You know, I'm trying. I'm really trying to come up with a non-sarcastic response to your post Duke, but I'm failing here. In a small sense, I get where you're going, but on the other hand, if you're going to accuse me of acting a certain way and excusing all the bullshit that goes on in the "mainstream" - well you know what? I'm not going to have a civil response for you. It's a bullshit double-standard and you damned well know it.

You think there are bigger federalism issues to fry? Let's hear them. Which ones are actually resulting in people being put in prison right now? I could go on and on about inane shit like the "federal" drinking age, No Child Left Behind, and so forth, but frankly, few people are going to federal prison over that kind of stuff, and even fewer people seem to care.

But let's not pretend Romney (or McCain, for that matter) are paragons of moral virtue, or stalwarts of some grand tradition. You want to believe they'll shovel a little less crap, well, whatever. But spare trying to sell us on their "integrity" given their obvious antipathy toward both principle and, well, anyone who should happen to get in their way.

The fact that they're willing they'll desperately slime their way out of answering a question (like Romney) or actively berate a cancer patient in a wheelchair (erstwhile managing to actually get the facts wrong, like McCain) speaks volumes to their respective characters. I could add dozens more examples, but really - berating a MM in a wheelchair and calling them a liar? Do I actually need more than that, to amply demonstrate both my points?

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 3:28 AM. Reason : Well, do I?]

1/25/2008 3:16:40 AM

Quote :

"excusing all the bullshit that goes on in the "mainstream"

Whoa, whoa, whoa...I'm the first one to agree that our federal government's rampantly unconstitutional behavior is bullshit, and unfortunately, so mainstream that most people aren't even aware of the issue. Show me where I excused this. What I'm accusing you of is, in short, missing the forest for the trees.

Quote :

"You think there are bigger federalism issues to fry? Let's hear them. Which ones are actually resulting in people being put in prison right now? I could go on and on about inane shit like the "federal" drinking age, No Child Left Behind, and so forth, but frankly, few people are going to federal prison over that kind of stuff, and even fewer people seem to care. "

Yes, but nobody is forcing anyone to smoke pot. It doesn't make what the Feds do legal, right, or ok, but if you don't want them to hammer your titties, there's a surefire way to avoid it. TONS of other Federal transgressions leave no way out--we either get fucked by them, have to foot the bill for them, or both.

In addition, pot is illegal in the vast majority of states, so in these cases, the Federalism argument is moot to begin with.

Finally, the casual, recreational pot-smoker who isn't a complete fucking moron rarely goes to prison.

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 3:30 AM. Reason : asdfad]

1/25/2008 3:28:26 AM

Quote :

"Whoa, whoa, whoa...I'm the first one to agree that our federal government's rampantly unconstitutional behavior is bullshit, and unfortunately, so mainstream that most people aren't even aware of the issue. Show me where I excused this."

I'm saying you call me to the mat for "my behavior on the issue" yet give a free pass to all kinds of outrageous behavior by more mainstream pols/movements. I don't see you getting all bent out of shape by McCain calling Asians "gooks," making wisecracks about "trading burquas" with Arabs in the debates, and so forth. And those are relatively innocuous examples.

So where the hell do you come off trying to lump "my behavior" with a movement as a reason for why it finds itself with little financial or political support? Step off.

Quote :

"Yes, but nobody is forcing anyone to smoke pot. It doesn't make what the Feds do legal, right, or ok, but if you don't want them to hammer your titties, there's a surefire way to avoid it. TONS of other Federal transgressions leave no way out--we either get fucked by them, have to foot the bill for them, or both."

The cases I refer to exist as cases of medical need, in states where state law permits it. It's 12 states - not an insignificant number. And the feds have actively gone after people who use it, and particularly those who grow it - especially licensed dispensaries. (Particularly in CA).

Do you think I'm just making up the Gonzales v. Raich case? Dude, google it already.

Quote :

"In addition, pot is illegal in the vast majority of states, so in these cases, the Federalism argument is moot to begin with."

It's legal in 12 states under a doctor's supervision. Not insignificant, and enough to cause a Supreme Court case to come out of it. This is the situation I am referring to.

Quote :

"Finally, the casual, recreational pot-smoker who isn't a complete fucking moron rarely goes to prison."

Not who I'm referring to and you know it. Or you're being intentionally obtuse.

1/25/2008 3:36:34 AM

<unsubscribe>

1/25/2008 3:42:25 AM

I see that rapier wit of yours has yet to fail you - although somehow it has managed to prevent you from ever managing to answer my question.

