FTA:

Obama was asked if he, too, isn't engaging in negative campaigning, and how is his negative talk different from McCain's negative talk.

"This is the classic dilemma of politics,' Obama replied. "We get four or five shots in a row (assertions by McCain), that I would rather lose a war so that I can win a campaign, that I am not willing to visit the troops, that I somehow am full of myself, that I'm an empty-headed celebrity, whatever repeated attacks have been launched this week, so when I say, boy those are kind of silly arguments, the press says, isn't that being negative. Well no, I'm describing what their strategy has been for the last week... I'm just stating the facts....

Actually, you could just cut and paste the entire article, it is full of extremely good observations by Barack.

Actually, McCain's campaign is completely racist cynical desperate.

I know polls don't mean shiat but they appear to be exactly even money today. I really don't like either one of them but I sure as hell don't like the notion of a Democratic Executive AND Legislature situation. That's swinging to far. I never thought I'd miss "gridlock" as much as I do. That whole "checks and balances" dealio appeals to me.

In case you were wondering, next week's talking point?

Obama called McCain camp "silly". Is he avoiding the truths about his candidacy by calling the arguments silly and not refuting them? Barack Obama, avoiding the problems Americans have with him and hoping to brush them off like they don't matter.

What is wrong with Barack Obama? Why can't he refute such things without degrading the person arguing?

Why is he so mean to McCain?

GaryPDX: I know polls don't mean shiat but they appear to be exactly even money today.

If they mean shiat...then what is the point of mentioning that they are even money?

Do you have a cool graphic that shows this even money situation?

I've seen one GIF (kinda greenish, two lines, oddly close the whole time...but definitely showing a sharp Obama decline for whatever reason) and that's the only one I've seen.

GaryPDX: I really don't like either one of them but I sure as hell don't like the notion of a Democratic Executive AND Legislature situation. That's swinging to far. I never thought I'd miss "gridlock" as much as I do. That whole "checks and balances" dealio appeals to me.

Then vote for Obama and straight R everywhere else, that's what I'm seriously considering doing.

Put the Republicans back in charge of everything. Things won't be any better but at least only the Dems will be complaining... the Repubs and "independents" will settle down and stop being so angry.

GaryPDX: I never thought I'd miss "gridlock" as much as I do. That whole "checks and balances" dealio appeals to me.

Except in 2004...when you didn't vote for Kerry because...well...let's be honest...it's John Kerry.

bulldg4life: GaryPDX: I know polls don't mean shiat but they appear to be exactly even money today.

If they mean shiat...then what is the point of mentioning that they are even money?

Do you have a cool graphic that shows this even money situation?

I've seen one GIF (kinda greenish, two lines, oddly close the whole time...but definitely showing a sharp Obama decline for whatever reason) and that's the only one I've seen.

No way dude..hahaha..I'm not going into poll data. I don't believe any of it anyway and a lot can happen in 4 months.

bulldg4life: GaryPDX: I never thought I'd miss "gridlock" as much as I do. That whole "checks and balances" dealio appeals to me.

Except in 2004...when you didn't vote for Kerry because...well...let's be honest...it's John Kerry.

That's right, there was NO WAY I was going to vote for that freakshow.

GaryPDX: No way dude..hahaha..I'm not going into poll data. I don't believe any of it anyway and a lot can happen in 4 months.

So, what's the point of talking about them being even money?

I haven't seen anyone anywhere talk like they were even money in months.

bulldg4life: GaryPDX: No way dude..hahaha..I'm not going into poll data. I don't believe any of it anyway and a lot can happen in 4 months.

So, what's the point of talking about them being even money?

I haven't seen anyone anywhere talk like they were even money in months.

I had MSNBC on this morning. You can look for yourself..:)

GaryPDX: That's right, there was NO WAY I was going to vote for that freakshow.

So, what you meant to say originally was "I never thought I'd miss "gridlock" as much as I do except in 2004. That whole "checks and balances" dealio appeals to me except when the republicans are in charge and the democrat is someone I don't like".

