Well, duh.

Change is bad, or so I've heard recently.

Mordant:Change is bad

Horses, mid-stream, something, something...

Mordant:Change is bad, or so I've heard recently.

I agree. I hate having a pocketful of coins to haul around.

there is no change and won't be any. because

1. people don't like change
2. the country basically runs itself regardless who's president

We can't handle the truth.

TFA has hit it rather square on. Not much to add.

albo:there is no change and won't be any. because

1. people don't like change
2. the country basically runs itself regardless who's president

Rising fuel costs, most of our manufacturing jobs gone, Baby Boomers poised to suck the marrow outta social security, a black hole of a housing market and a population carring a debt load larger than anything seen in nearly 60 years....yes, we should be 'concerned'.

And that's not even touching on our foreign policy decisions of late.

I do have to object to one thing in TFA:

McCain on the other hand wants to cut the living daylights out of the federal government

This is absurd. McCain might not want the government to grow as fast as Obama, but he doesn't want to cut anything significant that I know of. He doesn't even really want deregulation.

Crosshair:TFA has hit it rather square on. Not much to add.

Dad: 'McCain is gonna win!'
Me: 'why is that?'
D: 'well...because he's got more money!'
M: 'actually, Obama has something like $10 million more in the bank than McCain.'
D: 'oh. Well...McCain is better for the country!'
M: 'ok - why is that?'
D: 'he's gonna stop the terrorists!'
M: 'how?'
D: 'um...he just is...'
M: 'I see.'
D: 'Did I mention the sweet 8 iron i'm gonna buy with my stimulus package check?'
M; '*sigh*'

Weaver95:And that's not even touching on our foreign policy decisions of late.

Very true... however, I think the latest memo out there says to try and say that nothing will change, even though that is impossible. It is just another attempt by certain people to convince people that up is down, left is right, and good is bad.

/deeply rooted understanding and belief in impermanence

submitter:So far the general election has been massively boring with every Democratic idea straight from the 1970's and every Republican the 1980's and neither candidate offering change

Well, if we go with the Dem stuff from the '70s, that would be a change from what we've been doing for the last few of decades. If we with the GOP stuff from the '80s it would be a change from what we've been doing for the last couple of decades. Either one would be a change.

JohnnyC:Weaver95:And that's not even touching on our foreign policy decisions of late.

Very true... however, I think the latest memo out there says to try and say that nothing will change, even though that is impossible. It is just another attempt by certain people to convince people that up is down, left is right, and good is bad.



also know as the "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!! memo"

Well, Obama really isn't offering any change. The only way that Obama brings change is that we'll change from a government where two branches check each other to a government where neither side checks the other. Like we had under the Republicans.

McCain can bring change, as he will work with a Democratic Congress. Like how Clinton brought success working with the Republican Congress.

Anyways, the article is blasphemy, St. Obama is the most exciting cult leader candidate in history.

Best use of the OBVIOUS tag in weeks

Philbb:submitter:So far the general election has been massively boring with every Democratic idea straight from the 1970's and every Republican the 1980's and neither candidate offering change

Well, if we go with the Dem stuff from the '70s, that would be a change from what we've been doing for the last few of decades. If we with the GOP stuff from the '80s it would be a change from what we've been doing for the last couple of decades. Either one would be a change.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Ronald Reagan a republican from the 80's? Do we really want another president with alzheimer's, no understanding of the economy, who's totally out of touch with people, and is constantly blustering about war? And even if we did want that, where would we find someone on such short pancakes?

The Democratic ideas from the 70s weren't wrong. Maybe the gas rationing was a little far (though a response to the immediate crisis). Other than that? I wish Obama were this brave. Except he'd be laughed at, just like this smart guy was...


In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

McCainDemocrat

Pssst... there are 3 branches of government designed to check each other. Not two.

/I know, I know. It just seems like there are only 2.
//going to stop feeding the troll now.

