[PaperNotes]

And after a year in charge people will be sick of him too. It doesn't matter who you vote for. There are no good candidates. They are all bought or have agendas of their own to fill their pockets and the pockets of their friends. It's over, folks. Your democracy is being sold off. Stockholders and brokers will still be shorting stock for years because they are the guys in charge in the first place. The government is taking over everything from your bank account to how much carbon you exhale from your lungs. And you deserve to lose your freedoms because you're self obsessed, can't take your eyes of your gadgets, back any politician who supports your own agenda against the rest of humanity, and because you're just not threatening enough with your beer gut and your Xbox controller in hand. The Greens and the Islamists have been threatening so politicians bend over backwards to appease them.

Obama will win and he'll be the same bullshit president you're used to.

[stevesnj]

+1 I am an Obama supporter and i voted for GHW Bush. I vote for the one that I have views I agree with...if everyone believes the Candidate they vote for will live up to what they promise in the campaign your living in fantasy land!

[Krusty]

I basically agree. Obama looks to be on the way to winning. Things won't change NEARLY as much as people think they will. We'll get a little tax tweak that will amount to very little difference for the overwhelming majority of the country, probably an exit strategy in Iraq, foreign nations (including our allies) may give us another try after writing us off as completely unilateral a$$holes after 9/11. All in all, not much that will change the course of what most of us get up and do each day.

A couple of things will probably change significantly: we are likely to be in dire economic trouble for a while, whomever becomes president. It is also likely that we may be at heightened risk of a terror attack. If you look at the history, a first bombing attempt on WTC was carried out very early in 1993 .. just a couple months after Clinton was sworn in. 9/11 was, of course, about 8 months into Dubya's first term. Looks like the break in continuity from one administration to another is considered a good time to try these things. Of course, since Obama is palling around with terrorists (per Palin), maybe he'll ask them to take it easy on us for a while

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I never considered that… it's a good point you bring up.

Maybe Obama will actually be better for national security than McCain, because he'll just phone up the terrorists on his cell and be like "yo....chillax on the bombs Aladdin, I gots to do my bidness" and they'll be like "Allah Ackbar" and tell Sayf-Allah to hang out in Iceland until BHusseinO gives further orders.

You must read Foreign Affairs

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

IIt is also likely that we may be at heightened risk of a terror attack. If you look at the history, a first bombing attempt on WTC was carried out very early in 1993 .. just a couple months after Clinton was sworn in. 9/11 was, of course, about 8 months into Dubya's first term. Looks like the break in continuity from one administration to another is considered a good time to try these things.

Glad someone else noticed this.
I'm expecting a major incident next year.

Don't forget that Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie) was just after Bush senior was voted in. That's three incidents on three changes of president.

[Uncle Skeleton]

OMG we should make W stay in power for life!

Hey actually that might give him enough time to continue/revive the Tippecanoe tradition...

[MindFad]

You have no faith in rigging elections! [/tinfoil hat] I'm not holding my breath.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Glad someone else noticed this.
I'm expecting a major incident next year.

Don't forget that Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie) was just after Bush senior was voted in. That's three incidents on three changes of president.

Hmmmmm .... that'd be an interesting debate question for McCain:
"Mr. McCain, seeing how a change in US presidencies and security apparatus tends to be followed shortly by a terror attack, would you say that your policies are enough different from George Bush's to cause another such attack? Or are they really just a continuation of Bush, thereby keeping us safe ?"

[Chongo]

Bradley Effect™ alert. O' Bama is up by about the same points as Mayor Bradley was in 1982

[MindFad]

[Dakar V]

This thread feels like an attempt at a reverse jinx.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I never considered that… it's a good point you bring up.

Maybe Obama will actually be better for national security than McCain, because he'll just phone up the terrorists on his cell and be like "yo....chillax on the bombs Aladdin, I gots to do my bidness" and they'll be like "Allah Ackbar" and tell Sayf-Allah to hang out in Iceland until BHusseinO gives further orders.

You must read Foreign Affairs

greg

One of the few posts in the PL I've actually enjoyed reading.

[Kerrigan]

lolz

[Shaddim]

Obama will win

Probably. Oh well, just means I need to change stocks and funds. I'll just sell "big" oil and tobacco and buy cleantech, banking, and legal. Of course, I'll probably have to cut back on charitable donations by ~20%, but I don't see many ways to avoid that.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

One of the few posts in the PL I've actually enjoyed reading.

