May 13, 2009
"Repression leads to better sex." Excuse me?
April 26, 2009
An Oklahoma City man who announced on Twitter that he would turn an April 15 tax protest into a bloodbath was hit with a federal charge of making interstate threats last week, in what appears to be first criminal prosecution to stem from posts on the microblogging site.See? It's this sort of thing that I worry about when associating with people of other ideologies when promoting a specific agenda. This dude is clearly off message.Point of fact: Wired Magazine is a bit left-leaning and it was their encouragement of music piracy that led me to cancel my subscription. But look how they've tied this lunatic to the Tea Party protests.
Daniel Knight Hayden, 52, was arrested by FBI agents who identified him as the Twitter user CitizenQuasar. In a series of tweets beginning April 11, CitizenQuasar vowed to start a “war” against the government on the steps of the Oklahoma City Capitol building, the site of that city’s version of the national “Tea Party” protests promoted by the conservative-leaning Fox News.
Granted, young movements are particularly susceptible to being undermined by lunatics who glom on and ruin everything, and that's no reason to avoid starting or joining them. It's just something to look out for.
Isn't it funny how ideas associated with conservativism have become the "counter-culture" of today?
Found on Joe.My.God.
It's sickening because in both cases you know they're happy for all the wrong reasons and because in their gloating they make that abundantly clear.
How many times has Bill Maher pointed out that Obama is black as the ultimate dig in his political jabbing at the right? We know that Janeane Garofalo believes people on the right are simply mentally ill racists.
But how many times did people on the right take Bush's election and re-election as some sort of moral sanction for Republican theocratic tendencies?
It's all so sickening.
The big issues for normal people are the economy, the war, the environment, mending fences with our allies and enemies, and the rule of law.Emphasis added.
I rarely see the liberals' tendency toward moral equivalency so clearly on display.
April 16, 2009
Here's a prime example of what I was talking about:
There are simply a lot of people who just don't know what they're talking about even though they may be on the side of righteousness.
Similarly, CNN coverage yesterday was filthy with leftist attacks on the demonstrators and demonstrators showing their ignorance.
Unfortunately, leftists take the ignorant people and treat them as representative as the whole. The argument is, "Well, since we've found all of these loonies, then they're all loonies and these protests are stupid."
Found over at Joe.My.God.
Update: I neglected to link to my other blog. Here it is: New & Improved. It's really just about business and marketing.
Update 2: The Huffington Post has a slide show of the "Top 10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs." Typically, some of their criticisms are off-base and skewed with liberal/altruist premises, but in other cases, they make some valid criticisms. Obama likes baby killing? Really?
April 11, 2009
KTVU.com: Activists Protest Recent Slayings of Gay Men in Iraq
SAN FRANCISCO -- Gay rights activists in San Francisco gathered on Monday evening to lay flowers on symbolic tombs representing slain gay Iraqis.They called for gay rights in Iraq after various media outlets reported that an Iraqi Interior minister said six gay men were killed in recent weeks after their families disowned them.Supervisor Bevan Dufty said that some of the Iraqi victims had the word "pervert" in Arabic written on their bodies, leaving no doubt why they were targeted.Protests and peaceful demonstrations are a means of calling public awareness to some issue withing one's country, usually some action of the government deemed undesirable. There are so many things wrong with these silly protests, I'm not sure where to begin.
How about with the fact that the leaders of these tribes do not care what a bunch of Americans think?
How about the fact that the government of Iraq is not accountable to Americans?
How about the fact that the government of America is not responsible for the citizens of Iraq?
I'm so sure that these barbarians are sitting down in front of their televisions and tuning into CNN. Suddenly, they see a bunch of people in San Francisco protesting it and they look at one another and say, "Oh no. We really messed up this time! Allah be damned, we pissed off the American homosexuals!"
There seems to be a request that the Congress of the United States issue some sort of condemnation for these actions. If Congress spent its time condemning every crime that takes place in every other country, they would not have time to burden Americans with huge debts, restrictive legislation, annoying headlines, and... wait... a... second...
However, I cannot support the notion that we should "tea bag" Liberals before they "tea bag" us.
Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his testicles in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice vaguely resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.This is like the National Organization for Marriage with their ridiculous 2M4M promotion, which is actually supposed to mean "two million for marriage" and not... well, something gay.
March 30, 2009
The doomsday budget calls for a 23 percent hike in fare revenue across the MTA. On the Long Island Rail Road, fare increases would range from 24 percent to 29 percent.People are totally freaking out about this and saying that they are opposed to the increase, but they really need to face facts.
