So, um, what's yer point, anticapitalismitter?

REZCO!

I'm glad Fark has taken it upon itself to repeat this story every week for the last six weeks or so since the NYTimes first broke the story. Old news can be exciting! So what was this shiat I just heard about some guy called Jeremiah Wright?

Non-story. Does not involve race, sex, or religion...we don't care if our politicians are involved in shady schemes involving campaign donors. We don't care about the economy, health care, education, protection of civil liberties...all we want to know about a candidate is: is he/she Christian? Does he/she hate terrorism? Does he/she appear folksy and "down to earth"? And most important...is he/she a white, male that wants to lower taxes?

jerry2a

You're late to the party, pal. Enquiring minds want to know if a candidate wears boxers or briefs, who they would vote for on Dancing with the Stars, and where they stand on the burning issue of Ford versus Chevy.

oldebayer: Enquiring minds want to know if a candidate wears boxers or briefs,



Depends

Party Boy: Depends

Hahaha :D

Okay... You win.

muck4doo: I'm glad Fark has taken it upon itself to repeat this story every week for the last six weeks or so since the NYTimes first broke the story. Old news can be exciting! So what was this shiat I just heard about some guy called Jeremiah Wright?

See, this is about something McCain actually did, and it's about governmental corruption. So you'll find it's got a little bit more substance to it.

B-b-but 57 states! Sweetiegate! REZKO!!!!!11

muck4doo: I'm glad Fark has taken it upon itself to repeat this story every week for the last six weeks or so since the NYTimes first broke the story. Old news can be exciting! So what was this shiat I just heard about some guy called Jeremiah Wright?

You and I disagree on a lot of political issues, but I gotta say, you are right on the money here. This is a crap story.

It's getting to the point
Where I'm no fun anymore
I am sorry.
Sometimes it hurts so badly
I must cry out loud
I am lonely.
I am yours, you are mine,
You are what you are
And you make it hard--

Remember what we've said, and done, and felt
about each other
Oh babe, have mercy.
Don't let the past remind us of what we are not now.
I am not dreaming.
I am yours, you are mine, you are what you are.
And you make it hard--

Tearing yourself away from me now,
You are free and I am crying.
This does not mean I don't love you,
I do, that's forever, and always.
I am yours, you are mine, you are what you are.
And you make it hard--

Something inside is telling me that
I've got your secret. Are you still listening?
Fear is the lock, and laughter the key to your heart.
And I love you.

I am yours, you are mine, you are what you are.
And you make it hard,
And you make it hard--

Friday evening, Sunday in the afternoon,
What have you got to lose?
Tuesday mornin', please be gone I'm tired of you.
Can I tell it like it is? Help me I'm sufferin'.
Listen to me baby--Help me I'm dyin'.
It's my heart that's a-sufferin', it's a dyin'.
That's what I have to lose.
I've got an answer
I'm going to fly away,
What have I got to lose?
Will you come see me Thursdays and Saturdays?
What have you got to lose?

Chestnut brown canary, ruby-throated sparrow.
Sing a song, don't be long.
Thrill me to the marrow.
Voices of the angels, ring around the moonlight.
Asking me, said she so free,
How can you catch the sparrow?

Lacy lilting lady, losing love lamenting,
Change my life, make it right.
Be my lady.

Can we start talking about the policy differences of an Obama administration versus a McCain administration now?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess not.

I'm from Arizona. I voted for John all of once. I supported him in 2000. Never again. Do you hear me John? I won't vote for you as our senator or president - ever. EVER.

He was a maverick. Bush nudered him. Even if he is acting the part of a new conservative, and has intentions of being the maverick again once in office- I don't believe he has the mental capacity to do so. Not anymore.

And I could care less who he has slept with. His policies scare me.

Agreed, this time the election is mostly about who scares me the least. So far it's a 3 way tie.

jayjordon: So far it's a 3 way tie.

I can tell you've done a lot of thinking about it.

I disagree with McCain on policy issues. I don't care about this crap.

and yet this is still our 44th president

hooray binary party system

oldebayer: So, um, what's yer point, anticapitalismitter?

The point is that McCain champions himself as someone who doesn't use earmarks, someone who doesn't waste federal funding on local projects, and someone who isn't influenced by special interests. This is evidence contrary to that stance.

It's not an earmark, so it's ok.

lolmadillo
and yet this is still our 44th president

Ya think?

Why?

No NO No no! I refuse to believe it. Politicians can't be corrupt. their job is too important. they're representing the people for goodness' sake!

/obvious

mrexcess: lolmadillo
and yet this is still our 44th president

Ya think?

Why?

HE'S AN APPEASER! THATS WHY!

/the best memes mean nothing

OMFG! That NEVER HAPPENS! If I'm ever a businessman, I will be sure to never support any political candidate for fear that someday I might benefit from something they do. And that, is the [liberal] definition of CORRUPTION.

SemperLieSuckah: And that, is the [liberal] definition of CORRUPTION.