You're not as much into coordinated governments when the democrats are in charge, but if the republicans are going to control both branches...well, then I'll just vote against some guy I don't like.

bulldg4life: GaryPDX: That's right, there was NO WAY I was going to vote for that freakshow.

So, what you meant to say originally was "I never thought I'd miss "gridlock" as much as I do except in 2004. That whole "checks and balances" dealio appeals to me except when the republicans are in charge and the democrat is someone I don't like".

You're not as much into coordinated governments when the democrats are in charge, but if the republicans are going to control both branches...well, then I'll just vote against some guy I don't like.

Your logic is lacking. It was pretty clear in 04 that 06 would have democrats in the legislature, at least it was to me. And Kerry actually IS a freakshow.

All this talk of McCain's campaign going negative - wasn't it going negative that allowed Obama to catch up to Clinton in Iowa last fall?

bulldg4life: Obama called McCain camp "silly". Is he avoiding the truths about his candidacy by calling the arguments silly and not refuting them?

Obama "wanting to lose a war" and "Obama's a super celebrity that everyone loves" aren't arguments.

"I want to talk about how we're going to put more money in people's pockets...

Unless you are rich, in which case, sorry, you just don't count.

Cutting spending would be a good way to put more money in people's pockets, but that doesn't seem to be on Obama's agenda.

GaryPDX: bulldg4life: GaryPDX: That's right, there was NO WAY I was going to vote for that freakshow.

So, what you meant to say originally was "I never thought I'd miss "gridlock" as much as I do except in 2004. That whole "checks and balances" dealio appeals to me except when the republicans are in charge and the democrat is someone I don't like".

You're not as much into coordinated governments when the democrats are in charge, but if the republicans are going to control both branches...well, then I'll just vote against some guy I don't like.

Your logic is lacking. It was pretty clear in 04 that 06 would have democrats in the legislature, at least it was to me. And Kerry actually IS a freakshow.

No it wasn't. Shiat had to get a lot worse and Mark Foley had to get busted right before the midterms to have Democrats gaining so much.

GaryPDX: And Kerry actually IS a freakshow.

Unlike that paragon of virtue, honesty, and intellect that is Bush.

Wow.

KaponoFor3: Cutting spending would be a good way to put more money in people's pockets, but that doesn't seem to be on Obama's agenda.

Do you know what PAYGO is?

KaponoFor3: Unless you are rich, in which case, sorry, you just don't count.

Cutting spending would be a good way to put more money in people's pockets, but that doesn't seem to be on Obama's agenda.

Not on McCain's agenda either. He plans on balancing the budget with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, for shiat's sake. As for the "unless you're rich" thing, I think they'll be okay. Obama's talking about putting more money in the pockets of most (read as 94%) of Americans. I can live with that.

Obdicut: Do you know what PAYGO is?

Yes, I do. I also know that his plan to pay as you go will be financed by increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. For some, that is OK. I'd prefer to see a cut in spending rather than an increase in taxes combined with an increase in spending

KaponoFor3: Yes, I do. I also know that his plan to pay as you go will be financed by increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. For some, that is OK. I'd prefer to see a cut in spending rather than an increase in taxes combined with an increase in spending

What about a cut in taxes combined with an increase in spending?

mcwebe0: Not on McCain's agenda either. He plans on balancing the budget with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, for shiat's sake. As for the "unless you're rich" thing, I think they'll be okay. Obama's talking about putting more money in the pockets of most (read as 94%) of Americans. I can live with that.

If its not on McCain's agenda, that doesn't mean that its an excuse for Obama or justification for it not being on his plan either.

Unlike you, however, I'm not OK with robbing the rich (6%) to give to the poor (94%). Just be honest and call it robbery or wealth redistribution, because that is what it is.

Obdicut: What about a cut in taxes combined with an increase in spending?

I'm against an increase in spending, period.

Skleenar: Actually, you could just cut and paste the entire article, it is full of extremely good observations by Barack.

He does seem to be a reasonable thinker. Which is probably why so many Americans are terrified of him.

KaponoFor3: I'm against an increase in spending, period.

So you're voting for Barr, I assume, and equally critical of McCain and Obama?


Unlike you, however, I'm not OK with robbing the rich (6%) to give to the poor (94%). Just be honest and call it robbery or wealth redistribution, because that is what it is.

This is just stupid. Are taxes by themselves robbery?

KaponoFor3: I'm against an increase in spending, period.

So I suppose that means that you don't have a dog in this race?

Yeah, the rich won't suffer too horribly if the poor get more money. Where do you think they'll spend that money, at large corporations owned by other poor people?

KaponoFor3: If its not on McCain's agenda, that doesn't mean that its an excuse for Obama or justification for it not being on his plan either.

You are correct. It is not a justification for it being in Obama's plan. It is however, valid to point out that it is not a point of divergence between the two main candidates. I am beginning to wonder who it is you do support. Care to share or are you simply a Fark Independent^TM?

Obdicut: Do you know what PAYGO is?



Say nice things about Detroit.

Obdicut: So you're voting for Barr, I assume, and equally critical of McCain and Obama?

Yes, I will be voting for Barr. Ultimately, in my state it doesn't really matter who I vote for because Obama is going to dominate.

Obdicut: This is just stupid. Are taxes by themselves robbery?

Yes, they are to a certain extent. I understand certain governmental functions need to be funded -- defense, roads, common utilities used by all (police, fire, ambulance), etc. However, it is robbery in the sense that for a portion of the year you are working for the government. The fruits of your labor are forced to be given to the government. This is especially true if you are "wealthy" -- from January 1 to (I believe) mid-April, every penny you make goes to the government in taxes. It's only your post-April income that you actually get to keep for yourself.

How is that NOT robbery?

SphericalTime: So I suppose that means that you don't have a dog in this race?

Bingo.

mcwebe0: I am beginning to wonder who it is you do support.

I support neither McCain or Obama. While I disagree with more of Obama's policies than McCain's, I ultimately believe Obama would be better for the country than McCain.

KaponoFor3: Yes, I will be voting for Barr. Ultimately, in my state it doesn't really matter who I vote for because Obama is going to dominate.

Good to hear. (The voting for Barr bit, I mean.)

Yes, they are to a certain extent.

Weaseling. Robbery exists or it doesn't. Are taxes robbery?

Taxes are not robbery because you get something back for them. You get many things back for them. Some of those things you don't personally need or want, but we as a society, a governed society, have decided to provide them. You may not benefit much from the taxes you give; that's because you're part of a society.

While I disagree with more of Obama's policies than McCain's, I ultimately believe Obama would be better for the country than McCain.

It may be of interest to you to know that you generally give the opposite impression. I'm not in any way implying dishonesty on your part, just recommending that you might want to consider communicating this tidbit more often, if you think it's a valuable thing to communicate your views accurately.

KaponoFor3: How is that NOT robbery?

You are by no means forced to do any such thing. You can choose to live in another country. Feel free to go to a place where there are minimal, if any taxes. No one is forcing you to stay. If you want to be a part of our community, however, you have to pay for the services it provides. Would you prefer that we just print new money to pay for those services, instead, and allow everyone to freeload off the time and energy spent to keep them in place? It's not robbery. It's simply an exchange of money for goods and/or services.

UNC_Samurai: All this talk of McCain's campaign going negative - wasn't it going negative that allowed Obama to catch up to Clinton in Iowa last fall?

Howard Wolfson commented that the McCain campaign must have been paying close attention to the Clinton campaign's performance and keyed in to what tactics were working. I McCain's camp missed the bigger lesson to be learned. The only place the character attacks seemed to work was in Pennsylvania. It nosedived everywhere else, especially when race was injected.

Diogenes: The only place the character attacks seemed to work was in Pennsylvania.