Same here.

[kobi]

PaperNotes,

I think you need to rename this thread : "Obama has Won"

It would prepare all the Righty's for what's coming.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by kobi 

It would prepare all the Righty's for what's coming.

You talking about the idiot with a rifle making Biden president? The fallout will make the Watts riots look like a sit-in.


(No, I'm not endorsing such action. I'm simply afraid that's what will happen.)

[tie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And after a year in charge people will be sick of him too. It doesn't matter who you vote for. There are no good candidates.

There aren't any perfect candidates, but I disagree that there aren't good candidates. For one thing, I think Obama will be less likely to appoint a horse judge as the head of FEMA. It is hard not to be more competent and less corrupt than Bush. And, given McCain's choices of economic advisors ("Dow 36,000"? Today it closed under 10), I think McCain will be more of the same. (And Palin would be worse than Bush.)

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't forget that Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie) was just after Bush senior was voted in.

That would be interesting, if it were true. The Lockerbie bombing was in December 1988. Bush was sworn in January 1989.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

That would be interesting, if it were true. The Lockerbie bombing was in December 1988. Bush was sworn in January 1989.

Illiterate?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't forget that Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie) was just after Bush senior was voted in. That's three incidents on three changes of president.

Or are you telling me that Bush senior wasn't voted in on November 8, 1988?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't forget that Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie) was just after Bush senior was voted in.

Illiterate?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's three incidents on three changes of president.

Are you telling me the presidency changed before before Bush was sworn in?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Illiterate?

Are you telling me the presidency changed before before Bush was sworn in?

Now you're playing semantics.

You'll notice I said "on" three changes of presidents. Not "after". "On" covers a much wider time-frame than "after". Unless you're denying that the time between the vote results and being sworn in isn't a time of change, of course.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Now you're playing semantics.

And you called me illiterate because I took your words literally. Seems fair.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You'll notice I said "on" three changes of presidents. Not "after". "On" covers a much wider time-frame than "after". Unless you're denying that the time between the vote results and being sworn in isn't a time of change, of course.

I'm denying that there is any evidence of causation. It's an interesting theory, but then again, so is the theory that NASA faked the moon landing. Interesting does !=true.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

And you called me illiterate because I took your words literally. Seems fair.

No. If you were taking my words literally, you'd have noticed I said voted and not bothered spawning this little sub-thread.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm denying that there is any evidence of causation. It's an interesting theory, but then again, so is the theory that NASA faked the moon landing. Interesting does !=true.

We'll see. Not long now.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. If you were taking my words literally, you'd have noticed I said voted and not bothered spawning this little sub-thread.

You're omitting the "three changes of Presidents" line. I get your point that it could be interpreted as meaning around and about, but taken literally, it was incorrect. The incident happened before the presidency changed. I would not had played the semantics had you not accused me of being illiterate for taking your words literally. You could have explained your reasonable point without being an ass.

[shabbasuraj]

Obama will not win...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

You're omitting the "three changes of Presidents" line. I get your point that it could be interpreted as meaning around and about, but taken literally, it was incorrect. The incident happened before the presidency changed. I would not had played the semantics had you not accused me of being illiterate for taking your words literally. You could have explained your reasonable point without being an ass.

No. Your original post on this matter said:

Originally Posted by Paco500 

That would be interesting, if it were true. The Lockerbie bombing was in December 1988. Bush was sworn in January 1989.

In response to this line, and this line only:

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't forget that Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie) was just after Bush senior was voted in.

Which is, in fact, 100% true.

Now, let's take that literally. I'll break it down for you.

"Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie)" = occurred 21st December 1988.
"was just after" = happened shortly afterwards in time.
"Bush senior was voted in" = occurred 8th November 1988.

Now, I don't know what your 1998 calendar looks like but mine says that the 21st of December is after the 8th of November. I suspect that this is true of a great many calendars.

You told me that this wasn't true, because instead of "voted in" you read "sworn in"... ...when the words "voted in" are quite clear. Thus, accusation of illiteracy.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

You could have explained your reasonable point without being an ass.

Nevermind. My mistake.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Nevermind. My mistake.