Too tough for you, Joe? Imagine how hard being a mod would be.

1/25/2008 3:45:01 AM

Quote :

"But please, do spare me putting your prejudices upon me in the future, especially when you have little basis for doing so."

I know you really need to make it sound like I have no basis for what I'm saying. And I know you want to make it sound like I have no knowledge of you at all. But I do have at least some knowledge of you, just based on what you've, you know, said and stuff. I and I do have far more experience than I've ever wanted to have in dealing with people who have said the exact same thing. So, at the very worst, it's not that I've completely pulled this out of my ass. You have (again, at best) had the misfortune of keeping ideological company with some very stupid, predictable people.

---

Quote :

"You think there are bigger federalism issues to fry? Let's hear them. Which ones are actually resulting in people being put in prison right now?"

We could, as you're so quick to dismiss, discuss the lives affected by alcohol laws. We could discuss abortion, which, according to a large number of Americans, is killing millions of people a year. We could discuss the death penalty, an issue left to the state that has resulted in hundreds of deaths. There are worse things than a short stint in prison, you know. The latter two of my examples are among them.

Quote :

"But let's not pretend Romney (or McCain, for that matter) are paragons of moral virtue, or stalwarts of some grand tradition."

I don't know that I've seen anyone saying that. In fact, I haven't seen any reasonable person claiming that their candidate of choice is "a paragon of moral virtue" in my entire life. They are, however, better than the alternatives. Integrity isn't a zero-sum game, and it certainly isn't entirely balanced on the issue of medical marijuana.

Quote :

"The fact that they're willing they'll desperately slime their way out of answering a question (like Romney) like every candidate faced with such a question in the history of political candidates"

Quote :

"Do I actually need more than that, to amply demonstrate both my points?"

Your "MM's" have a political agenda, just like anybody else. That they have an unfortunate circumstance does not make them an unassailable font of truth.

Quote :

"I don't see you getting all bent out of shape by McCain calling Asians "gooks," making wisecracks about "trading burquas" with Arabs in the debates, and so forth. And those are relatively innocuous examples."

I see what you're getting at. The man with an adopted Asian daughter from a predominantly Muslim country obviously hates Asians and Muslims.

Quote :

"The cases I refer to exist as cases of medical need, in states where state law permits it."

Let's face a certain fact here, unpleasant as it may be. Medicinal marijuana increases quality of life in many cases. But it does not keep them alive. Let's be careful how we throw around "need."

1/25/2008 4:04:23 AM

1/25/2008 4:16:10 AM

Quote :

"I know you really need to make it sound like I have no basis for what I'm saying. And I know you want to make it sound like I have no knowledge of you at all. But I do have at least some knowledge of you, just based on what you've, you know, said and stuff. I and I do have far more experience than I've ever wanted to have in dealing with people who have said the exact same thing. So, at the very worst, it's not that I've completely pulled this out of my ass. You have (again, at best) had the misfortune of keeping ideological company with some very stupid, predictable people."

Every bigot says the same exact thing.

Must be easy not having to think every time when prejudice does it for you, right?

Quote :

"We could, as you're so quick to dismiss, discuss the lives affected by alcohol laws. We could discuss abortion, which, according to a large number of Americans, is killing millions of people a year. We could discuss the death penalty, an issue left to the state that has resulted in hundreds of deaths. There are worse things than a short stint in prison, you know. The latter two of my examples are among them."

What you read as a hasty dismissal is simply exasperation at this point, particularly with alcohol laws. But please, oh yes - do try and challenge me on this one. Because you know oh-so-much about me and my commitment to certain issues. Given your obvious clairvoyance.

Quote :

"Your "MM's" have a political agenda, just like anybody else. That they have an unfortunate circumstance does not make them an unassailable font of truth."

I love it. I love how your bigotry works: "They have an agenda, so nothing they say matters. Nor does anything said in response. I can just dismiss them out of hand, without even addressing the substantial issue at hand."

Quote :

"I see what you're getting at. The man with an adopted Asian daughter from a predominantly Muslim country obviously hates Asians and Muslims."

"I can't be a racist, I have many black friends!" It's like a get-out-of jail free card! I mean, hell, so long as you've got that, you can make whatever racist pandering you want - because hey, you're not racist! It's like it denies the fact that the event even took place!

