www.411mania.com
| Search
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// New Moon Breaks Dark Knight's Single Day Box Office Record!!
MUSIC
// Pics From Miley Cyrus Indianapolis Concert
WRESTLING
// 411 PPV Roundtable Preview: WWE Survivor Series 2009
POLITICS
// 411 Politics RoundTable: Thoughts On The Ft. Hood Massacre
MMA
// 411's UFC 106: Ortiz vs. Griffin II Report 11.21.09
BOXING
// Ward Shocks Kessler
GAMES
// Top 10 Action Role Playing Games




  MY 411
User name
Password
Register now! | Forgot your password?
 MUST READ
//  WWSD - What Would Schlafly Do?
//  Game Time: Obama Set to Deliver National Address on Health Care Sept. 9
//  The Revolution Will Be Twitterized
//  What's So Wrong With Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
//  Why Letterman's Apology is Bad for Democracy
//  Porn Actress Tests Positive for HIV – Could More Government Oversight Have Prevented It?
//  Who Was Worse, Palin or Letterman?
//  Is Sotomayor Good Enough for the Supreme Court?
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds





Follow 411mania on Twitter!




Add 411 On Facebook
 



 
 411mania » Politics » Blog Entry
411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 111
Posted by Brandon Crow on 11.24.2008



Welcome to another edition of Politics Fact or Fiction. It's Week 111, and this is indeed a special week. To celebrate the fact that this is 1-1-1, we have a 1st time participant in reader Geoff Landtbom, plus F or F's number 1 host/moderator of all time, Ryan Latimer returning to take what is rightfully his—pure glory! I know, you're all asking where the final "1" is. Frankly, I'm Latimer's number 1 fan! So there.

Let's get to it.

Ding! Ding

1. President-Elect Barack Obama speaks often of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, "Team of Rivals," which details "the genius of Abraham Lincoln's cabinet and governing strategy." Obama says he wants to model his cabinet after that of Lincoln's. This ‘team of rivals' approach is a good one.

Ryan Latimer: FACT. Absolutely. It is a great strategy to not only keep your friends and ideological peers in your company, but also your challengers. Why? Because many political issues are not a matter of right and wrong, but of "I believe," meaning no one can ever be "right" all the time. It is sort of like the valuable advice in engaging in regular conversation with those that do NOT agree with, because if all you are doing is agreeing with buddies and yes men all day long, how will you ever learn anything new or see things in different lights? It's called groupthink, and it's so easy to fall into.

Now, it is not clear if Obama is making this decision as strictly an image enhancer, but you at least have to give it a chance. If he doesn't make valid attempts to consider other options and mentalities, he will just be a liberal version of the stubborn Bush administration, run by a man who also insisted he would be "a uniter, not a divder." Ball is in your court, Mr. O.

Geoff Landtbom: FACT. It's very obvious that Obama considers Lincoln one of his heroes and so do I. What better way then to get an idea of how you should govern then to follow the example of our greatest president? Obama can't go wrong with this approach as far as I'm concerned. Naming Hillary Clinton as SOS is an important first step.

I haven't read Goodwin's book but I have to say that I think it's very important to have different points of view in your government. Otherwise you may end up making a horrible decision that falls on you and you alone. Bush was known for having yes men all around him and it hurt him because he didn't listen to any opposing views. Colin Powell was exhibit A. If Bush had listened to him, we would have never gone into Iraq in the first place and thousands of lives would have been spared.

Now, can this type of approach cause problems? Sure it can. There's always the potential for conflict. But I like what Obama's doing. He's willing to include people that don't always agree with him on issues. He's willing to put Republicans in his cabinet for example. He's also willing to listen to Republicans on Capitol Hill for ideas on policy. It was the approach he tried to convey in his book, "The Audacity Of Hope," and I think it will ultimately serve both him and our country well in the long run if done right. You need to include everyone you can in the decision making process process and not just those that agree with you.

If you don't, it's very likely you won't be able to govern effectively. Just ask Bush.

1 for 1.

2. Rush Limbaugh is already screaming from his radio talk show about how this economic downturn is actually, "the Obama Recession." This quote proves the old Al Franken quip that "Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot."