On New York City subways, single rides would go from $2 to $2.50. A one-day unlimited MetroCard would go from $7.50 to $9.50. A seven-day unlimited MetroCard would go from $25 to $31. A 14-day unlimited MetroCard would go from $47 to $59. A 30-day unlimited MetroCard would go from $81 to $103.
Cash tolls on major bridges and tunnels would go from $5 to $6.50, and from $4.15 to $5.26 for E-ZPass users. Cash tolls on minor bridges and tunnels would go from $2.50 to $3.2. 5. E-ZPass tolls on minor bridges would go from $1.55 to $1.96.
The fare hikes are expected to take effect in June.
Fact #1: The MTA is wildly unprofitable.
Between unions, wasteful spending, and general inefficiency inherent in everything run by bureaucracy, it's no surprise to me that it's losing money.
What's more the NYC subway system, compared to systems of other major cities around the world, is pretty bad. Yes, we have the only one that runs 24/7, but I would be willing to forego riding the subway at 3am in order to have someone sweep the trash and homeless people off the floor. I'm also willing to pay more just to have trains that run on schedule.
And guess what else. Subway rides elsewhere cost a whole helluvalot more than they do here. People bitch about the notion of paying $2.50 a ride, but how would they feel about paying $8 a ride as they do in London?
Obviously, I would prefer to pay less for things rather than more, but I think those who oppose these fare hikes are asking to pay more than they know.
The MTA is not going to close its doors. Some entity or another will run the subway, busses, bridges, and whatnot around this city and good money is that it will be the government. If we do not pay higher fares, then we will pay higher taxes. That's the only other option. There's no such thing as a free lunch and the MTA has to be paid in order to operate.
Because governments are the way they are, I would wager that if taxes are raised to cover the MTA, then subway riders will end up paying more than they would if they had simply agreed to pay the higher fares.
Even so, many New Yorkers seem to think that the MTA operates as if by magic, free from the simple constraints of time and resources that other businesses and organizations operate under. These are probably the same people who believe that increasing government spending will boost the economy.
March 03, 2009
Well, it seems that more than a few people (including some students of Objectivism) think it's completely wrong to (choose any):
- Allow children to attend political gatherings.
- Allow children to participate in political gatherings.
- Allow children to be seen in or around political gatherings.
- Allow children to have their picture taken if they are permitted to participate in political gatherings.
- Allow children to hold paper.
- Allow children to get rained upon.
- Allow children to wear fun hats.
- Allow children to wear fun hats in the rain.
- Allow children to hold paper, wear fun hats and have their pictures taken while at a political gathering in the rain.
- Allow children to echo the political leanings of their parents.
- Allow children to publicly echo the political leanings of their parents whilst wearing fun hats.
For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to do like everyone else seems to be doing and completely drop the context and content of the situation.
So, they took their children to a political protest. So what?
It's popular to complain about the fact that so few people actually vote in elections, but when someone goes a step further and actively promotes their views in public to prompt political discourse, people get upset because there are children present. Well, just where exactly are children supposed to learn this? From the sofa in their living room?
In order for children to understand the impact of politics in their lives, they have to be taught. It has to be demonstrated. Good parents will not only encourage this, but actively promote it and demonstrate this behavior themselves. Children need to see what a peaceful, legal, Constitutionally-protected demonstration looks like.
It is not only foolish but outrageous that anyone should argue that parents should keep their children away from these events. Perhaps those people believe the children should be left to observe from the car?
Some people equated bringing children to the rally to using them as "human shields." Stop the car. Shields from what?! Now if we're talking about taking children into a war zone or to some sort of violent uprising, I would agree. But protecting children from ideas is outrageous. (See above.)
Some seem to think that if you allow the children to hold a sign, then you're giving the impression that the children are brainwashed because children can't understand the ideas they're espousing with the signs they hold. This is really an argument about a marketing tactic: are children an effective medium for promoting political ideas? Well, they were worth a mention in the paper and on numerous blogs, so I would say it worked to some extent. I'd say it works best when they're absolutely adorable and wearing fun hats, actually.
If you think the opposition will object to the inclusion of children and refuse to change their mind because of it, you should remember that they're the opposition and aren't likely to change their minds in the first place.
If you think people in the middle won't be swayed because they'll be put off by children, then they're idiots, and you probably don't want their help anyway.
