IT Workers Split For McCain, Obama 600
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... (Score:4, Funny)
Just be happy it didn't say THIS: (Score:5, Funny)
"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!
Re:Just be happy it didn't say THIS: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If she was also a whale she would have the full set of PC attributes.
Is there such a thing as a male lesbian BTW?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course there is you insensitive clod. Watch what ya say lest they send you to the camps. Gender identity is whatever the hell you say it is and if anybody questions you yell that they are bigots, homophobes, etc. until they get scared and shut up. Jeeze, keep talkimg silly stuff like "is there such a thing as a
And there is always the example of "Mrs." Garrison on South Park.
Pardon me saying so... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pardon me saying so... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Two political axes: what KIND of libertarian AR (Score:4, Insightful)
Suffice to say, I came up -4.62 / -5.49, which is roughly where I expected to fall as a "typical European IT geek".
I also think the test could probably do with some more degrees of "agree/disagree", and clarification over some questions. The question "a significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.", I had to agree with, because it IS an advantage of that system, despite the fact that that system is unworkable and horrific to me on so many other levels. Nor do I think that the delay of progress in a democratic system is really a problem - because the cause of that delay is the checks and balances that make sure what's being done is truly right. Without this delay, a lot of very bad stuff could happen. But, I still had to agree with the statement as it was worded, because if there were a way to have checks and balances WITHOUT a delay, it would be better, and therefore the lack of delay in a one-party system is an advantage.
I'm not entirely sure that my answer "agree" accurately reflected my belief though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those 29% that are pro-McCain also believe he is independent thinking whereas he is just uber panderer. Those people fall in super ID-10T and need to turn in their voting card and computer geek card.
Obama speaks the rhetoric but has yet to prove himself as his voting record speaks otherwise.. I can agree with the masses following that one though as the rest if not all of the current pol
Re:RP (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarianism essentially boils down to the survival of the fittest: with financial safety nets removed, the unfit will starve to death in the streets. This makes confidence in your own
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't disagree with you more. Libertarianism is just about pure freedom. No matter what system you
Re:Pardon me saying so... (Score:5, Funny)
Why? Hey, someone has to rig those voting machines.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huckabee? Paul? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huckabee? Paul? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary, the people were polled in late February / early March. Mike Huckabee dropped out March 4th, and Ron Paul is still running even though he cannot mathematically win the nomination.
you gotta be crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
McCain is not pro torture and wants to have spending hawks in his cabinet. The federal government is too big and our interest rates will only get alot higher if we can't keep spending out of contr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
McCain == War == Spending (Score:4, Informative)
The current wars (occupations) are already going to be costing the US upwards of $2 Trillion when all is said and done, and McCain wants to increase the number of fronts we will be fighting on, and you think he somehow will reign in spending?
Heck, his current campaign is already over the legal spending limits of a law he helped write [washingtonpost.com]. If he can't control his own campaign spending, how do well do you think he will handle the finances of an entire country?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because of the pastor story I lean towards McCain.
In the interest of fairness, let's briefly examine the religious supporters that are getting behind Senator McCain:
In the wake of securing the Republican nomination, I'm sure a few more like Pat Robertson will come out in support, but let's start with these two winners.
McCain is currently accepting the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, who said Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for homosexuality. [mediamatters.org] (Let's not even get started on his remarks about Catholics being "a cult," or his blaming the Je
Re:you gotta be crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:USA != Destroyed (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Unemployment is historically low.
This is correct, but it is no good enough if your home is going to be repossessed.
2) Self defense is not war mongering. Even if you think Iraq was no threat, they've
gone from 50,000 killed per year under Saddam to 50,000 killed in the time since.
It may be the lesser of two evils, but this evil is a LOT less. Don't forget that all
the Democrats WANTED the war in Iraq. They just don't want to stick around and WIN it.
What did ever Iraq do to the US?
You know, to defend yourself first you have to be attacked or threatened.
Then you bring as part of your "self defense" strategy the plight of the Iraqi people.
Look, that is great, now we know you are truly generous and we will send you a medal for that. But the plight of the Iraqi people was not the reason for the Iraq invasion. You were lied to but here you are, matching the unintended consequences (that would need checking, mind you, I don't know where you are pulling those numbers of Iraqis killed by Hussein from) to cover thsi sameful invasion failures.
3) Wanting free trade with other nations is not a sign of xenophobia or racism nor
is appointing the first two black Sec's of State.
4) 3 Documented cases of waterboarding in the GWT is not a pattern of Communist style torture. Overall, enemy combatants have been given better treatment than domestic felons.
Sorry, any shreds of credibility you had as an interlocutor were burned in the above paragraph.
All serious human rights organizations have found the shambles of Guantanamo as one of the most egregious violations of human rights by a liberal democracy (of course if you compare this with other countries, like your allies Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, then you are doing fine).