Damn right it's your mistake. Don't tell me I'm bullshitting when you haven't properly read what I've written and then try the semantics game to weasel your way out of it.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Damn right it's your mistake. Don't tell me I'm bullshitting when you haven't properly read what I've written and then try the semantics game to weasel your way out of it.

I read what you wrote. I quoted part of it for brevity. Shall we review what you wrote one last time and then you can puff your chest out some more, call me names and strut around like you've won some kind of battle royale?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't forget that Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie) was just after Bush senior was voted in. That's three incidents on three changes of president.

That last bit? Not true. You may have meant something else, but it's not what you wrote. You were wrong. Incorrect. Get upset, call me names, stamp your feet and kick your dog. It doesn't make you any more correct. I get it, you meant something other than what you wrote. You have a fragile ego. You can't admit mistakes. You attack others to compensate for your low self-esteem. Whatever. It's not that big a deal.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

You can't admit mistakes.

Sorry mate but any mistakes in this thread are yours. It'd be impossible for me to admit to mistakes that I haven't made.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

You attack others to compensate for your low self-esteem.

Right. So this little sub-thread didn't start with you attacking me then?

I posted the truth.
You decided to take a pop at me.
You failed 'coz you're crap at reading.
I pointed this out to you.
You've just spent the last hour and a half desperately trying to pin something on me and claw your way out of the hole you've dug yourself, all the while trying to weasel out of admitting your mistake.

I'll admit one mistake, Paco. I thought you were a decent sort. Seems I was wrong.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll admit one mistake, Paco. I thought you were a decent sort. Seems I was wrong.

Yep, you were wrong. I'm a bastard.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Same here.

Hope you didn't mind me using your good name. Given the circumstances it just seemed likely to provide the most Teh Funny™.

greg

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hope you didn't mind me using your good name. Given the circumstances it just seemed likely to provide the most Teh Funny™.

greg

Oh, I completely agree with that.

:goes off on a Jihad against the Icelandic krona:

[chris v]

Will ya look at that. 30 days to go.

[Chongo]

Once again, just for emphasis.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Bradley Effect™ Alert

[MindFad]

Just for emphasis.

Originally Posted by MindFad 

[Chongo]

Tom Bradley didn't think it was

[Shaddim]

Ok conservatives, I've been pondering this for quite some time, and I'm willing to give Obama a chance. Or, to be more accurate, I'll no longer attempt to stand in the way.

Hear me out. Recently, Repubs had control of the Legislative and Executive branches, so let's see how the Dems do with full control. This seems to be what the electorate wants, so they should have it. I think it will be a disaster, but on a positive note, it will work as a wake-up call to Americans that both major parties are worthless. Personally, I think nothing short of a large scale economic meltdown will bring about the change we need. At this point I don't believe either party can stop what is going to happen, both are far too incompetent to avert collapse. So, I say, let it burn. Over the last few months I've moved most of my net worth into more stable investments or to off-shore holdings, in anticipation of what we're currently seeing. I've been warning those closest to me to do the same, consider this as free advice to the rest of you.

No, this doesn't mean I'll throw in for B.O., I refuse to go that far, largely because he is a Socialist and far too inexperienced. I'll simply vote 3rd party as a protest, as I've done in the past (Perot 2x, Brown, Badnarik ). This time around, I'll be casting my vote for Charles Baldwin. So, yes, you can say that I'm officially removing my support for John McCain. I'll not be sending more money to the RNC or any Republican organizations for the foreseeable future, if ever again.

I've grabbed a fiddle (and some marshmallows) and sitting back to watch Rome burn. It'll be one hell of a show.

[Dakar V]

Well this took a melodramatic turn.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, I say, let it burn.

Read my mind.

I very nearly posted something along these lines last night. I figure everyone here with any sense will be adequately protected against the upcoming storm, so hey let's grab the popcorn and laugh.

I actually managed to exploit a legal loophole yesterday and quietly fell off the electoral register.

[Shaddim]

Well this took a melodramatic turn.

Facing the truth can seem that way at times. Don't worry, though. I guarantee it'll be entertaining, if a bit painful.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've grabbed a fiddle (and some marshmallows) and sitting back to watch Rome burn. It'll be one hell of a show.