Does anyone believe that children understand the complexities of the ideas involved in the protest? No.
Does anyone think a child holding a sign makes an idea any more or less valid? No.
Does anyone think the children are present at the protest for any other reason than the fact that their parents or guardians are there? No.
But let's pretend that the children are in some way brainwashed, much in the same way mystics around the world brainwash their children into believing in magic and heavenly fathers with baby jeebi. (That's the plural of "jeebus," right?) As the children grow into adults it's ultimately up to them to make up their own minds, so unless you're claiming that people can't think for themselves (at which point I will allow you to excuse yourself from talking to me further) I fail to see the problem here.
So, I would argue not only is it appropriate for children to be present at such events, but that it is beneficial to their education to be there. Children SHOULD see their parents engaging in political discourse and being passionate about ideas. Children SHOULD see how adults conduct themselves when they disagree with the government. Children SHOULD be exposed to ideas and encouraged to explore, discuss, and defend ideas.
All these busy-bodies accusing Mr. And Mrs. Rational Jenn of being bad parents, abusing their children's minds, and undermining their own political objectives should check the facts and check theiir premises.
March 02, 2009
January 27, 2009
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.I'm not sure why the author of the article from which I pulled this quote insists that Palestinians still don't exist when there is a country now called Palestine and so the term "Palestinian" refers to citizens of that state, but I still found the quote interesting.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
Principles in Practice: Why Israel Attacked Gaza
Here is a concrete example of how Hamas warriors intentionally position themselves in civilian buildings, incite the Israelis to respond, and then cash in for propaganda purposes. In a slip on Alarabiya-TV, an announcer states that a missile had just been launched from the basement of the press building: "Hamas fires Grad Missiles from foreign Press building in Gaza January 2009—Unintentional News from Alarabiya-TV."And there's a video from the incident showing a lady in the press building at the time of the Hamas launch who laughs in astonishment at Hamas' חֻצְפָּה.
The press later reported the Israeli response, "IDF hits the foreign Press building," without reporting the missile that triggered the retaliation by the Israeli Defense Forces.
January 21, 2009
But the Washington Post has already discussed the Vast Left-handed Conspiracy.
Of course, they immediately lump Reagan in with their list of southpaw presidents, but apparently there's some contention there as Reagan seems to have written most regularly with his right hand. Left-side advocates argue that he changed his preference in life and cite all sorts of evidence supporting this claim. Given the downtrodden state of left-handed culture, I think it's the least we can do but to throw them a bone on this one.
Bless their hearts.
November 07, 2008
I sure hope not because that really bugs me. I think it's a cry for help, really, that should be paraphrased as, "Someone get the Jaws of Life so I can get my head out of my ass!"
November 04, 2008
California, Oregon, and Washington are still voting but in 2000 and 2004 they all went Democratic. In fact, they went Democratic in 1996 and in 1992. In 1988 California freakishly went Republican (Maybe they thought Reagan was still on the ticket), but I think it is safe to say that Obama has this in the bag.
207 + 7 (OR) + 55 (CA) + 11 (WA) = 280
November 03, 2008
I'm rejecting all of the third-party candidates out of hand and like many I can't bring myself to vote Republican this year. I am still mulling over the possibility of not voting for president, but I doubt I'll come to any conclusions on that and so I'll fall back to my default position of voting, which means I will vote for Barack Obama. (Thanks again to Britton for pointing out my habit of consistently misspelling his first name. I'm trying to get better!)
Isaiah Matos (L) and Robert Heim (R) are difficult ones to find on the internets, believe it or not. Carolyn Maloney (D) is the incumbent. After noting that his website doesn't mention religion -- although he does applaud the McCain-Palin ticket -- , I'll vote for Robert Heim in hopes that some gridlock will happen somewhere.
George Onorato (D) is our incumbent since a special election in 1983. His resume looks pretty typical to me. You know, regular nanny-statism.
Thomas F. Dooley, the Republican, is also unknown. His website has very little in terms of actual content, but if we believe the headlines, he sounds a lot like Onorato in principle.
The New York State Senate is marginally more Republican than Democrat, but I'll vote Republican on this one, too, because I don't like that Onorato has been in there for so long and because I'm afraid that the state will swing left in an extreme response to the national GOP failures. So I hope that things stay relatively balanced.
