is getting damn near a free ride from the press while his Democratic opponents are picked apart.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[Admiral Ag (829695)]

I don't like what Obama did either, but for a different reason. Check out the extended versions of Jeremiah Wright's sermons on Youtube. The media picked out parts that would sound inflammatory on their own, but in context they don't sound completely unreasonable. His 9/11 sermon is particularly moving. It actually includes examples of racial discrimination against non-blacks. The point of the sermon is to urge people to a greater self examination in the aftermath of the attacks. In other words, look at what you've done before you start getting mad at others. IIRC that is straight out of the Gospels, and even though I am not a religious person, I think it is still sound advice. Moreover, much of the sermon is devoted to Wright telling people not to get so mad that they end up supporting any sort of brutish vengeance in response. Again, I think in light of events since, we probably would have been better off listening to the Reverend.

Similarly, the "God Damn America" is not unreasonable viewed in its proper context. Wright argues (oddly enough for a preacher) that the law of God is inerrant, whereas the laws of men are not. In other words, he thinks we should not take the law of any particular nation above the law of God (or morality for that matter) and that any country which violates God's laws will be damned. In the speech he makes the same point about other states, particularly the British Empire. I don't think asking people not to submit blindly to the state is an unreasonable thing to ask. The "God Damn America" comment is made in this context, specifically with reference to the idea that the Biblical prophets rail against the injustices of the state in the name of a higher morality. Both are pretty damn good sermons as Wright is an exceptionally gifted preacher. I'm an atheist, but listening to them made me want to attend Wright's church, and I am not the only person who ended up thinking that way.

Please take time to watch the comments in context. You can find the extended sermons on Youtube. While I might not agree with everything that Wright says, I feel he has been the victim of an electronic lynching by the mass media choosing to deliberately misrepresent his comments. It realy is depressing, whether or not you agree with Wright. Obama didn't help by giving the impression that the Reverend was accurately presented in the media.

McCain SPONSORED every pre911 domestic spying bill

[aphor (99965)]

McCain co-sponsored every nasty evil domestic internet wiretap bill for the entire period of time between Congress' discovery of the Internet and the 911 "Patriot" act. He even tried to ban strong encryption like PGP.

Proven courage and loyalty under fire to whom? Not me! Not the America I would be proud to bleed for!

I'm still waiting for the apologies to come out about associating with Rummy.

Re:Hillary, anyone?

[iluvcapra (782887)]

The entire text of the sermon can be read here [theatlantic.com]. The worst bits, the ones that get all the play, are essentially Wright quoting someone else, inside a parenthetical aside from his main disquisition, using an essentially "devil's advocate" voice. Jerry Falwell's comments, even in context, on the same topic were far worse.

Re:I think McCain would be the choice today

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

McCain might help the economy if he is true to his word about reducing government spending.

I really wouldn't count on Mr. "Hundred Years in Iraq" to do that if I were you.

Re:I think McCain would be the choice today

[raehl (609729)]

Oh come on...

The electorate is so stupid about some things.

McCain doesn't plan to be or want to be in Iraq for 100 years. But, he plans to be there until the job is done. Why can't we recognize this as the only honest answer to the question? Not "We must leave Iraq immediately no matter what!" but "We will leave Iraq when it makes sense to leave Iraq."

Now, I'm still a fan of getting the hell out of Iraq, but I'm suspicious of anyone who promises to do so no matter what.

On the pastor front, who the hell cares what Obama's pastor says? That makes about as much sense as caring what McCain's mom says, or what Hillary's husband says, you know, the one who got his pole smoked while his wife was in the same building. EVERYBODY knows people who are even good friends of yours who say stuff that you absolutely don't agree with, or that is just downright stupid. If we all refused to associate with people who sometimes said things we didn't like, we'd have a pretty hard time talking to anyone!

If you videotape what someone says for years, you're going to have some tape of somebody saying something stupid.

And in this specific case, I think Obama understands, and tried to communicate, that while he doesn't personally agree with his pastor's decision, he understands why his pastor feels that way, and why a lot of Americans feel that way. It's not that these Americans hate America, it's that they feel that America has not treated them well. Some of their feeling is justified, and some of it is blame transference, but it's important to understand that. Justified or not, it's going to be difficult to resolve what causes opinions like Obama's Pastor's opinion if you don't even understand it.

Anyway, this pastor stuff is going to blow over. McCain doesn't even care about it - as he's an upstanding candidate who wants to campaign on the issues. It's only totally-desperate-Hillary who cares.

Re:I think McCain would be the choice today

[k_187 (61692)]

Go away, I won't have your infernal logic sullying this discussion any longer.

NAFTA

[flyingfsck (986395)]

Yup, as a Canadian I sincerely dislike NAFTA too, eh. All these American IT workers steal our jobs and we are forced to sell our oil for cheap to the USA, eh. We should be kick all these Yanks out, eh and we should charge them yankees CAD110 for oil, which is more like USD220 a barrel, eh...

Re:Sexism

[CajunArson (465943)]

Blah Blah Blah sexism Blah BLah Blah.

Oh by the way... did I mention that if you don't vote for Obama you are automatically a grand wizard in the KKK and are evil racist scum?

See that's the problem with identity politics, the Dems were inconvenient enough to have candidates from two different victim groups so these lame arguments sound even sillier than normal.