That is, pending his Libertarian nomination. He's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-online gambling... yet he doesn't come with all the 19th century economic policies of Ron Paul.
I don't understand why Ron Paul appeals to people more than Gary Johnson. I guess it's name recognition and a more rabid fan-base. But pragmatically, Gary Johnson would be the best libertarian choice. He doesn't go to the extreme philosophical libertarian viewpoints, arguing that bestiality or owning nuclear warheads should be legal based on the "non-aggression principle" and a very stretched interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
His views come from what makes sense financially , and being freer both economically and socially is the answer to that. Ultimately, the libertarian party should appeal to those who wish to have less government intervention than we do currently, without a purity test to see how "free" you can go before you're considered a libertarian.
I fear that the LP may end up putting up another anti-immigration bonehead who just happens to say the right words to appeal to them. But if Gary Johnson were the nominee, I would vote for him over Barack Obama. People love to paint me as some Obama fanatic, but I like him for different reasons than a lot of others do.
A lot of people seemed to expect him to be the answer to all their liberal prayers, but he's really just center-left in our country, or center-right in most other democracies.
I am really beginning to sense that Obama's election is inevitable with the way the Republicans are attacking each other, and even if it's a close election, my vote for Gary Johnson in Cauliflornia (state name changed in honor of Ahhnold) wouldn't make a difference.
Showing posts with label libertarians for obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarians for obama. Show all posts
Friday, January 20, 2012
Sunday, October 26, 2008
WWMD (What Would MIlton Do?)
Most people who invoke the name Milton Friedman do not know anything about him or what he represented. Calling the Right, the Religious Right "Milton Friedman" is like calling the left Karl Marx.
It's more accurate to call the US Center (aka Barack Obama) Milton Friedman, the Religion Right christofascism, and Naomi Klein the nutsy left who doesn't realize that economists are on Obama's side too.
Yet Naomi Klein like many Americans think Milton Friedman was some mastermind behind Bush.
That is wrong.
Even his son, who is more anarcho-capitalist than he ever was, prefers Obama. Friedman believed in a smaller government.
Back in the early 60s, all the free world had a principle called utilitarianism as opposed to communism. "Greed" was good to Friedman, not because he wanted Joe the Plumber telling Obama not to take his money, but because he felt that the free market was the most effcient and most moral alocation of goods.
He is probably right.
He woud like Barack Obama. He would right now be part of Obama's crack economic team helping them with their "Soft Paternalism."
Soft Paternalism is basically the idea that people are idiots and need incentives to do the right thing. So that means instead of tariffs, he gives job credits if they stay in the US. That's not far "leftist."
The Religious Right has become a fascist people. Sarah Palin doesn't care about the poor because she thinks she is going to heaven no matter what.
Neo-con + Christian = Christofascist.
Vote the party of Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, and Richard Nixon, and John F Kennedy, and every president before "Ronnie Raygun."
The New Democrats.
Ronnie Raygun was a fucking retard who started us into Christofascism.
Milton Friedman = Barack Obama. He would 100% be like "McCain is a fucking idiot, this is not the Republican party I remember. They don't know what they are talking about anymore. Everything Obama says is stuff I support, but no one seems to know it."
I'm saying it for him.
I am sorry if your Lolbertarians want to be John Galt, but there is room for compassion in government! Keynes too would be on the side of Friedman. They'd have more in common with each other than McCain has with either of them
They would call him a corporate nazi, the plutocrat he is
It's more accurate to call the US Center (aka Barack Obama) Milton Friedman, the Religion Right christofascism, and Naomi Klein the nutsy left who doesn't realize that economists are on Obama's side too.
Yet Naomi Klein like many Americans think Milton Friedman was some mastermind behind Bush.
That is wrong.
Even his son, who is more anarcho-capitalist than he ever was, prefers Obama. Friedman believed in a smaller government.
Back in the early 60s, all the free world had a principle called utilitarianism as opposed to communism. "Greed" was good to Friedman, not because he wanted Joe the Plumber telling Obama not to take his money, but because he felt that the free market was the most effcient and most moral alocation of goods.