Ryan Latimer: FACT. BUT hmm, Al Franken calling Rush Limbaugh a "big, fat, idiot." Talk about the pot calling the kettle an obnoxious dip shit. Quite frankly, I can't stand either man, and this new criticism by Rush is just another reason why he can be so unbearable to listen to at times. Recall that whole groupthink argument I mentioned in the previous question? Bang. In Rush Limbaugh Land, Democrats are at fault for practically everything, no matter what logic may or may not play into such an argument. It's pointless. The notion that we are in an "Obama Recession" is about as credible a theory as Al Franken making a credible Minnesota senator. Hey, Rush, ever consider a political career? If Stuart Smally can pull it off (or almost pull it off), think of the possibilities.

Geoff Landtbom: FACT. Everybody knows that Rush is just a stupid idiot. Obama does not take office until 12 noon on January 20, 2009. Until then, Bush is still the President Of The United States and he is therefore still responsible for anything that goes wrong. Once Obama is sworn in, it becomes his problem and he will have to clean up the mess Bush left behind. Frankin is right about Rush and I'm sure even republicans would agree that the mess we're in is not Obama's fault. There's a reason why Keith Olbermann always refers to Rush as "Comedian Rush Limbaugh." It's because his idiotic statements always make you laugh out loud.

2 or 2.

Switch!

3. The Democrats need to win 60 Senate seats (a filibuster-proof majority) in order to effectively push their agenda.

Geoff Landtbom: FICTION. They already have 58 seats and just need two more for 60 but even if they don't get 60 I would not rule out moderate Republicans to cross over to Obama's side. Snowe, Collins, McCain, and Spector would seem to be the most likely candidates to cross over. I would also watch for public opinion polls. If Obama's agenda is popular, that makes it harder to filibuster in my opinion. After all, if people want something, they expect to have it. If enough people want health care reform, it will pass.

Ryan Latimer: FACT. Indeed, there is enough leeway on the GOP side to prevent full filibuster-proof situation, something no doubt that will (and has always, really) irk the hardcore Republicans, McCain in particular, who I don't see getting the boot as an Arizona senator. In addition to this, the GOP really needs an image and attitude adjustment right now, and they need to play their cards right, not acting like partisan, stubborn jerks just to stir the pot. That is the LAST thing the country needs right now. All in all, it will still be interesting to see how these two parties get along with Obama and his upcoming administration taking the Democratic reigns.

2 for 3.

4. Hillary Clinton will make a good Secretary of State.

Geoff Landtbom: FACT I have no doubt that Hillary would make a good SOS. People around the world have a lot of respect for her and so I'm sure that her selection would dramatically help to improve our reputation with the world. And I also think that all this talk about opposing views on Iran doesn't mean anything. Clinton is not president. Obama is. If Obama wants talks with Iran, it is her responsibility to make sure those talks happen regardless of how she feels.

Ryan Latimer: FACT. Boy, howdy, talk about a loaded question. I have such a love/hate relationship with the Clinton Duo that I could literally have an hour-long argument with myself. I won't bore you with all the details. In the end, I'm going with "fact" for the primary reason that, ultimately and at the very least, Hillary Clinton knows what she is doing. Love or hate her, she knows what she is doing. You can complain all day long about how Obama is "ignoring his word" regarding real change everyone can believe in, but he still needs a qualified team to help steer the ship, and he is the boss, not Clinton or Eric Holder or whomever you choose to point to.

Of course, this is all contingent upon whether or not Sen. Clinton (and Bill, honestly) can - how can I put this delicately? - know her role. I believe ABC's Sam Donaldson's said it best: "Offering the job of secretary of state to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., strikes me as a good move... provided she signed on wholeheartedly without reservation to loyally serve her principal, the president. I think she would. To do otherwise, certainly as long as he is the 10,000-pound gorilla, would be most unwise." Good luck with all that.

3 for 4.

That's it for Week 111. Special thanks to Geoff and Ryan for stopping by. See you in seven for Week 112. Have a Happy Thanksgiving…gobble, gobble!