NY Supreme Court Justice
There are a TON of people running for this office and apparently I have to choose 7 of them. These folks serve for 14-years. Now, lest you think that these people are like the US Supreme Court Justices, think again. Apparently, these are just regular old trial judges. The highest court in NY is the Appeals Court and this ain't those people.
I have no idea who I'll choose for this. I'll probably pick 3 Democrats and 4 Republicans/Conservatives. Or maybe I shouldn't vote for these people at all since I don't know anything about them.
Member of State Assembly
Gianaris is running unopposed, so I won't vote for this at all.
Proposition 1 Proposal Number One, An Amendment
I found this write-up on what this means:
Applicants for many jobs in New York state and local government are required to take a civil service examination, and applicants are appointed or promoted to these positions based on their scores on the examination. Disabled veterans who were disabled in the actual performance of duty in any war also receive a defined amount of extra points on these examinations to increase their scores, giving them preferential status on the lists of those who qualify.I'll vote for this because although I don't see why veterans should receive preferential treatment, I don't see why being on special veteran welfare makes them more qualified to be a civil servant.
The purpose of the proposal is to eliminate the requirement that disabled veterans be receiving disability payments from the federal government in order to qualify for additional credit on civil service examinations.
The State Constitution currently requires two things for the disabled veteran to qualify for the additional points: 1) the veteran must be receiving disability payments from the United States Veterans Administration; and 2) the United States Veteran Administration must certify that the veteran's disability exists at the time that the veteran applies for appointment or promotion.
The proposed amendment would eliminate the first requirement - that a veteran who was disabled in the actual performance of duty in any war be receiving disability payments from the federal veterans department in order to qualify for additional points on a civil service examination. Instead, the proposed amendment would only require that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs certify that the veteran's disability exists at the time that the veteran applies for appointment or promotion.
October 22, 2008
As seen on Buzzfeed.
From Jim at my office, not The Office.
Many so-called gay rights activists support such hate legislation.
Interestingly, many religionists point to hate crime/hate speech legislation as the political rationale for opposing gay marriage. Although most would regard this line of argumentation as specious as the rest of religion's claims, it's not really all that far from the sort of thing that could come about because the very principle behind hate legislation is mob rule.
Religionists say that if gay relationships are protected by law, then it is a small step to protecting them under hate speech, which if you're part of a religion that condemns homosexuality means that it's just one more small step toward prosecuting you and boarding up your place of worship as a center for hateration.
On one hand, I regard this concern as completely ridiculous. Can you imagine the effort to attempt to criminalize religion in our society? Faith and unreason are the vitally important to the vast majority of Americans. And someone thinks they can force rationality by fiat? It is to laugh!
But the problem is that there is no rational principle behind hate crime/hate speech laws. The idea there is that if enough people like a certain group of people, then they should get special protection under the law both from real crimes and from harsh words. Before I go on, allow me to give examples.
If you pound someone into the pavement, you have committed a really bad crime and you can be sent to jail for a particular amount of time.
If you pound someone into the pavement and in the course of doing so you call them names like "nigger" or "faggot," then you have committed a worse crim and you can be sent to jail for more time than if you had just kept your mouth shut even though your mouth wasn't swinging your fists.
In some countries, you need not even swing your fists to be charged with a crime. In the US, we thankfully do not have laws like that. That I know of. It seems like the right to freedom of speech -- especially offensive speech -- is protected under the First Amendment.
(I'm trying to keep this post internationally applicable, which is why I keep referring to hate crime and hate speech crimes interchangeably.)
Of course, because the US does not currently legislate against hate speech alone, it makes prosecuting religionists more unlikely -- as long as they aren't committing some other crime like beating people or inciting riots to the end of doing violence to others.
So, on the other hand, I see how "hate" legislation could lead to problems for religions that teach against homosexuality.
But I think religionists (like Glenn Beck) are grasping at straws to pose this argument. They lack a rational foundation for everything and therefore cannot legitimately argue against both hate crime / hate speech legislation and gay marriage. After all, they support special protection for their houses of worship under the law. (Asylum, confidentiality of confessions, tax-breaks, etc. etc.) Also, should hate speech become criminalized in the US, I don't think gay marriage is necessary to pursue that.
Who knows? When it comes to irrational people, they will try just about anything.
October 21, 2008
Well, she's a little bit right. She's just on the wrong side of the standard she offered.
October 20, 2008
Hat tip: The Curly-Haired One
October 14, 2008
In outlining his plan for overhauling the health care system, John McCain has proposed providing a $5,000 tax credit to every family in the US and a $2,500 credit for individuals.