He is probably right.
He woud like Barack Obama. He would right now be part of Obama's crack economic team helping them with their "Soft Paternalism."
Soft Paternalism is basically the idea that people are idiots and need incentives to do the right thing. So that means instead of tariffs, he gives job credits if they stay in the US. That's not far "leftist."
The Religious Right has become a fascist people. Sarah Palin doesn't care about the poor because she thinks she is going to heaven no matter what.
Neo-con + Christian = Christofascist.
Vote the party of Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, and Richard Nixon, and John F Kennedy, and every president before "Ronnie Raygun."
The New Democrats.
Ronnie Raygun was a fucking retard who started us into Christofascism.
Milton Friedman = Barack Obama. He would 100% be like "McCain is a fucking idiot, this is not the Republican party I remember. They don't know what they are talking about anymore. Everything Obama says is stuff I support, but no one seems to know it."
I'm saying it for him.
I am sorry if your Lolbertarians want to be John Galt, but there is room for compassion in government! Keynes too would be on the side of Friedman. They'd have more in common with each other than McCain has with either of them
They would call him a corporate nazi, the plutocrat he is
Saturday, September 13, 2008
People and Politics.
I know several actual swing voters. most "swing" voters have already swung. A swing voter is usually a moderate, not an independent. An independent is just not Dem/Rep. So an Independent could be from the Constitution party, the party that wants America to become a third-world theocracy.
A moderate is someone who is actually centrist/sees themselves as moderate. MODERATES are significantly in favor of Obama.
Here are a few actual swing voters:
1:
Male
18-29
Not Pro Life or Pro Choice, but realizes abortions have to be legal, and encourages adoption (Like McCain 8 years ago!)
Pro Gay Marriage (but thinks allowing states to legalize it may be the only way it can work)
Fiscally is conservative
Not sure about the war 100%, but he's somewhat pro war, but not passionately so.
Would probably want semi-autos to stay unbanned (hint Obama...)
This person voted for Bush in 2004 and dislikes Palin. Obama if he does well on the debates, which he will.
Person 2:
Female
18-29
Not sure, but not pro life, I think.
Pro Gay Marriage/Adoption
For Affirmative Action
Doesn't want socialized medicine (neither does Obama.) (probably mostly fiscally conservative)
Not sure about war.
There are probably a lot of people like this. Both of them were probably raised Republican, but like most young people realize gay marriage is going to be legal and think it is ok.
These are the sort of people that will be choosing Obama. I think this is a pretty common profile for young people. Fiscally conservative/socially liberal.
lots of younger people have issues mostly of gay rights, civil liberties, and reproductive rights. Obama is stronger on all of those.
The real difference is what their parents are/were.
The debates are key here. A lot of people like to call Obama a Communist, and some people really believe that, especially FOX news.
The Bill O'Reilly interview helped that out a bit,and the real debates will help it out a lot.
I think O'Reilly should ask questions of McCain too, but the opposite.
O'Reilly: McCain, you were wrong at the start. Iraq didn't have Al Qaeda until we came there. Would you admit that, if I admit you were right about the surge?
Not sure how he'd answer, but I could see McCain throwing a temper tantrum in front of O'Reilly and losing some FOX viewers. :-)
I think he really should, unless he's been interviewed on the same topics before.
A moderate is someone who is actually centrist/sees themselves as moderate. MODERATES are significantly in favor of Obama.
Here are a few actual swing voters:
1:
Male
18-29
Not Pro Life or Pro Choice, but realizes abortions have to be legal, and encourages adoption (Like McCain 8 years ago!)
Pro Gay Marriage (but thinks allowing states to legalize it may be the only way it can work)
Fiscally is conservative
Not sure about the war 100%, but he's somewhat pro war, but not passionately so.
Would probably want semi-autos to stay unbanned (hint Obama...)
This person voted for Bush in 2004 and dislikes Palin. Obama if he does well on the debates, which he will.