If you use the last 40 years as a model: Bush II and the Republican Congress of his first 6 years increased federal spending at a faster yearly pace than any president since LBJ and his "Great Society".
Under the Clinton Adminstration, the average yearly increase in budget was 1.54%. Under the first 6 Bush II budgets, the average yearly increase has been 3.63% (and this is before the cost of wars which were handled as supplemental appropriations, not part of the presented budget). Before he began trying to pander to the Republican base, even McCain accused the Republicans of spending "like drunken sailors" (of course, he also called the religious right "agents of intolerance" which he has also backed down from now). And, in case you are wondering, if you further split the Clinton adminstration into the first two years (when he had a Dem Congress) vs. the last 6 years (when he had a Rep Congress). The first two budgets under the "free spending" Dems averaged a 1.45% yearly increase while the last 6 years when it was Dem with Rep Congress increased by an average of 1.57%.

As we all know, Dems tend to raise taxes on the wealthier people. More taxes + controlled spending = balanced budget. Republicans seem to want to lower taxes on the wealthy more as a matter of philosophical principle, even though it causes budget shortfalls. The reality is, they spend just as bad (or worse) than a bunch of Democrats but don't find sources of revenue to pay for it all.

Point being, I don't think you'll be quite so shocked at what happens as you may expect. It'll probably not be nearly the excitement of "Rome burning" that you anticipate. Rome was also supposed to burn when Clinton got elected but his 8 years (with the important help of a Rep Congress for the last of it) were the best times for average americans since the early 70s.

[hyteckit]

McCain just lost the election.

[tie]

It's remarkable how the experience factor really hasn't played in McCain's favor. McCain shot himself in the foot by choosing Palin. But now in the debates, the argument seems ridiculous, since Obama can answer foreign policy questions at least as well as McCain, while McCain is stuck dodging Iraq.

McCain hasn't been able to find an "experience" wedge attack that will stick. He keeps bringing up that Obama would get Bin Laden in Pakistan if he could, but I think every American agrees with Obama on this and eventually McCain admits that he also agrees. So what is their difference on this issue? I have no idea. The second wedge that McCain pushed a lot in the first debate, and a bit more in this one, was that Obama said he would meet with foreign leaders even of our enemies. But Obama had a planned rebuttal: look what Bush's policies on Iran and N. Korea have given us. By pushing this, McCain was forced to identify himself with Bush's failures, so Obama managed to turn it around.

McCain's only possible route to victory is to focus on the economy. If he came up with a dramatic new proposal, then that could change things. But his economic advisors lack credibility ("Dow 36,000" indeed) and he himself brings nothing to the table except eight houses, 13 cars and proposals to cut taxes on the millionaires while increasing taxes on everyone who has employer-sponsored health care. His campaign has indicated that it wants to ignore the economy and focus on negative attacks, but I think that is a huge mistake. The attacks aren't sticking, and McCain just looks more and more out of touch.

[Shaddim]

He lost it months ago, where have you been?

[Big Mac]

McCain did better but wasn't willing to go all out. He made progress on a number of issues but missed some key opportunities. He has one more chance to put it all on the line. We'll see what happens in the polls and in the last debate. If he loses it's his own fault.

As far as the "let it all burn" sentiment goes, do you really want to see 300 million Americans harmed? No man is an island, and we can't all emigrate to Switzerland or Sweden, so I'm not prepared to sit back and laugh at the damage a Barack Obama presidency would do not only to us domestically but to the world as well.

[Ghoser777]

2 things... Did McCain really say that Social Security was "easy" to fix? Did he also say that he knew how to get Bin Laden. If either of these are true, why is he keeping it a secret? We'd all love to know.

[hyteckit]

McCain - I know to fix everything, trust me

I can fix the economy
I can fix social security
I know how to catch Bin Laden

How you might ask? I'll tell you how. Cause I'm a reformer, I'm a maverick who take on my own party.

Okay, got that?!

Palin - you betcha! We are mavericks.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

2 things... Did McCain really say that Social Security was "easy" to fix? Did he also say that he knew how to get Bin Laden. If either of these are true, why is he keeping it a secret? We'd all love to know.

He says it can be accomplished quickly, but he cites Reagan's bipartisan effort in 1983 as the model, which bothers me. Notice that Obama didn't have a straight answer on entitlements reform, since he doesn't want to reform the programs. He did say he would get bin Laden but won't telegraph his punches like BHO has. He's made such guarantees before.