Quote :

"Let's face a certain fact here, unpleasant as it may be. Medicinal marijuana increases quality of life in many cases. But it does not keep them alive. Let's be careful how we throw around "need.""

You realize there are at least a few cases where it prevents chronic wasting, due to loss of appetite, and other symptoms, right? Not in every case, but it is a significant issue.

But hey, that's like saying painkillers for chronic pain sufferers aren't a "medical necessity." They're just necessary if they actually want to say, live without being in total agony.

1/25/2008 11:24:02 AM

Quote :

""They have an agenda, so nothing they say matters. Nor does anything said in response. I can just dismiss them out of hand, without even addressing the substantial issue at hand.""

Not what I was saying at all. They certainly have a point, as I've said. But that point would remain equally valid if the person making it wasn't in a wheelchair, or didn't have cancer. The only thing that condition changed about the nature of the exchanges with the candidates was that it gave them a huge and unfair advantage in the public eye.

No I have to wonder if you're going to miss the point and get on my case for "saying that crippled cancer patients have an unfair advantage."

Quote :

"You realize there are at least a few cases where it prevents chronic wasting, due to loss of appetite, and other symptoms, right?"

I've heard it before, and I've heard that there are alternatives -- perhaps not as effective, but enough so to keep them alive.

Quote :

"But hey, that's like saying painkillers for chronic pain sufferers aren't a "medical necessity." They're just necessary if they actually want to say, live without being in total agony."

And here you take your favorite road, and frame the argument so that anybody against you is also against sick people.

1/25/2008 12:55:51 PM

Quote :

"Not what I was saying at all. They certainly have a point, as I've said. But that point would remain equally valid if the person making it wasn't in a wheelchair, or didn't have cancer. The only thing that condition changed about the nature of the exchanges with the candidates was that it gave them a huge and unfair advantage in the public eye. No I have to wonder if you're going to miss the point and get on my case for "saying that crippled cancer patients have an unfair advantage.""

If you're not dismissing it out of hand, then why do you... dismiss what they have to say without further comment?

You know what though? I'm not going to argue that hauling in a cancer patient in a wheelchair isn't a cynical ploy - it's absolutely so. It's also a very effective means of conveying the actual human cost the comes as a result of bad policy. (Isn't that how politics works?)

But as for fairness? How the hell are you exactly defining an "unfair advantage?" Is it somehow more "fair" when someone like McCain pretends people and cases like this don't even exist? (Which you know full well would and does occur anytime a healthy person makes the point. Hell, you're doing it.)

Quote :

"And here you take your favorite road, and frame the argument so that anybody against you is also against sick people."

Is this what you do all day? Just resort to bigotry of "experience" and hasty generalization to get out of strenuous activities like reading and thinking?

Because you make a specious argument about medical necessity, and I called you on it. Suddenly I'm using my "favorite tactic" of pitting opponents against sick people. Meanwhile, your logic somehow allows you to pretend that sick people are somehow completely irrelevant to the issue entirely.

1/25/2008 1:14:18 PM

Quote :

"If you're not dismissing it out of hand, then why do you... dismiss what they have to say without further comment?"

Because my main interest was not and is not what they said. I've already told you I basically agree with their point. The whole discussion is, at its core, about whether Romney and McCain demonstrated some horrible, unacceptable flaw in the way they handled the situation.

Quote :

"(Isn't that how politics works?)"

Absolutely it is. So is dodging an issue that you can't touch and get away clean.

Quote :

"Is it somehow more "fair" when someone like McCain pretends people and cases like this don't even exist?"

That's more a product of the shady tactics of both sides, which effectively create a choice between loving criminals and hating cancer patients. Now, if this were a major issue, the resolution of which would have massive, sweeping impacts on society, or make the difference between life and death, then I would say he needed to man up and make that decision. But it isn't. I'd rather him not commit suicide on the minor issues, so that he can work on the major ones.

And Federalism is a major issue, I'll grant, but there are other, more viable battlegrounds for it to be fought over.

Quote :

"Because you make a specious argument about medical necessity, and I called you on it."

Called me on it? You have a relatively small number of people for whom it can possibly be said that marijuana is lifesaving, but for whom other treatments could be lifesaving as well. Then you go ahead and reiterate what I've already said -- that it can dramatically improve the patient's quality of life. Except you do it in a way that implies I want or am OK with the suffering of these patients, and I'm not OK with it. I think they should have access to their MM.