Person 2:
Female
18-29
Not sure, but not pro life, I think.
Pro Gay Marriage/Adoption
For Affirmative Action
Doesn't want socialized medicine (neither does Obama.) (probably mostly fiscally conservative)
Not sure about war.
There are probably a lot of people like this. Both of them were probably raised Republican, but like most young people realize gay marriage is going to be legal and think it is ok.
These are the sort of people that will be choosing Obama. I think this is a pretty common profile for young people. Fiscally conservative/socially liberal.
lots of younger people have issues mostly of gay rights, civil liberties, and reproductive rights. Obama is stronger on all of those.
The real difference is what their parents are/were.
The debates are key here. A lot of people like to call Obama a Communist, and some people really believe that, especially FOX news.
The Bill O'Reilly interview helped that out a bit,and the real debates will help it out a lot.
I think O'Reilly should ask questions of McCain too, but the opposite.
O'Reilly: McCain, you were wrong at the start. Iraq didn't have Al Qaeda until we came there. Would you admit that, if I admit you were right about the surge?
Not sure how he'd answer, but I could see McCain throwing a temper tantrum in front of O'Reilly and losing some FOX viewers. :-)
I think he really should, unless he's been interviewed on the same topics before.
There is Nothing Wrong with Obama going on the offensive.
He has to. John McCain lied about running a clean campaign. Obama really hasn't done anything that dirty. Attack ads happen every time, but McCain's are flat-out lies.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/attacks/
Pretty much every Obama ad is Half True or Mostly True. McCain's last two ads have been blatant lies.
Obama has to fight back. It's not dirty politics if it's true. Right-wing bloggers posted some obscure story 8 years ago about how McCain could not type because of injuries to his hand that required a comb. This somehow got on Drudge, which ended up being a great thing for Obama. Drudge follows all news leads and this will play well for Obama.
Here is the Freeper post. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081279/posts
It's trying to make the McCain/Biden camp look like a young guy and and old guy who hate "disabled people."
Here's Biden's story:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/11/america/biden.php
That seemed like an honest mistake. He wasn't paying attention and then realized it made him look bad. I don't like Biden. I think the Virginia Gov. would have scared the shit out of the Republicans, because Obama had someone considered more Southern. But we're stuck with Biden and he will be okay, I suppose.
Here is the Forbes article from 2000. http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html
And the Boston Globe article from earlier that year .
http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml
The right-wing bloggers are spinning this as a young whippersnapper who doesn't apperciate the service of McCain. These are the same people who believed the Swift Boat story, which was like. John Kerry had a firefight with Viet Cong, threw a grenade, killing like 3 of them, and he had some shrapnel and they're not aware where it came from. Of course, if you accidentally have shrapnel in your arm a grenade you threw and killed three Viet Cong, that would still deserve a Purple Heart. And John McCain agrees. Maybe he wouldn't now. Or he probably still does, but his masters have told him to stay quiet and just say "I'm John McCain, and I approved that message."
Or maybe they told McCain that they will "Attack" and he doesn't even see his own ads...
But back on the topic. The right-wing spin almost worked. It saddened me. But then I thought about it. That was 2000. And the media loved McCain. He had a huge internet campaign that if it had not been for Karl Rove, could have rolled what was REALLY the Straight Talk Express. And he probably would have beaten Gore, since he was truly a moderate.
If we had McCain in 2000, we'd be a lot better off now. I think if there had been an Iraq war, McCain would have managed it better than Bush. It might even be over by now, and we'd have someone, maybe even Obama, having an honest debate about supply-side vs. Demand-side economics with some random Republican.
Sadly, that never happened. If I could go back to 2000 and tell Nader to GTFO of the race (causing Gore to win) or help McCain run over Bush with the Express, I would do so.
But anyway, the right wing smear worked on me at first. I was saddened that Obama would attack McCain for being a POW. It didn't seem consistent with anything he had said ever before.