The Bush administration has broken pretty much any moral and legal precedence by setting up this concentration camp (honestly, I can't think of a better description) and as an aside, has created precedence that even US citizens can be denied funddamental rights if the terrorism word is involved in there somewhere.
Although Bush did not achieve this alone (to the eternal shame od Democratic and genuine Conservative politicians) he was the engine pushing for this quasi fascist situations. How somebody can still excuse this, is beyond any logical comprehension.
5) People have more stuff than they ever have. The NY Times [nytimes.com], which is NOT GOP
friendly, ran an op-ed explaining that consumption by the top fifth of the
population by income is only twice that of the bottom fifth. How many other
countries can come close to that?? Yes, there's a big mortgage problem out there, but before lending homes to poor people was "predatory lending" the Dems were pushing the banks to give those loans.
6) We've even cut greenhouse gas emissions for hippies who still believe in that crap.
Yes, the GOP should cut government spending and get rid of dumb-ass shit like
Social Security and Medicare but they don't have the votes to make it happen.
Uncle Sam collects about $17,000 per worker, most of which goes to social
programs that no one would ever need if their taxes were less. It won't stop
no matter who is in power until the public realizes the true cost.
Veiled Threat (Score:2)
Translation: Give us our pork, or else!
IT was not (Score:2)
H1-Bs (Score:5, Insightful)
Its her connection with Tata and outsourcing (Score:5, Interesting)
Net Neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
McCain is Bush #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So what makes you think McCain is Bush #2? A bunch of very weak reasoning. For example, if I have a senate bill that is for the kids, then you must be against the kids if you oppose this bill, am I right? Of course, I'm right. Same sort of argument holds for "anti-torture". Similarly, it's to Bush's advantage to back someone in the next election. The fact that he waited this long to endorse McCain indicates to me a certain lack of enthusiasm. He doesn't have other choices. He's not going to back Obama or Cl
IT for McCain? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Admitting he doesn't understand the economy is honesty. How many people really understand the economy and not what they get from CNN or even the WSJ? He's not an economist - so what? What a good president should do is get a lot of good advisors, who understand their areas, and listen to their advice. Sure, the president has to understand it enough to ask some tough questions and try to determine what else it will affect - but they can't be experts in everything.
I would rather have someone who admitted
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like we need a "presidentist". We need someone with a brain who can tell when his advisors are lying to him. Or care - it's been a long time since we've had a Republican president w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IT
Re:IT for McCain? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In government you can't really test things yourself if you're the president, you have to rely on what people tell you. And we had an engineer for president, and his administration was generally considered to be a failure.
Surprised They're Split (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo [youtube.com]
Something to consider (Score:3, Insightful)
Between "outsourcing" and "downsizing" a lot of American IT workers have lost their jobs. They're looking for work, but there's not enough openings to employ them all (not by a long shot).
Every time the call for more and more H1B workers goes out it further drives home the blatant fact that our government doesn't care about the citizens that it supposedly represents. All their actions do is further enrich their corporate masters.
But while this evil is transpiring, the simple fact that corporations need customers with money to spend seems to elude everyone. If your population is unemployed and unable to purchase your products, how can you continue to post increasing profits and make your shareholders happy?
Sure, it's cheaper to produce it in China or support it in India. But who is going to buy it? Those American workers you laid off were the customers you were selling your products to.
These corporations are very short-sighted. When their market contracts (due to fewer customers) their profits will decrease. Will they try to make up the difference by hiring even more cheap foreign labor and further erode their customer base? Will our corporate masters continue to believe that their actions have no repercussions? Sometimes I wonder...
IT Policy Matrix? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cthulhu '08! (Score:5, Funny)
Read some more (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Read some more (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Read some more (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
> that he didn't say that kind of thing a whole lot?
Only if you get all of your news from the MSM. Some of us look beyond. I had been to TUCC's over the top bigoted webpage a year ago and saw more than I needed to know about the company Sen. Obama keeps. After reading that page all I needed to know was what the heck a 'Black Values System" was and what the hell it could possibly have to do with a
Re:Read some more (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
On top of that, to blame Obama for what someone else says? Ridiculous. And Obama's speech afte
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the right-wing smear machine wants, the right-wing smear machine gets. Witness:
- McCain having a black child out of wedlock in the 2000 primaries.
- Al Gore ridiculed for "inventing the internet".
- The introduction of a new verb in the 2004 campaign: swiftboating.
- In the 2008 primaries, the pastor Wright snippet, as if Obama had said it.
These carpet-bombing media campaigns have several things in common:
- They are
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is naive to think it is simply a cheap shot. During the primary the choice between Obama and Clinton was easy, Obama. This nutcase reverend thing is a real issue though, and it is not because anyone seriously believes Obama shares the reverend's opinions.