I also think that when you make ridiculous assertions about marijuana being a "medical necessity," you are doing precisely the thing that makes the pro-legalization camp so laughable on a national scale. All this, while effectively turning medicinal marijuana, which isn't even on the top ten as far as importance, into one of your deciding issues.

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2008 1:50:14 PM

god I hate politics

WHY DOES DEMOCRACY HAVE TO BE THE BEST OF ALL SYSTEMS?

1/25/2008 2:00:04 PM

It's not, but then again we're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic.

1/25/2008 2:05:25 PM

^^ what makes you think that a democracy is the best of all possible systems?

1/25/2008 2:06:38 PM

Quote :

"Now, if this were a major issue, the resolution of which would have massive, sweeping impacts on society, or make the difference between life and death, then I would say he needed to man up and make that decision. But it isn't. I'd rather him not commit suicide on the minor issues, so that he can work on the major ones."

You are honestly of the belief that if he'd call a cancer patient a liar and adamantly refuse to even grudgingly concede ground on this issue, that he'd act remarkably different on other germane federalism issues?

Look, it's fine if you think the federal government should freely trump state prerogatives for local law - again, your choice. And you should feel free to espouse support for whatever candidate agrees with that position. But don't come back claiming to be a faithful adherent of such a principle when candidates decide to cop out on tough issues when principles hit the road, like in cases such as this one.

Quote :

"And Federalism is a major issue, I'll grant, but there are other, more viable battlegrounds for it to be fought over."

Not disagreeing. But until you find me a major difference between the Republicans and Democrats on the de facto drinking age or any other of a litany of federalism issues being brought into stark relief on the campaign trail, this is one we've got to work with. And given the fact that it has actually been fought in the Supreme Court within the last few years, it seems especially germane to the federalism debate.

Quote :

"Called me on it? You have a relatively small number of people for whom it can possibly be said that marijuana is lifesaving, but for whom other treatments could be lifesaving as well. Then you go ahead and reiterate what I've already said -- that it can dramatically improve the patient's quality of life. Except you do it in a way that implies I want or am OK with the suffering of these patients, and I'm not OK with it. I think they should have access to their MM."

No, I'm pointing out that you have a remarkably narrow definition of what you feel is medically necessary. Painkillers are not strictly "medically necessary" under your incredibly limited scope, but they are essential if any quality of life is to be enjoyed. Maybe you don't call that "medically necessary," but I would. And the fact is, this same kind of narrow scope is employed all the the time by folks who outright oppose allowing states to set their own laws on the matter.

Quote :

"I also think that when you make ridiculous assertions about marijuana being a "medical necessity," you are doing precisely the thing that makes the pro-legalization camp so laughable on a national scale. All this, while effectively turning medicinal marijuana, which isn't even on the top ten as far as importance, into one of your deciding issues."

Look, I know this is a tough issue to grasp, but you don't suppose that this might be a litmus test for how candidates will handle tough cases for federalism, do you? The fact that they'd take such a road on MM would indicate that their commitment to a broader philosophy of federalism is fleeting at best.

Contrast this to individuals like Justice Thomas, who hardly comes across as a pro-legalization left-wing hippie. Read his dissent in Raich (which is, surprise! A MM case).

1/25/2008 2:15:50 PM

you guys KILLED this thread btw.

seriously, did you guys even read the 1st post!?

1/25/2008 2:48:46 PM

Quote :

"Look, it's fine if you think the federal government should freely trump state prerogatives for local law - again, your choice. And you should feel free to espouse support for whatever candidate agrees with that position. But don't come back claiming to be a faithful adherent of such a principle when candidates decide to cop out on tough issues when principles hit the road, like in cases such as this one. "

Apparently our point isn't getting across, although I don't know how it could be conveyed any more clearly.

Quote :

"Look, I know this is a tough issue to grasp, but you don't suppose that this might be a litmus test for how candidates will handle tough cases for federalism, do you? The fact that they'd take such a road on MM would indicate that their commitment to a broader philosophy of federalism is fleeting at best. Contrast this to individuals like Justice Thomas, who hardly comes across as a pro-legalization left-wing hippie. Read his dissent in Raich (which is, surprise! A MM case). "

Again, we're not speaking the same language or something. It is not at all a tough issue to grasp. Furthermore, nobody is arguing that either McCain or Romney (or anyone else in the race save Ron Paul) is really a Constitutionalist. If that is THE issue that drives you, there is obviously only one candidate for you. Unfortunately, while I generally am a huge fan of what he broadly stands for, there are still a few significant issues that I strongly disagree with him on. In addition, there isn't even a remote chance that he will win anything. In other words, there is no PERFECT candidate, and even someone very supportive of federalist, Constitutionalist principles (read: me, for one) could still quite conceivably view McCain as the man most deserving of a vote for President.