Eh, actually implementing on a long term the Democratic ideas of the 70s would be a change. And the Republicans of now are sort of the policies of the 80s with the methods and scumminess of the 70s (Nixon).

Lawnchair:The Democratic ideas from the 70s weren't wrong. Maybe the gas rationing was a little far (though a response to the immediate crisis). Other than that?

Retail price freezes.

RemyDuron:

Eh, actually implementing on a long term the Democratic ideas of the 70s would be a change.

Especially energy independence. Funny how history's greatest monster was so often right.

If we had a president who was really willing to act on the things brought up in Jimmy Carter's 1974 Law Day Speech:
http://www.narsil.org/politics/carter/law_day.html

That's what we need in a president. Carter didn't really follow it, and I don't think Obama is that guy either, unfortunately. But they are closer than the alternative.

SherKhan:Bucky Katt:

WHARRGARBL

WHARRGARBL!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LOL! i love it! :-)

Third Day Mark:McCainDemocrat

Pssst... there are 3 branches of government designed to check each other. Not two.

/I know, I know. It just seems like there are only 2.
//going to stop feeding the troll now.

i thought there were four: legislative, judicial, executive, and Cheney.

McCainDemocrat:Well, Obama really isn't offering any change. The only way that Obama brings change is that we'll change from a government where two branches check each other to a government where neither side checks the other. Like we had under the Republicans.

I am not surprised in the least that you fail to understand the basic mechanics of how our government functions.

Which rather makes me wonder what else you don't understand...

McCainDemocrat:Well, Obama really isn't offering any change. The only way that Obama brings change is that we'll change from a government where two branches check each other to a government where neither side checks the other. Like we had under the Republicans.


1994: Things are doing tremendously well. Peacetime surplus, gas at 98c/gallon, reasonably effective government, crime in decline, lowest taxes in the developed world... hey, things are great, let's go for gridlock so Washington can't screw anything up.

2008: Not exactly the same situation.

Sorry, we can't exactly afford gridlock right now.

mikaloyd:Lawnchair:The Democratic ideas from the 70s weren't wrong. Maybe the gas rationing was a little far (though a response to the immediate crisis). Other than that?

Retail price freezes.

Nixon's idea. And horribly wrong.

Low income subsidies, yes. But, if stuff is expensive, it needs to be expensive, or we just won't have it.

Bucky Katt:

i love it! :-)

I was looking into less caustic alternatives to the screaming type protest from earlier today and ran across that. Imagine a dozen protesters in an orchestrated WHARRGARBL.

Weaver95:

Which rather makes me wonder what else you don't understand...

You know I love you Weaver so please heed this: that's dangerously close to dividing by zero.

every Democratic idea straight from the 1970's . . .

Right, 'cause nobody wanted change after the glorious Nixon regime.

Lawnchair:
Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

Hippy.

Bucky Katt:Third Day Mark:McCainDemocrat

Pssst... there are 3 branches of government designed to check each other. Not two.

/I know, I know. It just seems like there are only 2.
//going to stop feeding the troll now.

i thought there were four: legislative, judicial, executive, and Cheney.

Mr. Cheney is so cool he gets to choose what branch of government he wants to be that day.

Third Day Mark:

Mr. Cheney is so cool he gets to choose what branch of government he wants to be that day.

His solace of quantum.

They don't look bored to me.

Perhaps it's not so much boredom as frustration, we all just want this election to be over so we can have someone BESIDES Bush in office.

Is this the thread where we WHARRGARBL, seeing as how the same 5 talking points are getting stale, the trolling is worse than a shallow lake in August, and the election is barely on the horizon?

It is?

Cool.

WHARRGARBL

Obama peaked in February.

As for the branches of government, I don't mention the Supreme Court because they don't get checked often.

McCainDemocrat:Obama peaked in February.

You do realize that the general election really hasn't started yet, right? We haven't even had the party conventions.