According to the US census, there were 104,480,101 households in the US with an average of 2.59 individuals per household.
Now, I'm not sure how tax filings break down exactly, but if we just do some really rough math and just say that those 2.59 individuals will all make their healthcare claims themselves as opposed to as a household you come out with a $261,200,252,500 per year liability against tax revenue.
Not just one time, but annually.
261 Billion dollars.
Now, that might make you a little sick, so I hope you're sitting down for this:
In 2007, the US government recognized $2.568 TRILLION in tax revenue. That means that for all 300 million Americans, we're paying $8,560 each.
Assuming no change in spending at all but for McCain's health care plan, regardless of who actually pays this, you're up to $11,060 per person per year.
Are you tempted to think Obama is surely better than this? Nope. According to his plan, he says that my (I assume he's referring to individuals/households) healthcare costs will drop by $2,500 as well. But it still has to be paid. There's no such thing as free lunch. We pay this bill somehow. Directly or indirectly.
And I didn't even add the bailout bill or any of the other programs these two schmucks have proposed.
There is no good candidate in this race. They're all so disgusting.
Update: Inspector rightly points out that in the calculations above, I have not accounted for the current tax burden of health care subsidies, breaks, and all that.
And if you're new here: I support the free market in all areas of business including health care.
It's a coincidence because this morning, I was just reading over at Joe.My.God who linked to Washington Scandal, which discusses an "advertisement" created by a McCain supporter which proposes lynching Barak Obama. Joe still has the image on his site if you're interested in seeing how it was posed.
October 13, 2008
President of the United States
- Cynthia McKinney, Green
- Gloria La Riva, Party for Socialism and Liberation
- John McCain, Republican, Independence, Conservative
- Ralph Nader, Independent
- Roger Calero, Socialist Workers
- Barack Obama, Democratic, Working Families
- Bob Barr, Libertarian
- Isaiah Matos, Libertarian, Libertarian
- Carolyn B. Maloney, Democratic, Working Families
- Robert G. Heim, Republican
- George Onorato, Democratic
- Thomas F. Dooley, Republican, Independence, Conservative
- Peter Finocchiaro, Republican
- Anthony L. Fumerelle, Republican
- Bernice Siegal, Democratic
- John F. Casey, Republican, Conservative
- Joseph F. Kasper, Republican, Conservative
- Joseph W. Sancrainte, Republican
- Robert Beltrani, Republican, Conservative
- Orin R. Kitzes, Democratic
- Sheri S. Roman, Democratic
- Lee A. Mayersohn, Democratic
- Kerry John Katsorhis, Republican, Conservative
- Frederick D.R. Sampson, Democratic
- Martin J. Schulman, Democratic
- Jaime A. Rios, Democratic
- Michael N. Gianaris, Democratic, Working Families
The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement that veterans who were disabled in the actual performance of duty in any war be receiving disability payments from the United State Veterans Administration in order to qualify for additional points on a civil service examination for appointment or promotion. Under the proposed amendment, the disability must only be certified to exist by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The proposed amendment would also update the reference to the "United States Veterans Administration" to instead refer to the "United States Department of Veterans Affairs" to reflect current federal government structure. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
So, now I have to go look all of these people up and see what they're all about order to make up my mind.
As far as the presidential election is concerned, I do not want the Republicans to win. That's not the same as actually wanting the Democrats to win. I hate them all so much that I feel conflicted every time it comes time to vote. I guess when it comes time for me to vote, I'll vote Democratic for president.
I'll let you know about the other things later after I've had a chance to read about them.
October 07, 2008
Be warned: this is absolutely appalling.
60% of them say the economy is their number one issue.
68% say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Democrats don't traditionally win out on economic issues because the Republicans are still marketing their faux-free markets pretty well.
On HD, you can also see how various analysts are tallying the scores for the two candidates. I'm not sure where their analysts stand in terms of partisanship, but I'm assuming CNN has made some effort to balance them.
I love HD. The sound is even better on here.
2 minutes to go! I'll try to update this post as things go, but this could easily get ahead of me, so we'll see.
John King says that 80% of Americans say things in the country are going badly.
I say that 80% of Americans have at least a very loose grasp of reality. 20% of Americans worry me and they can vote.
Basic facts: They're in Belmont University in Nashville, TN. It's a town hall format, so people in the audience can stand up and ask questions. Tom Brokaw is the moderator.