Oh, and there's no reason to point us towards Justice Thomas to drive home the point that "pro-legalization left-wing hippies" aren't the only ones at odds with the Federal actions regarding this issue. You seem to forget, you are preaching to the choir.

1/25/2008 3:08:29 PM

Bush

I don't think the people that voted for him twice have done enough damage.

1/25/2008 3:16:44 PM

^^

Quote :

"Apparently our point isn't getting across, although I don't know how it could be conveyed any more clearly."

I am perfectly aware of your declared loyalties. I am also aware of where your support lies.

There's a contradiction. Thus, my last sentence.

Quote :

"But don't come back claiming to be a faithful adherent of such a principle when candidates decide to cop out on tough issues when principles hit the road, like in cases such as this one."

It's really a matter of fundamental priorities.

Meanwhile, you may have missed that exchange where, oh, I don't know, my support for federalism was tarred as a cover for being a legal justification of convenience. Or that my drawing this issue up was somehow a matter of bringing up a single non-issue in isolation, then hammering folks on it. Or that it's only a certain set of people acting on disingenuous motives (i.e., legalization via MM) that have a stake in the federalism debate.

Look, Duke, if you're going to hop in and out of the debate like this, at least do me a favor and actually read for context, rather than just insulting my intelligence.

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ^^]

1/25/2008 3:18:53 PM

I already indirectly acknowledged the contradiction, as I'm fully aware of it. Barring the mythical perfect candidate, you will always have contradiction. My support for McCain--knowing fully well that he's not really a Constitutionalist or a federalist--does not diminish my support for these doctrines. It means that I'm being a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. It means that, in my judgement, on average across all of a variety of different metrics, he is the best man for the job.

Also, I reiterate that other significant contradictions would be induced if I satisfied my Constitutionalist itch by voting for Ron Paul.

1/25/2008 3:35:26 PM

Quote :

"You are honestly of the belief that if he'd call a cancer patient a liar and adamantly refuse to even grudgingly concede ground on this issue, that he'd act remarkably different on other germane federalism issues?"

No, I'm of the belief that if a candidate called a wheelchair-bound cancer patient a liar he'd be less likely to get elected and thus be less able to act at all on other germane federalism issues.

Quote :

"Not disagreeing. But until you find me a major difference between the Republicans and Democrats on the de facto drinking age or any other of a litany of federalism issues being brought into stark relief on the campaign trail, this is one we've got to work with. And given the fact that it has actually been fought in the Supreme Court within the last few years, it seems especially germane to the federalism debate."

I've already mentioned abortion and the death penalty (the latter of which, as I recall, is a current Supreme Court concern), both of which have a major federalism element to them.

Quote :

"Look, I know this is a tough issue to grasp, but you don't suppose that this might be a litmus test for how candidates will handle tough cases for federalism, do you?"

Eh, to an extent. It's ultimately a minor enough issue that I don't really consider their willingness to sell it out a big indicator.

---

Of course, I should point out that I don't really care all that much about federalism. My own beloved state of North Carolina and its neighbors kinda soured me on taking the idea terribly far.

1/25/2008 7:38:45 PM

Quote :

"I've already mentioned abortion and the death penalty (the latter of which, as I recall, is a current Supreme Court concern), both of which have a major federalism element to them."

While abortion is certainly a federalism issue, I don't really see it budging much from the status quo anytime soon. And what in particular do you see happening with the death penalty? It's been pretty much up to the states since the 70's, when the Court re-legalized it. Since then, there's been various legal challenges to the constitutionality and the methods, but we haven't exactly seen anything major going on on the legislative front that I can think of, have we?

1/25/2008 8:31:39 PM

part of me wants to vote mccain but the other part wants a democrat in office so freaking bad...right now i'd say my order of voting would be obama, then clinton, then mccain

[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 1:26 AM. Reason : ron paul doesnt count because he wont win]

3/7/2008 1:02:50 AM

Ron Paul

3/7/2008 1:16:04 AM

right now i'm leaning toward mccain...cause in todays age, america is good at imposing its will on other countries...this iraq thing will work guys...we will make it work...kinda like fitting a round peg in a square hole

3/15/2008 3:08:59 PM

general election or primary?

general: Mccain

primary: obama (abc/abh)

Quote :

"Every bigot says the same exact thing."

stop name calling

[Edited on March 17, 2008 at 10:22 AM. Reason : s]

3/17/2008 10:20:59 AM

Any candidate other than Hillary or Obama.