It's got to be political theatre since there's isn't a thing the Reverend said that would qualify him as a nutcase. He was basically right about everything he said. Well I've heard someone say (not sure it's true) that he also said AIDS was a racist government plot. Okay, that's wrong but if we just swap "Tuskegee airmen" for "AIDS" then his point remains and all is factually well again. The weirdest thing is that the line I hear the most people getting their panties in a bunch over, the "god damn America"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now he could mean that Edward Peck personally quoted Malcom X or he could mean that what Peck said supported that thesis. Given that bloggers have searched transcripts and failed to find any where the ex-ambassador actually used tha
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
>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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well first of all, there is a big difference between a random supporter and your friend, mentor, and pastor. The better analog to Hagee would be Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, which frankly I didn't think he had to renounce (or reject, for the Hillary Clintons of the world). While it can be slightly embarrassing, the fact that someone likes your politics does not mean you like their politics. In fact, it can be a testament to the broad appeal of your politics. Casting away everyone who disagrees with you is not generally considered a noble trait.
The main problem I had with the whole Wright controversy (not that I was inclined to vote Obama anyway) wasn't that it made me doubt Obama's judgment or values. It made me doubt his effectiveness. Much of his campaign is based on his supposed ability to bring people together, whether they be of different political parties or they are of different races (I guess he thinks he is a uniter, not a divider, though that sounds a bit familiar...). Well if his community back home has the opinions expressed during Wright's sermons, clearly he hasn't succeeded at that so far in his life.
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
John McCain is the *ONLY Candidate* (of the three) who can claim "IANAL".
You think this is really a qualification? That someone involved in writing new laws, has not had to prove he is familiar with EXISTING law? In some sense, that's all a legal bar exam proves -- grounding in existing law.
All that proves about John McCain is that he is MORE likely swayed by false politics, not grounded in the reality of an existing legal framework. I think a Civil Law and Constitutional Law expert is much more likely to do exactly what I want in office -- to protect the existing rights of ALL
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
He did?
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell yes Bush did. He looked GREAT on paper:
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Uh, did you watch/listen to the same speech I did?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU [youtube.com]
He said exactly that -- that the bitter racism, from either side, is not productive. He just pointed out that entirely *ignoring* existing resentment isn't productive either. It's useful to examine the roots of all resentment, on all sides, and to work on the core issues that cause those resentments. That's the only way we will ever really solve the core problems, that underlie these false (but not baseless) resen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
He's the only one who's consistently opposed the expansion of government surveillance.
That's why I've always liked McCain. Unfortunately, I haven't really seen much of that in the past couple years. It's enough to make me wonder, but not enough to make me choose Clinton instead.
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
<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: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you heard of John Hagee? He's a Protestant-supremacist whackbag who things that Catholics are "the great whore" and the Jews in Israel exist to be wiped out in the coming armageddon. When the guy isn't out promoting religious intolerance or genocide, he's John McCain's "spiritual guide" (whatever that means). The funny thing is that McCain doesn't feel any need t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If McCain had associated with a minister who was a white supremacist and KKK supporter, he would have been kicked out, just like that.
Exactly -- that's why Strom Thurmond had such a short political career.
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely agreed. I've seen some of the Reverend's comments, and they appear to come from a man genuinely disappointed in his country, and not flame-baiting or hate-mongering. Are we so blind by national pride that we cannot see the faults in our own government and our own people? Don't damn the reverend for daring to say what we're all thinking, damn the people who refuse to criticize themselves.
I get the feeling Obama waited as long as he did to distance himself from the Reverend because he knew the whole thing was blown out of proportion. But unfortunately he did cave to media pressure in the end. The power of the media to latch onto a message and be blind to all other interpretations.
Besides, since when did criticizing America become unpatriotic? I would think it's the most patriotic thing to do.
McCain SPONSORED every pre911 domestic spying bill (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Hilary Clinton has been encouraging the media to keep talking about this and tipping the election towards McCain. Ugh. The right has accused the Clintons of being a smear machine and a mobfia if you get on their bad side. I was a democrat at the time and didn;t believe it.
Now I see what Rush and Hannity were talking about. Very personal and nasty. If Clinton wins the nomination I will vote for McCain as a result.
But the pastor's remarks on how he hates Ameri
Re:Hillary, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re:I think McCain would be the choice today (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The electorate is so stupid about some things.
Strongly agreed. I have a very hard time believing some of the issues that get discussed ad-infinitum that are quite simply irrelevant.
I would consider Clinton to be the worst candidate of the three at the moment, for a couple of reasons:
NAFTA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sexism (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, take Texas, she wins the state in private primaries, but in the caucuses she loses considerably, even though they are made up of the same segments of society, near each other. For this large of a discrepancy it would have to be a massive