Post Comment (42)  |  Email Brandon Crow  |  View Brandon Crow's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (42)

 
I get so annoyed with my people when we begin to get emotional after elections and conveniently or foolishly FORGET the facts. While it might be reasonably argued that Hillary Clinton may deserve a role in an Obama administration, it can also be very reasonably reiterated that the Hillary and Bill Siamese twins DO NOT represent the face or the essence of the “real change” that Barack promised. We FORGET at our peril as a nation!!! Hillary and Bill belong for instance, unfortunately, to the cohort of Americans who would argue that a black man would not be elected to the Presidency by American Caucasian people! Look just how narrow-minded they think we are! And see how WRONG they were. It’s so nice and dandy for us to be hypocrites conveniently, and entirely forget the sort of dirtiness that was played out in the Primaries. Yes, we have passed that stage, but it must not conveniently be forgotten. The Primaries exposed Hillary and Bill for exactly what they are: selfish and self-centered politicians who are NOT yet about to implement REAL CHANGE in Washington!!! By Jove, Hillary Clinton supported the neo-cons’ criminal intervention in Iraq!!! The vast majority of Americans and the entire world said it was a wanton, cruel, unnecessary and unjustified aggression. Hillary did not agree!!! What better example of a person who is NOT yet ready and willing to see real change in our politics? And yet we elevate that same person to the lofty and significant position of Secretary of State? Don’t we know that the Secretary of State embodies the image and the mirror of ourselves to the world? The Secretary of State (Chief US diplomat) is our face to the world, and given her mindset and real personal feelings about Obama – forget all the hyperbole and hypocrisy of the campaign – we anoint her Chief American Diplomat to the peril of real “change.” In my education and experience as a senior diplomat myself, let me share with you what a Secretary of State must NOT be: A LIAR, PETTY, VINDICTIVE, UNDIPLOMATIC, etc., etc. If the world perceives these qualities in our Secretary of State (and the world saw these qualities on open display in the Primaries) he/she automatically will NOT inspire confidence in those persons and entities with whom we must conduct our foreign policy engagements abroad. And as regards the Middle East, Hillary is, in the eyes and minds of Middle Easterners, already carrying the baggage of the Iraqi occupation. The foreign policy of our new administration, at least in that region, is therefore tainted from the start, or, Obama will have to be the one actually implementing our Middle East foreign policy. If the latter becomes the case, then all we’re doing is giving Hillary a top job to our utter inconvenience. Is this fair to taxpayers?

Posted By: The Baron (Guest)  on November 24, 2008 at 09:36 AM

 
 
For once I have nothing to say. Which means this is a real weak FoF crow.

Hope you have something better next week.


Posted By: hhhh (Guest)  on November 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM

 
 
"For once I have nothing to say.
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM"

Best. F or F. Ever.


Posted By: UkraineNotWeak (Registered)  on November 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM

 
 
Fact: Democrats forced Fannie and Freddie to make risky loans to home owners unable to pay the mortgages.

Fact: Democrats refused to listen to Republicans about the oncoming crash of Fannie and Freddie. (You can watch the YouTube of the CSPAN where it happens, this isn't spin, it's right there for your eyes to see)

Fact: Obama's card union policy, anti-free trade policies, higher capital gains tax are not "market" friendly.

Fact: Wall Street has fallen more post presidential election after Obama's election than any other presidential election in history.

Fact: Democrats handing out now TRILLIONS of dollars to everyone (not just Bush's (wrong) plan to bail out financial institutions) including: newspapers!!?!!? America doesn't have money to pay for this

Fact: Obama voters by and large could not identify his policies on a zogby poll taken after the election. Obama voters knew less than McCain voters did about the issues.


Posted By: Heartbrand (Guest)  on November 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM

 
 
Stop with the predictions. Let's see what happens. Everybody is so ready to either compliment or criticize. We really know nothing until it's all over.
It's easy to think we know the future because we were able to correctly predict that every Bush move would lead us to shit. Let's see what happens.


Posted By: Raunchy Ron (Guest)  on November 24, 2008 at 12:01 PM

 
 
Among the forty-three Presidents, only one stands-out as being able to effectively incorporate rivals into their administration. Given the survival of the Union was at stake at the time, it seems odd to believe this one case is so easily applicable to the current case. A strategic politician will incorporate the preferences of their opposition as a means to emasculate the opposition. Meaning you don't necessarily need to have your opposition present in order to know and respect their positions.

Anyone assigning responsibility for economic success or failure to one politician, one-party or one way of economic thought, is either a charlatan or stupid.