What, don't you have a problem with the government keeping weak industries alive? Could have sworn that has parallells with communism...

rppp01a: He was a maverick.

Holy crap, that was a cheap car! It was slapped together at the last minute for down-market buyers, its steering was so crappy that you could never be sure in which direction it was heading next, and its basic structure was so flimsy that if you transplanted any real power into it, the thing twisted out of shape and became dangerous. Oh, wait. I get it.

spamdog:

What, don't you have a problem with the government keeping weak industries alive? Could have sworn that has parallells with communism...

Ok Sparky, I'm going to explain the core differences between conservative and liberal economic and business philosophy to you.

Liberals believe in taking care of the masses directly, this is known as "welfare" in the non-pejorative sense. The hoped for result of this is "equal outcomes", ie: a leveling of society. It can vary in degree from what we have in the U.S. all the way to hardline communism whereby wealth is apportioned equally amongst the masses.

Conservatives believe in fostering competitive industry in order to have the effect of improving the capacity for quality of life in a society. In other words: a strong business economy has more wealth and thus more opportunity. However, conservatives do not believe in providence for the masses (ie: "equal outcomes"), they believe in "equal opportunity" for the individual. However, the individual must grasp it themselves. Wealth will not be handed to those who do not contribute (save obviously for the sick or otherwise incapable).

Now, with corporations there are a lot of people whose entire livelihoods revolve around the wealth generated from said corporation. When a corporation is about to go under, there is the potential that it will have a ripple effect in an economy causing feeder economies to die as well from loss of a major customer. If upon analysis it appears that something as major as say... the airline industry... is about to go under and will have a major detrimental effect on the business economy, conservative may decide to give "corporate welfare" to the business to keep it alive. Generally this is the case if the faltering corp. is in such a position not because of lack of demand, but because of mismanagement.

By bailing out the corporation, the government has saved the jobs of thousands of people, and maintained a strong economy and the ability for equal opportunities to continue. The executives responsible for the problems are generally ousted at the next shareholder meeting when this is the case, and the problem is solved.

Under a communist system, the existence of the business would have been irrelevant. The workers would still be paid, however the economy as a whole would have suffered because unproductive groups of workers were receiving pay off of the backs of other laborers. The communist system places emphasis on social security rather than on a robust economy, and thus does not keep its production centers strong, and thus does not generate revenue for the government.

Too many hops. I pay 21% of my income to a country that invented things that have been used to kill more than half the people who ever died in war since 1776, including nuclear weapons and VX gas. We call it "income tax" here, but you can make almost anything sound villainous if you line up just the right facts and avoid the wrong ones.

SemperLieSuckah: Ok Sparky

First of all, lose the attitude.

SemperLieSuckah: Conservatives believe in fostering competitive industry in order to have the effect of improving the capacity for quality of life in a society. In other words: a strong business economy has more wealth and thus more opportunity. [C]onservatives [snip] believe in "equal opportunity" for the individual.

But they don't - that's the thing! A federal bailout by the government is almost always supporting a big stagnant industry that probably deserves to go broke and be replaced by more organized and competitive industries. The US government is very close to big business, and you can't tell me that this fosters "equal opportunity" for aspiring small businesses. There are many examples of protectionist laws passed to protect a big business from it's own failures.

Now, with corporations there are a lot of people whose entire livelihoods revolve around the wealth generated from said corporation. When a corporation is about to go under, there is the potential that it will have a ripple effect in an economy causing feeder economies to die as well from loss of a major customer.

I really have to laugh at this. What's the matter with allowing new, better corps to arise in the wake of a very inefficient one? Isn't this the whole principle of the free market? To ensure fair competition? How little faith you have in the free market!

The executives responsible for the problems are generally ousted at the next shareholder meeting when this is the case, and the problem is solved.

Except for all those cases where they get away with a golden parachute.

You can talk all this shiat about communism if you want, but it's not going to fix all this graft and corruption. Is it?

"McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the senator's ties to SunCor had nothing to do with his support for the project. The Air Force had a legitimate need for the land and asked for money to buy it in a March 2002 budget planning document,"

End of story. The base was being kept open as economic pork in McCain's district, obviously, but the fact that this company benefitted from the deal probably has more to do with them being the major land-owner in the vicinity of the base than any kind of quid-pro-quo. If we banned politicians from ever interacting with programs that might deal indirectly with someone that the politician might have looked at once in the past, then nothing would ever get done. In the bad sense of nothing ever getting done, not the good 'slowing down the speed of government action' sense.

It sounds like a place in the middle of nowhere, I'd have to ask what competetion there is to suppress, exactly, before I called dealing with this company really unfair business.

spamdog:
Except for all those cases where they get away with a golden parachute.

You can talk all this shiat about communism if you want, but it's not going to fix all this graft and corruption. Is it?

WTF does communism have to do with anything? It's one of the many economic/political systems more prone to corruption and graft than capitalism + representative democracy. But why point that out about communism specifically? Why not, say, military juntas or anarchy?