As for the branches of government, I don't mention the Supreme Court because they don't get checked often.

you get points for coming back into the thread after such massive self pwnage, but lose points for the lame attempt at humor.

McCainDemocrat:Here is where I talk out of my ass in an attempt to get people to still notice me.

Yeah, we figured that out already.

WHARRGARBL!

McCainDemocrat:As for the branches of government, I don't mention the Supreme Court because they don't get checked often.

That has led to MANY self-esteem issues and possibly anorexia. They need to find a nice guy to settle down with and start a family

Third Day Mark:McCainDemocrat:Here is where I talk out of my ass in an attempt to get people to still notice me.

Yeah, we figured that out already.

WHARRGARBL!

Evidently it works.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf:Third Day Mark:McCainDemocrat:Here is where I talk out of my ass in an attempt to get people to still notice me.

Yeah, we figured that out already.

WHARRGARBL!

Evidently it works.

I don't recall saying that it ceased working. Congrats, you got noticed too. Now you can tell all the gang the next time you're together that you "TOTALLY pwn3d this nerd online with the 'Evidently it works' line! ZOMGWTFLOL"

albo:there is no change and won't be any. because

1. people don't like change
2. the country basically runs itself regardless who's president

#1 we can work with and #2 we can only be thankful for, given how incompetent to corrupt everyone in office tends to be. So a cheerful 'this' to you, sir.

This blogger seems like a lot of my old friends: Republican, but embarrassed to admit it. So he spends a lot of time saying he's not "excited" about the election and misrepresenting McCain slightly, and Obama, who isn't the second coming, but is clearly a highly charismatic politician representing a break from the past. The article is too long to go into, but anyone who claims that there was any kind of "focus on alternate energy" in the 1970s, is clearly drinking his own koolaid - just as one of many examples.

I'm not exactly sure why the fark mods choose to greenlight these "some dumb blogger" links like this. Probably because McCain stuff is so hard to balance.

McCampaignDemocrat: Obama peaked in February.

And John McCain has fallen ever since.



Oh look! An uptick, right there at the very end.
Isn't that cute!

Why is it that none of the charts I can find ever support your bullshiat?
You are like the purveyor of choice misinformation on your best day.

WHARRGARBL

What Ho! Arrogant Reagan Recital Gone After Robotic Biased Liberals!

We Have A Really Right Gerbil Ass Revealing Boring Litanies

White House's Annoying Rhrubarb Rubber Gives Another Right Biased Lashing

Welcome Home Again, Rumsfeld! Repeat Globally Accursed Ridicule Before Liberals!

Wakka Hoot Aaaaa Rumble Rumble Gibber Ack Rooo Boing Lump

Mr.Insightful:This blogger seems like a lot of my old friends: Republican, but embarrassed to admit it. So he spends a lot of time saying he's not "excited" about the election and misrepresenting McCain slightly, and Obama, who isn't the second coming, but is clearly a highly charismatic politician representing a break from the past. The article is too long to go into, but anyone who claims that there was any kind of "focus on alternate energy" in the 1970s, is clearly drinking his own koolaid - just as one of many examples.

I'm not exactly sure why the fark mods choose to greenlight these "some dumb blogger" links like this. Probably because McCain stuff is so hard to balance.

Too long to go into? It took me a minute to skim over it and 5 minutes to read the entire thing. I agree, the blog shouldn't have been greenlit. Especially when he rails against the liberal for "expand(ing) the role of government into Americans lives (even now by supporting faith-based charitable/welfare programs)."

So Obama's going to take the fall for Dubya's initiative? Sounds like GOP logic to me.

My wife's father, lifelong Republican, voted for Bush twice, is going for Obama, or so he says. Also claims he is never voting for another Republican.

We'll see, but I think he's serious.

57 years of age, white, no college, military (national guard) background, employed his whole life, suburban homeowner, raised 2 kids, married over 30 years to the same spouse.

If McCain can't get this guys vote, game over.