3/17/2008 1:03:53 PM

see michigan going dem this year but thats about how i see it

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 1:52 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2008 1:45:53 AM

Obama, but get prepared for President McCain....when it comes down it, look which age group turns out the most...older, white.....Obama's weakness. I hope he wins but I think alot of people will not vote for him just due to race and race alone especially the over 50 crowd. Of course, these people arent gonna tell pollsters that they arent going to vote for him because he is black..most will say sure I am going to vote for Obama and then dont. That is Hillary's Plan, and do the "I told you so" for the next 4 years, sets her up nicely for 2012.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 1:52 AM. Reason : w]

6/6/2008 1:50:30 AM

You people need to remember that McCain has been moderately campaigning against Obama for the past 2 months. Obama's been fighting Hillary over that time. I honestly don't see it being a very close election once Obama's campaign really starts attacking McCain on all of his vulnerabilities. It's not even gonna be close.

6/6/2008 2:03:55 AM

^ McCain has been preparing for those attacks himself though. He constantly talks about how old he is and how naive Obama is for being a "young man" which was one of the bigger things Obama could use against hi, if only indirectly. But, I think how decrepit McCain actually is will come out clearly in the debates, just based on their appearances.

Obama OTOH has weathered the Wright thing and I think its mostly behind him. But the Rezko thing, even if people don't understand what it is, will be bad for Obama, because "Antonio Rezko" just sounds like a bad guy. I'm interested to see how Obama handles it.

6/6/2008 2:12:26 AM

NC as a tossup? Interesting.

6/6/2008 3:06:04 AM

i think they believe that cause of the large amount of good colleges in nc and the # of negros + negative stigma towards gop

6/6/2008 3:29:50 AM

lol @ obama winning ohio. seriously? is qntmfred skewing the polls again?

6/6/2008 7:48:20 AM

That RCP is wack. They average the percentage in polls, look at Ohio. McCain is winning in 2 of the 3 polls by 1 and 4 percent, but the other poll has Obama up 10%(!), so they average it and say Obama is winning? wtf, that's pretty stupid.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html

6/6/2008 8:01:42 AM

All I'm saying is that McCain has been moderately campaigning against the Democratic Party for the past couple of months and the Democrats have been taking almost no shots at him. It's going to be very interesting to see where the campaigns go after things start heating up. I don't believe McCain has the energy or anywhere near the firepower to fend off Obama in a campaign and is going to get run over by Obama by the time the actual election comes around.

6/6/2008 8:16:24 AM

^ this "firepower" is probably his ability to side every now and again with both parties.

the problem with obama is that he's so far to the left that he's going to force a republican congress too soon and not get anything accomplished.

mccain will be able to get things signed and passed at a greater rate and accomplish more in a shorter period of time

that's why it doesn't suprise me that he'll be getting states like ohio and florida pretty easily and then probably take a few more states than your anticipating

6/6/2008 8:26:03 AM

I'm not really all that convinced on how far left Obama is. He was probably just pandering to get nominated, much the same way McCain pandered to the right (mainly fundamentalist Christians) to get nominated by the Republicans.

I mean, it could still be a very close election if the past 2 cycles have been any indication and also 2004 showed us that simply kicking ass in the debates doesn't guarantee election (I think Obama is gonna mop the floor with McCain in the debates). I'm also not really scared of what will happen if either candidate is elected though and that's because there is almost no chance that the Dems will lose either house of Congress in this next election. So either Obama is gonna win and have both houses of Congress which will let him implement almost anything he really wants to do or McCain will win and have a Democratic Congress that is probably willing to negotiate with anyone other than Bush at this point. McCain is a long-standing and well-respected member of the Senate right now and I think he would be able to get a lot of positive things accomplished with a mixed government while keeping out a lot of the bullshit things he might try to do. Either way, I see it as a vast improvement over the past 8 years Bush has been in office.

6/6/2008 8:40:08 AM

Obama.

6/6/2008 8:40:57 AM

i got a feeling mccain is going to win and i also have a feeling by the time november roles around i'm going to vote mccain

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM. Reason : kinda like how things are going recently]

7/10/2008 3:46:02 PM