And I watched the entire Yahoo/Politico.com segment where they had Huckabee and Paul saying they used PCs, and then Romney saying PC and then saying he'd convert to Mac because his kids loved them. And then John McCain said his famous line. Nowhere did he mention things like "Cindy reads my emails to me and I dictate a response."
That was most likely the media trying to spin a moderate sensible experienced senator with a very moderate bi-partisan record to win the Republican nominaton instead of the drunken son of a former president. Sadly, it didn't work, and neither did the spin today.
Because Huffington Post caught on to it, after someone there found it on Drudge.
Matt Drudge plays a huge role. He's not really anti-Democrat. He just despsies the Clintons, and when Obama takes them on and defeats them with a campaign funded by small donors, the "Drudge-Obama crush" is a reality. You'd see it more before. Drudge would have a picture of McCain with a mole and saying "Does McCain have cancer again?"
Here's what happened. Jonah Goldberg of the National Review uses Lexis-Nexis and finds a couple of articles praising McCain 8 years ago. This gets out to all the right-wing bloggers, and someone decides to give it to Drudge.
See, everyone reads Drudge. The Huffington Post reads Drudge.
And here's what happens to this attempt at smearing Obama by the right-wing bloggers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/yes-mccain-can-use-electr_n_126130.html
The Huffington Post is clearly liberal, but it is a lot more coherent than the Freepers who think Libertarians are all people who only want guns (when it shows that Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative support Obama) and most right-wing blogs.
This right-wing lie has been exposed, and Obama does not have to apologize to anyone. Neither does McCain, of course. Though McCain should apologize for all the attack ads he's done, or admit he's decided to stay out of those and campaign instead.
What really pisses me off is how the right-wing tries to make Obama look bad. Old people use computers. Most of them do. My grandpa is 16 years older than McCain and he edits Wikipedia when it is inaccurate on chemistry articles. Most people older than McCain can use Google and check email. The fact is, the two articles about McCain were just trying to make him look good, and have been disproven.
If McCain can hold a cellphone to his ear, he can comb his hair, and he can easily type if he wants to.
He does understand the importance of blogs. I admit that. He reads them, though I imagine it's one of these scenarios:
His wife does a few bookmarks for him and makes them very easy for him to find.
So he has a few:
1. Drudge Report
2. His daughter's blog
3. Some news site.
Or worse he says
"Cindy, can you get me to that there Drudge site, I want to see if he got rid of the picture of me with my mole!"
And his trophy wife does it for him.
A lot of people say "the president doesn't need to understand computers" but it's about more than that. People who don't understand something usually fear it. Such as video games. McCain actually may be better than "For the childrens!" Hillary Clinton, who would have caused me to write in myself or Brian Holtz (CA-14, please look him up and spread his message for LP Reform) for President if she had been nominated.
The McCain camp (or more realistically, right-wing bloggers) are trying to make people bad for saying anything about their candidates. They have two "untouchables." A war hero/POW and a woman.
I say fuck them. Seriously. They attacked Hillary Clinton all the time, and you know what they did to John Kerry.
And as I was saying, someone who does not understand something will want to ban it or blame it for society's ills. Bill Clinton (or more likely Joe Lieberman) tried to blame Marylin Manson and "violent video games" for Columbine. You've heard all of that.
Games like Doom are "realistic" and train kids to be murderers. Now, it's GTA.
I think it'd be good if kids tried to act those games out literally. For most shooters, you'd have someone try to attack people. After killing one person and getting seriously injured, they'd run around looking for "Health Packs" or eat Food and wonder why they are not getting better.
If people actually tried to act the "violent video game" universe, there would be a lot of Darwin Awards.
My friend and I used to joke that I'd be a video game lobbyist. I'd say:
"Mr. Lieberman, how about we have some Kosher dogs and fried Matzo? I used to love that as a kid. I am half-Jewish, and I love the food even though the tradition died with my grandma. Want to try out some video games with me? I want to show you they are not as bad as violent movies."