Hillary will make a good SoS due to the lack of prominence State has within the foreign policy apparatus of the Executive Branch. SoS is a figure-head and is of little importance in formulating policy. That is why you see the SoS on TV glad-handing around the world because they are not part of the day-to-day formulation of policy.


Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest)  on November 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM

 
 
Chastising Rush by quoting Keith Olbermann is like quoting Timmy from South Park for handicapped people. C'mon....Olbermann he sucks balls! His show gets it's ass kicked every night by the lucky leprachan himself....that bold fresh piece of humanity...Bill O'Reilly.Olbermann panders so much to the left (like Rush panders to the right) that you can only laugh at the things that comes out of his mouth because he makes Timmy, Forrest Gump, and Corky all look like they have 150 IQs

Posted By: Tim-may (Guest)  on November 24, 2008 at 12:48 PM

 
 
Actually, Lincoln's cabinet was a mess. That book has already been roundly criticized for completely ignoring all the trouble Lincoln had with keeping those guys in line.

Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered)  on November 24, 2008 at 01:43 PM

 
 
Team of Rivals? How many Republicans are on his proposed cabinet? Putting Clinton in as Secretary of State is hardly putting a rival in. Despite small differences, they're both liberal Democrats. Now, if Obama puts Ron Paul in the cabinet, I'll apologize.

Posted By: Michael (Guest)  on November 24, 2008 at 08:35 PM

 
 
Might want to do some fact checking on Colin Powell's stance on Iraq.

Posted By: Michael (Guest)  on November 24, 2008 at 08:35 PM

 
 
While I disagree this is the Obama recession,having Al Franken and Keith "bath tub boy"Olbermann critizing you is a badge of honor.

Posted By: John (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 01:25 AM

 
 
Maybe Olbermann can honorably go away...although he almost is by working at MSNBC...

Posted By: Glenn Beck owns Olbermann (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 08:53 AM

 
 
Actually, since the economic problems were caused by a Democrat Congress and the Lord Messiah Obama's apparent election, which became reality, it is indeed the Obama recession. Those who could truly fix the economy by investing know that Obama intends to rape them monetarily, so they are not endangering their money. In other words, whose that are calling Rush a fat idiot are themselves the fat idiots who should get down on their knees and apologize to Mr. Limbaugh.

Posted By: Bedford the Great (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 03:37 PM

 
 
Seriously, you Young Republicans sound absolutely retarded. No wonder I hate you so much.
Seriously, I want to break your jaws like Ann Coulter, you fucking Nazi scumbags.


Posted By: A Real American (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 04:26 PM

 
 
is everyone on this site a liberal?

Posted By: RJ (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 04:41 PM

 
 
Looks like we're getting some real constructive insight this time around at ForF!

Posted By: Bisch (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 04:53 PM

 
 
"
Seriously, you Young Republicans sound absolutely retarded. No wonder I hate you so much.
Seriously, I want to break your jaws like Ann Coulter, you fucking Nazi scumbags.

Posted By: A Real American (Guest) on November 25, 2008 at 04:26 PM

"

A well thought out, fact filled with quotes to scholarly articles and respected journalists, post. Keep up the good work libs. Plz go back to dailykos where you can speak about Bush = hitler and other exciting topics and engage in hyperbole that doesn't involve difficult things like numbers and facts.


Posted By: Heartbrand (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 05:06 PM

 
 
Dear Heartbrand,
You discuss politics on a pro wrestling website.....
Think about that fact before you start acting all self righteous, o.k. little man? You're a scumbag. Accept it.
And if any of you truly believe that the economic collapse of this country has more to do with Obama then Bush, or Republican policy in general, there is no point in ever talking to you again. You're a racist fuckwad with no brain in your skull or soul in your body. I pity your mothers.


Posted By: A Real American (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 05:21 PM

 
 
Are all Republicans this retarded??

Posted By: RJ (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 05:24 PM

 
 
RJ,

Sadly, yes, TOO MANY Republicans these days are just this retarded. I honestly don't know what's happened to my party. They've lurched into bed with crazy Neo-Cons that want perpetual war as well as crazy religious zealots who can't wait for rapture. Either way, the Republican Party as of late are comprised of a group of people who can't wait for death and pestilence.

Now, in regards to the little verbal wrestling match between "Heartband" and "A Real American" goes...