Did they really work there? I mean, she went from almost a 20 point lead to only taking the state by, like, 8 points.

mcwebe0: Diogenes: The only place the character attacks seemed to work was in Pennsylvania.

Did they really work there? I mean, she went from almost a 20 point lead to only taking the state by, like, 8 points.

Net gain, I guess. Obama's campaigning independent of what Clinton was doing or saying probably chipped away at her earlier lead.

Yeah, the rich won't suffer too horribly if the poor get more money. Where do you think they'll spend that money, at large corporations owned by other poor people?

That sounds like Barry Bonds' version of welfare*

hard to argue with that. in three months the only positive thing mccain has said about himself is that he supports offshore drilling, something he was opposed to as of May of this year.

Obdicut: KaponoFor3: Yes, I do. I also know that his plan to pay as you go will be financed by increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. For some, that is OK. I'd prefer to see a cut in spending rather than an increase in taxes combined with an increase in spending

What about a cut in taxes combined with an increase in spending?

no problem there, it was a Glorious plan.

"I don't think it's accurate to say that my comments have nothing to do with race," So said Senator Obama. WTF? I read it 6 times and still don't know what he's claiming. This guy makes Bill Clinton sound like a straight talker. Could he fashion any more of a lawyerly piece of shiat than that?

Obama, a fresh new face in politics. fark you for believing that.

I believe they call it a double negative connotation and assholes only use it if they can't speak the english language or are being intentionally deceptive. I choose what's behind Door number 2.

Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: "I don't think it's accurate to say that my comments have nothing to do with race," So said Senator Obama. WTF? I read it 6 times and still don't know what he's claiming. This guy makes Bill Clinton sound like a straight talker. Could he fashion any more of a lawyerly piece of shiat than that?

"Obama's comments have nothing to do with race" ≠ accurate statement.

Reading really insn't your strong suit, is it?

McCain isn't racist because McCain hasn't built any kind of poll lead yet. Not, while it's sorta tied.

If McCain builds any kind of poll lead, then he is racist. Especially, if it's October.

October is when the fun stuff happens anyway. It's popcorn time.

This is really a non issue for me. I don't think the ad's were "attack" ad's, but I do think they were a dumbass idea, and McCain advisors who said "Hey, this is a GREAT idea" should get kicked to the curb. 80's politics ain't gonna cut it John, wake up or fail.

As far as Obama's claim he isn't playing the race card, that doesn't seem to hold water either. He clearly demonstrated this :

After Obama told audiences this week that opponents are trying to scare voters about him - Obama suggesting that they say, "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. He doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bill.'

Clearly a statement about his race.

Obama's polls are slipping because he's trying to appeal to people who won't vote for him anyway whilst alienating people who would have. He, like many democrats, has allowed the republicans to set the tone and the goalposts for policy discussions and it's farking asinine.

If you dont support Obama, then you are a racist. Duh. Simple as that.

Summertime gibberish.

The following opportunities for TRUE missteps are:

1) The GOP Convention
2) The Dem Convention
3) McCain's choice of running mate
4) Obama's choice of running mate
5) The debates

DarthBrooks: Summertime gibberish.

The following opportunities for TRUE missteps are:

1) The GOP Convention
2) The Dem Convention
3) McCain's choice of running mate
4) Obama's choice of running mate
5) The debates

Ahh...you are wise in the ways sir. Well done.

Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: "I don't think it's accurate to say that my comments have nothing to do with race," So said Senator Obama. WTF? I read it 6 times and still don't know what he's claiming. This guy makes Bill Clinton sound like a straight talker. Could he fashion any more of a lawyerly piece of shiat than that?

Obama, a fresh new face in politics. fark you for believing that.

Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: I believe they call it a double negative connotation and assholes only use it if they can't speak the english language or are being intentionally deceptive. I choose what's behind Door number 2.

OMG!!!1 TEH POLITISHUN USED A BIG BOY SENTENSE! I CANT UNDRSTAND HIM!!