Wolf Blitzer is talking about the terms of the debate having been negotiated.
Tom Brokaw is looking a little old. Someone should cover those age spots on the sides of his forehead.
I wish Sarah Palin were here. I miss her winking already.
I'm allowed to cheer at home? That Tom Brokaw is such a kidder.
McCain has his red tie and Obama has his blue tie. The partisanship never ends.
Tom Brokaw is such a buzzkill. Talking about how much things suck.
Alan Shaffer asks, "What's the fastest way to bail out old people?"
I hope that wasn't YOUR question, Alan, because I don't want to have to hate you.
Obama says we have to
1) Socialize the debt in the credit markets. The government should be more nosey, he says.
2) We need tax cuts for middle class people.
3) We need to fix health care.
McCain thanks Alan for his question and moves in for a kiss. Wait. Maybe he's going for that bald bear in the front row.
McCain says we have to stop the spending spree in Washington. That's the maverick talking right there and the women are eating it up. He also says we have to do something about home values and he means socializing the housing market by allowing the government to buy up the homes, which costs a lot of money. Both sides of his mouth were definitely moving.
For all this talk of socialism, they should both being wearing red ties.
Begala and Castellanos are giving away points like it's Oprah's Big Give.
Obama name dropped Buffet as one of his supporters. Now he's hammering on this "fundamentals of the economy are sound" thing. I'm so over it. Mixed economies are fundamentally unstable, but Obama isn't proposing a change from that.
Brokaw is cracking down on the rules. Apparently, they talk too much.
Oliver asks, "How is the economic bailout going to actually help people?"
McCain puts the spin on it and calls it a "rescue" and plays the martyr. He put his campaign on hold, you know. I'm wondering if we're going to get to an answer to this. He just patronized poor Oliver and suggested he'd never heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Apparently, McCain only found out about their risky lending practices two years ago. It's been documented as much as TEN years ago that this was coming.
McCain just dodged the question and went back to his talking point about buying up homes and stabilizing housing prices.
Obama is going right to the point and explaining what it means to have a frozen credit market. Good on him for actually addressing the question. WHOA! Obama just said we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Oh. He's blaming "deregulation."
Apparently, Obama just found out about the unstable lending market a year ago. Poor, ignorance senators. Bless their socialistic little hearts.
Obama is throwing stones right and left. This answer is running a bit long. What a jabber mouth. If he's president, is he going to mess up my teevee shows with really long State of the Union speeches?
Brokaw wants to know if it's going to get worse before it gets better. Obama says no. We need to be better socialists because Americans really suck at that. McCain says it depends on whether or not we listen to him. Is this like "protection" money?
McCain is very upset that Obama didn't sign his chain letter some time back. I think he should chill out because Obama is the one who has to deal with the bad luck. That's how the free market works, baby.
Teresa wants to know how we can trust either candidate with our money when both parties contributed to this horrible economic situation.
Obama feels Teresa's pain, frustration, and cynicism, but he thinks it's important to keep blaming Dubya. He's not saying that it's ONLY Dubya's fault, but it is mostly.
So, Obama wants to cut spending by spending.
McCain points out that he's a maverick and he wants to spend money to cut spending, which is totally different. And he'd like to point out that Obama has never been a maverick like McCain. McCain wants us to look at the Senate voting record. *yawn* Show us your tits, John. That's what we really want.
Castellanos is throwing points away. He's given out 20 points already.
McCain is so stodgy. He keeps saying the same things over and over again. Where's the ad lib, Johnny?
Brokaw wants him to shut up. Tell us your priorities between Health Care, Energy, and Entitlements.
McCain cops out by saying we can do everything at once by being mavericks like him. MAVERICK!
This question really kind of assumes that everything is an entitlement, doesn't it? So, I guess the maverick is right in a really twisted way.
Tom wants people to stick to the rules. Get 'em, Tom.
Obama answers the question: 1) Energy because gas is too expensive which is bad for people's budgets and hurts national security. So, in 10 years, he thinks we can be free of Middle Eastern oil 2) Health Care because our system is "broken" and it's bad for everyone. 3) Education. Not one of the choices Obama.
Now, Obama is gonna break the rules so that he can throw some stones at McCain.
RULES, people. You agreed to these.
Tom is reminding them AGAIN to stick to the rules and stop talking so much.
Some person on the global interwebs wants to know what sacrifices they will ask every American to make to get out of the trouble we're in.
McCain has said something people will hate: cut programs. Oh! But he's recovering a little by characterizing defense spending as a program.