I won't go so far as A Real American and leap to the hyperbole (and illogical straw man) that Republicans/conservatives who believe this recession is Obama's fault is "a racist fuckwad," but I will have to begrudgingly give the man his point that this economic collapse is in no way Obama's fault.

It will become his inherited problem, but if any Republicans/conservatives/or just anyone out there who truly believes this collapse is anything but the result of Bush and Republican fiscal policies in the past eight years, then I feel really sorry for the lack of education and informed ideas you possess in your crazy, ideological, Rush-Limbaugh-owned mind.

Sad, sad, sad.


Posted By: A Disturbed Republican (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 07:20 PM

 
 
Fuckwad?Wow,what are you 12?Are you going to call us "dickweed"next?Truly progressive thought there "real american"

Posted By: John (Guest)  on November 25, 2008 at 11:31 PM

 
 
I wouldn't say all republicans are retarded. It just appears that way because most of the ones on this site seem to be.

Posted By: JO (Guest)  on November 26, 2008 at 04:54 AM

 
 
"And if any of you truly believe that the economic collapse of this country has more to do with Obama then Bush, or Republican policy in general, there is no point in ever talking to you again. You're a racist fuckwad with no brain in your skull or soul in your body. I pity your mothers."

Issue One: You claim several times that it's Bush and republican policies without ever naming which executive acts or pieces of legislation led to the credit crunch. I can suggest to you that Clinton's forcing banks to loan to subprime borrowers and the Democrats refusing to place regulation on Fannie and Freddie in 2006 led to this.

Issue Two: 96% of African-Americans (Somewhere around there depending on which exit polling agency you use) voted for Obama. Now you're going to call me, a white person, racist? Racism is having a prejudice opinion based on race. White people split down the middle for Obama, most likely voting based on the issues and unfortunately often misplaced hate of Republicans because of a poor media. African-Americans were shown to be the LEAST educated group of voters about the candidates than any other group of voters based on zogby's exit poll. Who voted because of racist reasons?

And by the way, I don't care if Obama was green, yellow, orange, black or purple. I still wouldn't have voted for someone with his policies. Anyone, including President Bush if he re ran, would not get my vote if they support seven trillion dollars (yes that's the current figure now) bail outs using tax payer money that isn't there!!! By the way, McCain was almost as bad in this regard, that's why I voted for Romeny. Oh well. Wake up and smell the coffee, your elected officials are spending money like drunken sailors and their steering our country up a tidal wave of debt that we can never survive.

And as far as scumbag and all that, please look up Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Chuck Rangle the guys in charge of the bail out who two of whom are under investigation for taking money under the table from the VERY CORPORATIONS THAT CAUSES THE CRISIS.

I understand that with vaccines, you use the actual virus that caused the problem to prevent it. That doesn't work with Congress. The people who caused the crisis are now the supposed "heroes" solving it.

Sorry for so many pesky "Facts" "numbers" and "names."


Posted By: Heartbrand (Guest)  on November 26, 2008 at 09:20 AM

 
 
Rush is seriously the most retarded man in america. What a dumb fucker to say its Obama's fault. The problem is a lot of his " party members" aka republicans believe this to. Well wake up and realize that war monkering coke addict of a we have now is at fault. Yeah Bush's verison of Regananomics worked. Put the working class down, make the rich richer and fuck the whole country up! Yeah way to go Rush do some fucking research you pill popping bitch.

Posted By: Bigmatt0011 (Guest)  on November 26, 2008 at 11:03 AM

 
 
*Issue one: There's plenty of blame to go around, not just to Democrats who, I agree, are equally complicit in all of this. Phil Gramm (the guy who called us a "nation of whiners") spearheaded the deregulation in 1999 that was signed by Clinton, and he continued lobbying for further deregulation through 2005/6. The fact that McCain was actually going to appoint this vulture as his chief financial advisor, or Secretary of the Treasury (!!) made it pretty clear that he would have been a much, MUCH worse choice than Obama. Chuck Hagel (my state senator who I'm sad to see step down), one of the Republicans ousted by our current administration for his frequent conflicts with lock-step Republicans, was the saving grace that waved the red flag on Fannie/Freddie in 2005/6. Blame for that bill getting shot down resides equally with the Dems who refused to go along with it AND Republicans who were targeted by a conservative lobbying firm hired by Fannie/Freddie to squash the bill. Frankly, I think it was a mix of blind party loyalty and ignorance all around that squashed that bill; Dems saw a booming housing market they were assured would never burst, Repubs saw "regulation" and immediately recoiled, and anybody who didn't know any better just towed the party line. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd...hell, anybody involved in financial committees in Congress should be pressured or forced to step down for getting us into this mess.