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A JOB FOR A CONGRESSMAN!!


/you keep sharpening the wrong axe
//you're gonna cut yourself with it
///you AREN'T careful

For shame, John McCain, using your post to benefit lobbyists and campaign contributors and local business!

Have the common decency of your other Senate colleagues to at least shamelessly benefit your spouse's company! (Feinstein, D-CA)

Link (new window)

Or your children! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!! (Reid, D-NV)

Link (new window)

Oh, if only anyone gave a tinker's damn for corruption anymore. Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Pardongate, Rezkogate, etc... would make both Democratic candidates unelectable.

Party Boy: oldebayer: Enquiring minds want to know if a candidate wears boxers or briefs,



Depends

Please claim your Internet at the prize counter.

SemperLieSuckah: spamdog:

What, don't you have a problem with the government keeping weak industries alive? Could have sworn that has parallells with communism...

Ok Sparky, I'm going to explain the core differences between conservative and liberal economic and business philosophy to you.

Liberals believe in taking care of the masses directly, this is known as "welfare" in the non-pejorative sense. The hoped for result of this is "equal outcomes", ie: a leveling of society. It can vary in degree from what we have in the U.S. all the way to hardline communism whereby wealth is apportioned equally amongst the masses.

Conservatives believe in fostering competitive industry in order to have the effect of improving the capacity for quality of life in a society. In other words: a strong business economy has more wealth and thus more opportunity. However, conservatives do not believe in providence for the masses (ie: "equal outcomes"), they believe in "equal opportunity" for the individual. However, the individual must grasp it themselves. Wealth will not be handed to those who do not contribute (save obviously for the sick or otherwise incapable).

Now, with corporations there are a lot of people whose entire livelihoods revolve around the wealth generated from said corporation. When a corporation is about to go under, there is the potential that it will have a ripple effect in an economy causing feeder economies to die as well from loss of a major customer. If upon analysis it appears that something as major as say... the airline industry... is about to go under and will have a major detrimental effect on the business economy, conservative may decide to give "corporate welfare" to the business to keep it alive. Generally this is the case if the faltering corp. is in such a position not because of lack of demand, but because of mismanagement.

By bailing out the corporation, the government has saved the jobs of thousands of people, and maintained a strong economy and the ability for equal opportunities to continue. The executives responsible for the problems are generally ousted at the next shareholder meeting when this is the case, and the problem is solved.

Under a communist system, the existence of the business would have been irrelevant. The workers would still be paid, however the economy as a whole would have suffered because unproductive groups of workers were receiving pay off of the backs of other laborers. The communist system places emphasis on social security rather than on a robust economy, and thus does not keep its production centers strong, and thus does not generate revenue for the government.

You were very verbose in your fail today. That's something.

Wow, what an eye opener. 3 comments about McMaim censored from the posts...thanks Drew Crew. Looks like I could write anything about fluffball Kevin James and it would get posted. What's next...? Banhammer me? You guys suck.

Jim_Callahan: WTF does communism have to do with anything? It's one of the many economic/political systems more prone to corruption and graft than capitalism + representative democracy. But why point that out about communism specifically? Why not, say, military juntas or anarchy?

I don't know man, I only work here. =P

Jeremiah Whitewater.

That isn't about a pastor, so I don't care.

/WHO won the last American Idol?

Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?

just because john mccain was in the keating five, gets free flights from his wife's company, is breaking his own financing laws, sold his signature to bud paxson, and arranged a landswap for his donors doesn't mean that he is corrupt. he is a maverick. because... becuase... well because tim russert says he is. and that's good enough for me.

robsul82: B-b-but 57 states! Sweetiegate! REZKO!!!!!11

Obama got his wife's employer (a majort CHicago Hospital) million(s) after she got a $200000 raise/promotion

Who cares. He can be the biggest crook in the world and I won't care as long as he keeps Mexicans in Mexico and gays from harming the sanctity of my marriage.

generaltimmy: Obama got his wife's employer (a majort CHicago Hospital) million(s) after she got a $200000 raise/promotion

You mean the nonprofit hospital that now pays her less what it did a couple years ago?

Shaggy_C: generaltimmy: Obama got his wife's employer (a majort CHicago Hospital) million(s) after she got a $200000 raise/promotion

You mean the nonprofit hospital that now pays her less what it did a couple years ago?

I'm voting for Obama but she gets paid less because she cut back on her job because of the campaign.

SemperLieSuckah: Liberals believe in... Conservatives believe

And thanks to your post, we know what douchebags believe in...

Meh. At least he's not a Muslim extremist.

mmm... pancake: Meh. At least he's not a Muslim extremist.

...that you know of.

And people make fun of Obama supporters.......

Doublespeak: And people make fun of Obama supporters.......

Of course! Being a McCain supporter obviously pays better.

Headso: SemperLieSuckah: Liberals believe in... Conservatives believe

And thanks to your post, we know what douchebags believe in...

No, you aren't mentioned until my next post.