Women are eating this up. Men aren't responding very much.
So, now he's harping on spending. Spending freeze (except for some special things he likes, like defense spending.)!
I want to be one of these audience groups.
Obama remembers 9/11, but implies that some people don't. Really? Grown up people?
Oo! He just said Bush did some smart things. Wow. WOW. Just let that sink in. WOOOOOWWW.
Obama is meandering all over the place physically and metaphorically.
Early call on this debate: Obama is winning. (I want America to know that I'm a maverick and my opinion on these polls has followed the day-after poll results perfectly.)
I don't know what Obama just said.
Brokaw says everyone is a drunk. Someone get me a Jack & Coke.
Obama says that the government needs to set a good example. There's some crazy grinning lady right behind his head.
Obama says teachers are poor people and that it's not fair for poor people to live like poor people while people who earn more money live better. I'd like to ask Obama what the point of being rich is if not to live like a rich person. I think Obama just got done reading Marx.
McCain is kicking in the offensive and comparing Obama to Herbert Hoover. America says, "Who?" (Yes, I know who and you know who, but look at America.)
Oh SNAP! McCain just gave Obama the news. DAAAAAAAANNNG! And it's bad, yo! Obama just got TOLD.
Apparently, Obama wants to fine small businesses and raise taxes.
Obama wants to break the rules. Tom says, "Sit down before I smack you down."
The internets want to know what they're going to do about entitlement programs that are going to eat up government revenue.
Obama says he'll have two terms as president to deal with this and that McCain is a big, fat liar. Here we go again with Obama's tax plan.
WATCH OUT, OBAMA! McCAIN IS STANDING UP! HE'S COMING TO GET YOU! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
McCain is looking smug. I think he just busted a grumpy toward Obama's chair.
McCain says he's going to answer the question. Social Security is easy to fix, he says, but he's keeping the solution a secret, but it does involve being a maverick. Medicare is more difficult because it's very complex. The answer to that is a commission of mavericks.
Now, we're talking about taxes again. McCain says Obama is hot air. Obama is smelling McCain's hot air right now.
McCain is begging us to look at their records.
Tom, what's the time?
Tom threw a dig at them for constantly breaking the rules.
Ingrid wants to know what they're going to do to make sure Congress moves fast on environmental issues within the first two years of their term as president.
Ingrid, I don't want to interrupt the debate here, but you need to read the Constitution before you open your mouth again.
McCain is so totally against climate change and totally for nuclear power. I like nuclear power. Did you know that McCain is a veteran? He is. He was on a submarine before and so he knows that nuclear power is good and safe. He says Obama stinks.
Obama gave a grim smile to that irony.
Obama says we're all going to be like the Jetsons in two years with flying cars. He says McCain is a liar because he likes nuclear power as one option among all the other energy options.
Obama slammed McCain for voting for 23 times against energy measures. Where's your record now, Johnny?
This 3%/25% statistic irritates the hell out of me.
The claim is that we have 3% of the world's oil reserves, but we use 25% of the world's oil. These are two mixed stats.
Tom is reminding them to stop breaking the rules and wants to know if we should fund a Manhattan project or Silicon Valley.
McCain hasn't thought about this before, so he's dodging. Now he's pointing to some bill that he voted against (as a maverick) but Obama voted for. He's still not answering the question.
I wish I could see the clock. These guys talk too much.
McCain is back to his talking point about their voting records.
Lindsey wants to know if health care should be treated as a "commodity."
I don't know what she means by this.
Obama says he's going to do something to make health care cheaper for everyone, but he doesn't mean by getting the government out of it.
He claims that excluding people for preexisting conditions in health insurance is a big problem. No explanation is offered for how he came to that insane conclusion.
He's slamming McCain about taxing health insurance.
McCain's up and he's kissing that lady's butt. It's clear she's a Democrat, so nice try, John.
McCain says we should put medical records online and reduce costs. DUDE. Get on topic. Now McCain is saying the Obama will fine everyone for everything. I really don't feel like going to Arizona to see a doctor.
Men HATE McCain right now, but women love him.
McCain wants hair transplants and thinks someone has a gold plated health insurance plan.
Tom wants to know if it's a Privilege, Right, or Responsibility.
McCain dodges and says it's a responsibility to give it everyone in America.
Obama thinks it should be a right. I don't know what they mean by "right." Rights don't come about by fiat, senator.