*As far as "Issue Two" -- the Zogby poll you're referring to was roundly criticized by independent pollsters and even John Zogby himself as being misleading and "slipping through the cracks" of Zogby's screening system (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15829.html). I'm not arguing the fact that 96% of African-Americans wanted history to be made, but citing an obviously skewed poll as evidence that those voting on the issues were uninformed lends little to your argument. People voted on the issues that mattered to them.

Five trillion dollars in debt is insane. Ten trillion is inconceivable. At this point I just shrug my shoulders and figure what's a few trillion more dollars in debt? Many economists agree with Obama's proposals and claim that the only way to get out of this depression is to spend/invest in infrastructure. Just as many claim he's wrong. The only thing that seems to be unanimous is that this is an unprecedented and unfamiliar set of circumstances, and really predicting the outcome is akin to looking into a crystal ball.

Guess we'll see who's right in a few years.


Posted By: UkraineNotWeak (Registered)  on November 26, 2008 at 04:46 PM

 
 
Yes, all Republicans/Conservatives are knuckledragging mouthbreathers.

Posted By: KevinSimms (Guest)  on November 26, 2008 at 06:01 PM

 
 
haha libs enjoy...bcz 2010 is right around the corner...THAT's when America will wake up from it's coma and boot the stupid fucks (Dems) out of office and chip away at the numbers the Democraps enjoy now. Give em time and America will realize how incompetent they really are!

Posted By: good democrap=dead 1..Like JFK (Guest)  on November 27, 2008 at 02:40 PM

 
 
Heartbrand,
What is this HOGWASH about Blacks being racist because 96% of them voted for Obama? Were Blacks being racist during the hundreds of years that they have voted for white presidential candidates? I suppose that when they have voted for white candidates they were voting on the basis of issues right? But, now that they have voted Obama, they are suddenly racist voters right? With folks like you Heartbrand, still wandering aimlessly around our unlucky States of the Union, all I can ask most fervently is that God bless America.


Posted By: The Baron (Guest)  on November 27, 2008 at 04:51 PM

 
 
"Issue Two: 96% of African-Americans (Somewhere around there depending on which exit polling agency you use) voted for Obama. Now you're going to call me, a white person, racist? Racism is having a prejudice opinion based on race. White people split down the middle for Obama, most likely voting based on the issues and unfortunately often misplaced hate of Republicans because of a poor media. African-Americans were shown to be the LEAST educated group of voters about the candidates than any other group of voters based on zogby's exit poll. Who voted because of racist reasons?"

African Americans only accounted for somewhere around 15% of the total vote. So yes, while blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama, they weren't the only voting demographic that got him elected. And in my opinion, there's honestly nothing really wrong with utilizing your civil right to help shatter a glass ceiling that has hovered over your race for hundreds of years. An intelligent use of a vote? Not necessarily. A poor use of a vote? I wouldn't go that far either.

Ultimately placing blame on a political party is moot. It wasn't the Republicans that got us into this mess. It wasn't the Democrats, either. WE failed. Our government and the people who fall under its umbrella completely fucked ourselves.

This is a situation with almost no precedent; I wouldn't even go so far as to cite the Great Depression, because the era was totally different. The sub prime market created by the Democrats in the 90s in conjunction with the excessive spending of the Bush Administration has completely crippled the market. And let's not forget that our GOVERNMENT made the decision to dive us further into debt with a bail out, not just one party.

We're already in this mess. Anyone clamoring that we "don't have the money" doesn't realize that other countries have essentially owned this country through our debts for a very long time. I honestly think the best we can do is continue to borrow and just SPEND WISELY. Freezing government spending and hoping that things will fix themselves is a narrow view and honestly unrealistic. And as a side-note, I will point out that McCain's budget was less costly on the taxpayer than Obama's by a negligible margin.

This is not a problem that will go away immediately and rather than bash the people responsible for fixing this before they even have a chance, I still say we wait until 2009 and see what happens. I still have faith in our government despite its blunders and I honestly do think things will eventually be okay.


Posted By: Joe (Guest)  on November 27, 2008 at 07:31 PM

 
 
haha libs enjoy...bcz 2010 is right around the corner...THAT's when America will wake up from it's coma and boot the stupid fucks (Dems) out of office and chip away at the numbers the Democraps enjoy now. Give em time and America will realize how incompetent they really are!

Posted By: good democrap=dead 1..Like JFK (Guest) on November 27, 2008 at 02:40 PM

This is the most tasteless shit I've ever seen. I can't believe comments like these are approved. I honestly feel that crap like this should be denied in favor of AT LEAST quasi-intelligent posts.

JFK was responsible for the Space Program. LBJ had the Great Society and ended segregation in schools. FDR was responsible for the New Deal. I could go on and on. Democrats have contributed just as many progressive and stimulating programs, policies, and reforms as Republicans.

I can't believe how many Republicans have this kind of mindset. This neo-conservative/fascist attitude that's taken hold in politics needs to be squashed before it does irreparable harm.


Posted By: Joe (Guest)  on November 27, 2008 at 07:38 PM

 
 
I wouldn't brag about the Great Society, that thing was a massive failure.

Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered)  on November 28, 2008 at 01:05 AM

 
 
>>I wouldn't brag about the Great Society, that thing was a massive failure.


Just like Reaganomics.


Posted By: Not Connolly (Guest)  on November 28, 2008 at 03:31 AM

 
 
If you objectively look at the economic indicators, you'll find that Reaganomics worked, and still works.

Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered)  on November 28, 2008 at 12:15 PM

 
 
If I use your criteria to judge things that you like, will you use my criteria to judge things that I like?

Posted By: Bisch (Guest)  on November 28, 2008 at 01:17 PM

 
 
"Heartbrand,
What is this HOGWASH about Blacks being racist because 96% of them voted for Obama? Were Blacks being racist during the hundreds of years that they have voted for white presidential candidates? I suppose that when they have voted for white candidates they were voting on the basis of issues right? But, now that they have voted Obama, they are suddenly racist voters right? With folks like you Heartbrand, still wandering aimlessly around our unlucky States of the Union, all I can ask most fervently is that God bless America."

What an educated response that shows you comprehend the back and forth on the current thread.

Someone accused me of being racist for my conservative comments. My response was that the person doesn't understand what the word racism means. That being, prejudice based on the color of someones skin. Based on this logic African-American voters appeared to be racist. They voted for a candidate because of the color of his skin rather than his stance on the issues. I had two proofs for this.

1) An exit poll by Zogby that showed African-American voters for Obama to be uneducated about any of the issues that Obama stands for. One can respond, well American voters in general are uneducated. A similar poll of McCain voters showed they fared much better with their understanding of the issues.

2) How is it that in 2004 the African-American vote was 88-11 and in 2008 it's 96-4. Do really 96% percent of African-American's have much more liberal views? This seems to not be the case by the way they voted for Proposition 8. But the more telling statistic if you claim that African-American's are liberal voters and 7 percent switched to the Democrat side is the way they voted for Obama over Hillary. Obama got 82% of the African American vote in the primaries. Really? 82% of African-Americans voted for Obama over Hillary because of his politial differences with her? Or is it because of the color of his skin? This would defeat your argument about Black voters not being racist when they similary voted for White Democratic Presidential Candidates, (though we all know Bill Clinton is known as the first black president)

Feel free to disagree intelligently.


Posted By: Heartbrand (Guest)  on November 28, 2008 at 03:53 PM

 
 
Dear Heartbrand,
Please forgive me if you thought that for a moment my use of "HOGWASH" was perhaps a manifestation on my part of not disagreeing "intelligently"...lol. There is NO intention to offend. What I'd like to do though, intelligently, is remind you that in your analysis you have apparently failed to incorporate a fundamental factor that would explain the ostensible mathematical lopsidedness derived from the 88-11 and 96-4 figures. 2008 in America is a WATERSHED YEAR in the entire history of our country, due to NEOCONOMICS and a particularly DOTISH bloke called George W. Bush, who doesn't even know how to spell the word "potato" correctly, among numerous other grave infelicities that bring shame to me as an American citizen. That 96% figure must "intelligently" be analyzed in the context of a WATERSHED year in our politics, where all respect and dignity are gone, domestically and internationally. AMERICANS, whether BLACK or WHITE have decided that they had to send a STRONG MESSAGE to the neo-cons. That's really the crux of the matter. God bless America.


