By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - OMG... the Economist endorses Obama.

cdude1034 on 31 October 2008
stof said:
I've come to the conclusion that the main reason Obama is going to take this election so handily is that both parties had exceptionally strong, intelligent and respectable candidates.

The Republican party may be a corrupt and morally bankrupt organization. But there's one thing they do better than any other organization around today. They win elections through smear campaigns. So why have they fallen apart this election? Because John McCain is too principled a man for that sort of campaign. During the Republican primaries that saw Bush triumph over McCain, It was Bush's slander and McCain's morals that lost him the primary. During the Recent primaries, it was McCain's sincerity and principles that won.

But this election, things changed. McCain at first seemed unwilling to engage in that sort of dirty politicking, instead leaving it to other operatives in his party. But no only was Obama able to deflect such attacks (take for example, his wonderful speech on race relations), but he began to define the terms on which the election was fought. At some point down the line, McCain seemed to agree that, for better or worse, the kind of dirty smears and cheap tricks that cost him his prior primary was the only way to win. This caused a new problem. Where McCain's principles first found him unwilling, they now found him incapable. Just as I have no idea how to play a guitar, McCain seems to have no idea how to run a shitty below the belt campaign. He's not only at odds with his campaign advisors right now. He's at odds with himself.

So in the end, we are presented with an intelligent and tactful opponent running a solid campaign based on change and hope, and an intelligent and tactful opponent running a sloppy and immoral campaign based on everything he is not.

McCain never had a chance this time around. Which is so sad considering what a wonderful president he could have been were he chosen 8 years ago.

Oh yeah, and Palin. He royally fucked up with Palin.


Of course, that's just my opinion.

I <3 you, Stof (not in a gay way, but in a man-love way ). That was well said.

 



 

Currently playing: Civ 6

Around the Network
steven787 on 31 October 2008

He and Gulianni were the only two that had a chance, I was seriously considering voiting for McCain until he proved that he was not a good leader. He's not true to himself, he thinks he's right all the time, and he has really bad judgement.

Obama did win my vote, but more, I think McCain will be why he will lose the election.

We'll know in a few days.

Edit: and Stof, I love you too, but not in a guy-love kinda way.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

akuma587 on 31 October 2008
stof said:
I've come to the conclusion that the main reason Obama is going to take this election so handily is that both parties had exceptionally strong, intelligent and respectable candidates.

The Republican party may be a corrupt and morally bankrupt organization. But there's one thing they do better than any other organization around today. They win elections through smear campaigns. So why have they fallen apart this election? Because John McCain is too principled a man for that sort of campaign. During the Republican primaries that saw Bush triumph over McCain, It was Bush's slander and McCain's morals that lost him the primary. During the Recent primaries, it was McCain's sincerity and principles that won.

But this election, things changed. McCain at first seemed unwilling to engage in that sort of dirty politicking, instead leaving it to other operatives in his party. But no only was Obama able to deflect such attacks (take for example, his wonderful speech on race relations), but he began to define the terms on which the election was fought. At some point down the line, McCain seemed to agree that, for better or worse, the kind of dirty smears and cheap tricks that cost him his prior primary was the only way to win. This caused a new problem. Where McCain's principles first found him unwilling, they now found him incapable. Just as I have no idea how to play a guitar, McCain seems to have no idea how to run a shitty below the belt campaign. He's not only at odds with his campaign advisors right now. He's at odds with himself.

So in the end, we are presented with an intelligent and tactful opponent running a solid campaign based on change and hope, and an intelligent and tactful opponent running a sloppy and immoral campaign based on everything he is not.

McCain never had a chance this time around. Which is so sad considering what a wonderful president he could have been were he chosen 8 years ago.

Oh yeah, and Palin. He royally fucked up with Palin.


Of course, that's just my opinion.

Me too stof.  You should just emigrate to the US and grace our country with your presence and all-knowingness.  You have completely summed up the entire election in just a few paragraphs.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 31 October 2008

I read the article. Basically is says we have two bad choices. We take the Obama bad choice over the McCain bad choice.

All the good reasons they state has nothing to do with what he will do, and everything to do with who he is.

Sad.



Dogs Rule on 31 October 2008

I'll join in on the Stof praise. Very good insight and a nice summation. :)

I hear (not really) that since this article, Palin has canceled her subscription to the Economist and even when she has a large variety of newspapers and magazines before her, she'll no longer pick up the Economist.



Around the Network
whatever on 31 October 2008

"Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism."

This statement pretty much says it all. The republican party has been consumed by the religious nuts.



Coca-Cola on 31 October 2008
whatever said:
"Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism."

This statement pretty much says it all. The republican party has been consumed by the religious nuts.

Whatever happened to Ronald Reagan's party?  I believed in that party.

 

 



rocketpig on 31 October 2008

Holy fuck.

...

That's all I can really say right now.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Coca-Cola on 31 October 2008

Remember the old Ant and grasshopper story?
Here is a new one to fit today. who wants to be the ant?

(I didn't write it)

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and
dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press
conference and demands to know why the ant should be
allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering
grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a
table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this
poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so ?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody
cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the
ant's house where the news stations film the group
singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the
group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's
sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with
Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the
grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make
him pay his fair share.
Hillary and Barack go on national television agreeing that
the plight of the grasshopper is the fault of George Bush.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity &
Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the
summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number
of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his
retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the
government.
Obama gets his old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation
suit against the ant, and the case is tried
before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton
appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grass hopper finishing up the last bits of
the ant's food while the government house
he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house,
crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident
and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who
terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.



akuma587 on 31 October 2008
whatever said:
"Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism."

This statement pretty much says it all. The republican party has been consumed by the religious nuts.

Indeed.  And its never really been about being against "Big Government," its about being against "Big Government that doesn't fit in with the conservative agenda."

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson