Current Events

TOPICS:

10/26/08

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

NewSpectre

NewSpectre

Baltimore, MD
March 2005

OCT 27, 2008 03:11 PM

mydogfarted said:

Katieesq said:
The only person who thinks this campaign is fueled by "mass fanaticism" is you, who consistently posts threads that suggest that Obama supporters are mindless automatons.



He's obviously not watched any of the 'Obama's a communist/socialist/muslim terrorist' videos. Talk about mindless automatons...



They're just as silly. But they're not on t.v. as much.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

OCT 27, 2008 03:52 PM

attn_Hussein_ho said:
ah. this is what happens when a really popular candidate is running: he gets more endorsements. This is the most popular a candidate since reagan, i think



Obama must suck because too many people like him.

It reminds me of when people say, no one wants to live in the city, it's too crowded.

NewSpectre

NewSpectre

Baltimore, MD
March 2005

OCT 27, 2008 04:04 PM

s5 said:

attn_Hussein_ho said:
ah. this is what happens when a really popular candidate is running: he gets more endorsements. This is the most popular a candidate since reagan, i think



Obama must suck because too many people like him.

It reminds me of when people say, no one wants to live in the city, it's too crowded.



I never said that Obama sucked BECAUSE too many people like him. I said that the most annoying thing about his campaign is how many people like him and how fanatic they are about it. I can't talking to 3 people in a bar without getting the "Obama is our lord and savior" talk from at least one of them.

But I live Baltimore's gay neighborhood. These folks looooooove them some Obama.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

OCT 27, 2008 04:04 PM

NewSpectre said:
I can't not WAIT for November 5th to get here just so all of this retarded election will be over. Hopefully in four years we can have an election that isn't a walking, breathing, characature of our political process.



I'm also ready for it to be over, but I can't agree with the rest. This election has been the best example in my lifetime of how our political process should work.

We've had small dollar donations, rather than huge corporate donations. We've seen lawyers and voters rights activists organizing to make sure people's rights are protected at the polls. Huge turnout even in early voting. Candidates with clear contrasts who have been unafraid to talk about those contrasts. Contested primaries. Technology used in new and interesting ways to organize supporters. Fact checking immediately after debates and posted to major media websites. Focus groups and post-debate snap polls that force the pundits to talk about how real people actually reacted to the debate, rather than pundits manufacturing opinion about "who won". Constant polling from multiple outlets so people know exactly where the race stands. Candidates who are breaking gender and race barriers.

Yeah I don't know... This is the best election ever in this country. It's definitely one for the history books.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

OCT 27, 2008 04:11 PM

NewSpectre said:
I never said that Obama sucked BECAUSE too many people like him. I said that the most annoying thing about his campaign is how many people like him and how fanatic they are about it. I can't talking to 3 people in a bar without getting the "Obama is our lord and savior" talk from at least one of them.



I gotcha. But consider this - after getting trounced in 2000 and 2004, Democrats picked up a reputation for nominating wooden candidates who just can't connect with "ordinary Americans" because they try to inspire people with bullet points and policy laundry lists.

So you can't really be too surprised that the dems picked someone who would draw crowds and get people talking and cheering.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

OCT 27, 2008 04:14 PM

I've never heard any of his supporters call him the messiah, or anything remotely like that. The only ones I see using those terms are his detractors.

NewSpectre

NewSpectre

Baltimore, MD
March 2005

OCT 27, 2008 04:18 PM

Rusty_metal_ass said:

NewSpectre said:

s5 said:

NewSpectre said:
I can't not WAIT for November 5th to get here just so all of this retarded election will be over. Hopefully in four years we can have an election that isn't a walking, breathing, characature of our political process.



I'm also ready for it to be over, but I can't agree with the rest. This election has been the best example in my lifetime of how our political process should work.

We've had small dollar donations, rather than huge corporate donations. We've seen lawyers and voters rights activists organizing to make sure people's rights are protected at the polls. Huge turnout even in early voting. Candidates with clear contrasts who have been unafraid to talk about those contrasts. Contested primaries. Technology used in new and interesting ways to organize supporters. Fact checking immediately after debates and posted to major media websites. Focus groups and post-debate snap polls that force the pundits to talk about how real people actually reacted to the debate, rather than pundits manufacturing opinion about "who won". Constant polling from multiple outlets so people know exactly where the race stands. Candidates who are breaking gender and race barriers.

Yeah I don't know... This is the best election ever in this country. It's definitely one for the history books.



I just threw up in my mouth a little.


So, enlighten us then. Tell us how this is the worst election ever.




The election isn't bollocks because of how it's happened, it's bollocks because of who we have to choose from. Both candidates spent 110% of their time pandering to whoever they're picking this week. They both give me no real hope of anything good coming from either of them. They both are making promises that there is no way they're going to keep.