Posted By: The Baron (Guest)  on November 28, 2008 at 05:40 PM

 
 
What does this 96% number have to do with Heartbrand being a racist (and then blanketly calling most blacks that voted for Obama racists themselves when called on this)?

Posted By: Query (Guest)  on November 28, 2008 at 07:05 PM

 
 
Heartbrand and The Baron:

Would you two like to participate in a future edition of F or F? Shoot me an email at crow.brandon@gmail.com. I'll even pit you two against each other in the same week if you'd like! Let me know. It'll be fun.


Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest)  on November 29, 2008 at 01:15 PM

 
 
I know it sounds distasteful to say African American's made a "racist" vote, specifically in the primaries. But I challenge you to rovide a different reason for why between two candidates so similar African-Americans broke for Obama over Hillary by such an overwhelming margin. Was it there disagreement on Health Care? (was there one?) Their policies on the War? Listen, maybe "Racist" is the wrong choice of word but honestly like I said, racism is prejudice based on skin color. I think the more people spoke about a glass ceiling and this and that the more credence they gave to the concept that skin color makes a difference. In all seriousness I believe like Colbert jokes on his show, "I don't see color." Yes, it was a watershed year in the national election and perhaps you can claim that African Americans voted for Obama over McCain simply because of values (Which some apparently didn't understand) but please explain the primaries. Thank you.

Posted By: Heartbrand (Guest)  on November 29, 2008 at 06:00 PM

 
 
Does anyone realize that Joe Biden voted for the war in Iraq? For all the people who still harp about HRC voting for the war, you have to realize that Obama never really cared about HRC's vote. He used that as a political weapon against her as a way to win the primary. He appointed Joe Biden on the ticket, who voted the same way HRC did. No one says anything about that. Obama duped all those anti-war people.

Posted By: Mike (Guest)  on November 30, 2008 at 12:48 AM

 
 
Heartbrand,
There is a complex medley of factors that created the sort of potpourri which was ultimately responsible for the "overwhelming" black vote for Obama against Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC). That combination should be better analyzed in a different medium for thoroughness and historical perspective, and also, for the readers not to complain about boredom...lol. BUT, there is this one single factor, that you may have forgotten, but which irreversibly brought a devastating avalanche of the Black vote against HRC: when her sorry, pathetic and disenfranchised husband, former "Black US President" Bill Clinton, who had enjoyed such unparalleled, generous and unstinting Black voter support, suggested that White America would NOT vote for the black candidate, Barack Obama. That same man, Bill Clinton, was already on record on CNN, etc., as describing Barack as an "intelligent, educated, decent and promising young American" as well as a "brilliant organizer." So, while Bill eloquently praised Barack with the tip of his tongue, he could not help but to simultaneously "castigate" Barack, in favor of Hillary, with that same tip of the tongue, being the typical self-centered Clinton political animal that he is. With that single fell-swoop of his blunt axe, he insulted the pride, the dignity and the intelligence of every Black voter in our country, in the process crippling his wife FOREVER with the Black vote in America. And to add pathos to tragedy, HRC herself, by all her words and actions, ENDORSED Bill's absurdity, that the White vote would NEVER endorse Obama as President. Paradoxically for Bill and Hillary, particularly in conditions of a Neo-con wounded 2000-2008 USA, that was also an insult to every decent member of the liberated cohort of the White American vote. It's that simple buddy. God bless America.


Posted By: The Baron (Guest)  on December 01, 2008 at 12:19 PM

 
 
Dear Brandon Crow,
I will look forward to such an activity in due course. Unfortunately I must undertake very imminently a tour of London-UK, Brussels-Belgium, Sanaa and Aden in Yemen, as well as a 10-day stopover in Damascus-Syria during the next 4-5 weeks at least. During those sojourns, I am not able to surf as effectively as I would like. Thanks anyway.


Posted By: The Baron (Guest)  on December 01, 2008 at 12:49 PM

 
STAY CURRENT

Advertisement



www.41mania.com
Copyright © 2005 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.