Obama is repeating his health care plan. BORING. And bogus.
McCain is doing something on the back part of the stage again. He's not fooling me.
Obama just slammed Delaware for its loose business regulations. What state does Joe Biden represent again?
McCain snarked at Obama again and completely out of turn.
Phil wants to know how America can be a peace maker in the world.
McCain says it's the economy, stupid. But he seems to kind of support some sort of interventionist international policy.
Men love this. Women are less enthusiastic, but still loving it.
McCain says Obama was wrong about everything in the world and he's a total n00b.
Obama is setting himself to point out that he voted against the Iraq War. Women are LOVING this. Men are like, "Meh."
What was the question again? Does it matter? The audience is loving this.
Obama is playing the popularity card. No one likes America. And McCain is just like Bush.
Brokaw wants to know what the Obama doctrine is about using force in situations where national security is not at risk.
Obama says we have a moral obligation to try to stop genocide. That is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start.
Tom wants the McCain Doctrine.
McCain is off talking about Iraq again. Um. DUDE. Answer the question at hand. We know what you want to say here.
He's totally breaking the rules. That's because he's a maverick.
Castellanos is totally in love with Obama. So, is Begala. Every analyst agrees that Obama is in the lead. Borger and Gergen appear to be asleep at the wheel, though.
McCain is also an interventionist, but he wants us to know that he really means it.
Katie wants to know if we should pursue our enemies into Pakistan.
Obama says it's a difficult situation because George Bush went into Iraq instead of finishing up in Afghanistan. Women love Obama, but men are less impressed. His plan for dealing with Pakistan is very complicated with lots of contingent bullet points.
Obama wants to kill Bin Laden. Men love that.
McCain's hero is Teddy Roosevelt. I just threw up in my mouth. McCain also just claimed that Obama said he wants to attack Pakistan even though everyone knows that's not what he said at all and it's unlikely Obama would do anything like that.
McCain is talking about ancient history again, the Russo-Afghan War. Audience response is even and middling, though positive.
I wish he'd stop saying "tolly-ban."
Obama wants to break the rules. McCain agrees. Tom is miffed.
Obama just got an awesome soundbite: "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran!"
McCain says again that Obama is inexperienced and wants to attack Pakistan. No one is buying that schtick anymore, John. The audience rating went negative.
Obama says he's going to be brief. He says Iraq needs to handle their business. Obama also says "tollyban."
I like how everyone thinks we can dictate to Afghanistan what type of government they will have.
McCain is just saying that Obama is wrong and not much else.
McCain's response isn't getting a lot of positive response on this. They loved Obama, though.
The internets want to know how we can apply pressure to Russia to help in humanitarian situations.
Did you know McCain warned us against Putin even though Bush saw Putin's soul? McCain is a maverick.
Brokaw wants them to keep track of the time because they're running on quite a bit.
I've lost track of this whol Russia discussion because my roommate came home and we've been talking about this.
Obama says we should hire Superman and Miss Cleo to deal with it.
Tom asked a Yes or No question: Is Russia an evil Empire like Reagan said?
Obama is giving a long answer. McCain says, "Maybe."
McCain actually gave a more intelligent answer here... at first.
Terry was in the navy and he wants to know what we would do if Iran attacked Israel. McCain kind of wants to make out with Terry just like in the Navy.
McCain is talking about how bad Iran is and how stupid Obama is for saying he'd meet with Iran "without preconditions."
Could someone tell me what they mean by a "precondition?"
Obama says we can't allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. How would he stop that, I wonder. But he says it would be very bad if they did. Obama says he won't take military action off the table and would not give UN veto power over our national security, but we need to do everything to avoid war.
Who is this analyst, King? And what kind of medication are they on?
Peggy wants to know what people don't know and how they'll learn it.
Peggy, shut the hell up.
This is such a softball question. Ridiculous. This is just an opportunity for the candidates to just go off on how in love they are with themselves and how much the other guy sucks.
Obama: blah blah blah... change... blah blah blah... hope... blah blah blah...
McCain: blah blah blah... maverick... blah blah blah... life sucks... blah blah blah... but veteran... blah blah blah... blue collar... blah blah blah... maverick.
Apparently, McCain knows what it's like.
What a yawnfest. Obama won. These guys are so totally heinous.
Now they're wandering around shaking hands and taking pictures. Cindy McCain looks a little creepy, Stepford wifey. Michelle Obama looks a little put off.
Now the commentators are talking and I'm done.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.