Basically doing all the same things that every other candidate has done for the last 200 years. They're just bigger and louder about it. I wanted to stab myself in the ears during the debates, just when I though one had made a big enough ass out of themselves to hand the win to the other guy, the other one would talk and I'd have to fight back the urge to throw a brick through the television.

I'm getting irritated just thinking about it.

lil_tuffy

lil_tuffy

MODERATOR

San Francisco, CA

OCT 27, 2008 04:43 PM

Enough. If you want to talk about newspaper endorsements then great. newspectre needs to quit side-tracking topics with his tired disillusionment routine.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

OCT 27, 2008 04:50 PM

NewSpectre said:
The election isn't bollocks because of how it's happened, it's bollocks because of who we have to choose from.



Here's what I was responding to:

Hopefully in four years we can have an election that isn't a walking, breathing, characature of our political process.



So your original criticism was about the process. But now you're saying it's not about the process, it's about the candidates.

NewSpectre

NewSpectre

Baltimore, MD
March 2005

OCT 27, 2008 04:54 PM

s5 said:

NewSpectre said:
The election isn't bollocks because of how it's happened, it's bollocks because of who we have to choose from.



Here's what I was responding to:

Hopefully in four years we can have an election that isn't a walking, breathing, characature of our political process.



So your original criticism was about the process. But now you're saying it's not about the process, it's about the candidates.



Fair enough. But I have lost faith in a process that asks me the chose between these two.

MessyJesse

MessyJesse

Roanoke, VA
February 2008

OCT 27, 2008 05:05 PM

NewSpectre said:
Fair enough. But I have lost faith in a process that asks me the chose between these two.



You mean democracy?

Salome

Salome

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

OCT 27, 2008 05:42 PM

Subrosa said:
For what it's worth, Obama is absolutely kicking the shit out of McCain in newspaper endorsements.

Here's an interactive map that shows the endorsements up through the weekend. The tally then was 139-52. Twenty-nine of those papers who endorsed Obama endorsed Bush in 2004. Among those pinko liberal bandwagon jumping rags are the Salt Lake Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, the Bryn/College Station Eagle and my hometown paper and former employer the Tri-Valley Herald in Pleasanton, CA.

McCain has had four (4) papers endorse him who endorsed Kerry in 2004. The final tally in 2004 was 208-189 in favor of Kerry.



Back on track:
The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama as well.

While it might seem like a no-brainer for anyone outside Illinois, the Chicago Tribune has never, NEVER endorsed a Democrat for president. They're hung up on the whole party-of-Abraham-Lincoln thing; they even endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004. But, like many other papers and other conservative bastions mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, it came down to the economy, the negative campaigning, and the insultingly shallow choice of a supremely unqualified prospective VP that did it for the Trib.

Chicago politics being what they are, the Tribune would have been the first to tear Obama limb from limb. But they didn't. The Trib broke with more than 150 years of tradition, even invoking the great Lincoln himself and his message of a more perfect union, in their endorsement. Sometimes I'm proud to have Chicago as my adopted hometown.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

OCT 27, 2008 06:20 PM

Salome said:

Subrosa said:
For what it's worth, Obama is absolutely kicking the shit out of McCain in newspaper endorsements.

Here's an interactive map that shows the endorsements up through the weekend. The tally then was 139-52. Twenty-nine of those papers who endorsed Obama endorsed Bush in 2004. Among those pinko liberal bandwagon jumping rags are the Salt Lake Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, the Bryn/College Station Eagle and my hometown paper and former employer the Tri-Valley Herald in Pleasanton, CA.

McCain has had four (4) papers endorse him who endorsed Kerry in 2004. The final tally in 2004 was 208-189 in favor of Kerry.



Back on track:
The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama as well.

While it might seem like a no-brainer for anyone outside Illinois, the Chicago Tribune has never, NEVER endorsed a Democrat for president. They're hung up on the whole party-of-Abraham-Lincoln thing; they even endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004. But, like many other papers and other conservative bastions mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, it came down to the economy, the negative campaigning, and the insultingly shallow choice of a supremely unqualified prospective VP that did it for the Trib.

Chicago politics being what they are, the Tribune would have been the first to tear Obama limb from limb. But they didn't. The Trib broke with more than 150 years of tradition, even invoking the great Lincoln himself and his message of a more perfect union, in their endorsement. Sometimes I'm proud to have Chicago as my adopted hometown.



The Trib endorsement is a really big deal, yeah. I was waiting to see what they'd do.

Again, the conservative intelligencia abandons the GOP. Again they cite the vapid cynicism of the Palin pick as a major reason why. Again I wonder how anyone other than the staunchest anti-intellectual culture-warriors could support her at this point.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next