What I'd like to see is more warning against Saw movies. What's worse: Running over people in GTA, which is very cartoonish-looking, or watching "real" fake torture?
Obama is the candidate for gamers and after hearing him talking to parents and his propsal to help autistic/AS kids, I am very excited for his campaign.
John McCain (or the bloggers) need to shut up about the POW thing. The Democrats have been nice enough not to pretend the "Songbird McCain" people were serious. It was probably a few extreme right-wingers who did not want a "moderate" in the White House, so they Swift Boated him.
No matter what you say, Obama is not doing "dirty politics." He is telling the people that John McCain is a liar, which any site FactCheck, etc will show you. He still talks issues on campaign stops while McCain likes to say things like "OMG OBAMA CAL PALIN PIG HE SEXIST."
The Republicans think that just screaming SEXIST because the VP is a woman will make all women abandon their belief in women's rights to vote for a Tina Fey lookalike that hunts moose.
The real issue with McCain is gun control. He's for it. More than Obama, I'd suspect. Obama just has some things he said as a state senator, but he also said that communities can make laws to control guns. I'm not sure if he meant States or just cities. Probably just cities, urban crime areas.
Neither of the men are strong with the gun-rights type, but neither of them are the "OMG GUNS BAD THEY KILL PEOPLE I WANT THEM GONE FOR THE CHILDRENS" that most Democrats before Obama said. Obama needs to make an ad about McCain's votes with the NRA/other gun sites, and explain his rational take on gun control.
The Republicans know that the Democrats could steal states like Montana. Obama had a 5 point lead a few months ago, then was tied, but now Obama has a lead. The reason: Palin.
People actually think Palin will do something. She's just there to get votes from the NRA and "moral values" voters. And moral values mean gay couples cannot adopt kids. Which is not moral, and if anyone held that value, I would never vote for them.
And it wasn't just Montana. Blacks had given Obama a lead in North Carolina. Even South Carolina was close. The Palin pick was not to get women, but to get the gun-rights vote.
Obama, or the gun-rights folk need to examine their records. There's very little difference between the two, and no one will take away guns from hunters. I hope Obama doesn't want to ban a Colt 45 which is a semi-auto. He might think of "automatic" guns as being big, so maybe he doesnt' realize the first was the Colt 45. If I had a criminal attacking me, I'd rather have a Colt 45 than a regular pistol. I could defend myself a lot better, but at the same time, a Colt 45 is not really that dangerous at all compared to assault weapons.
A lot of people think the "gun" vote is going Republican, but this is the LEAST gun rights friendly Republican, and the most gun rights friends Democrat since gun control became a big issue.
Obama will win. McCain can call Obama sexist all he wants, but that's only because he knows Obama will kick his ass in the debates.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/attacks/
Pretty much every Obama ad is Half True or Mostly True. McCain's last two ads have been blatant lies.
Obama has to fight back. It's not dirty politics if it's true. Right-wing bloggers posted some obscure story 8 years ago about how McCain could not type because of injuries to his hand that required a comb. This somehow got on Drudge, which ended up being a great thing for Obama. Drudge follows all news leads and this will play well for Obama.
Here is the Freeper post. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081279/posts
It's trying to make the McCain/Biden camp look like a young guy and and old guy who hate "disabled people."
Here's Biden's story:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/11/america/biden.php
That seemed like an honest mistake. He wasn't paying attention and then realized it made him look bad. I don't like Biden. I think the Virginia Gov. would have scared the shit out of the Republicans, because Obama had someone considered more Southern. But we're stuck with Biden and he will be okay, I suppose.
Here is the Forbes article from 2000. http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html
And the Boston Globe article from earlier that year .
http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml
The right-wing bloggers are spinning this as a young whippersnapper who doesn't apperciate the service of McCain. These are the same people who believed the Swift Boat story, which was like. John Kerry had a firefight with Viet Cong, threw a grenade, killing like 3 of them, and he had some shrapnel and they're not aware where it came from. Of course, if you accidentally have shrapnel in your arm a grenade you threw and killed three Viet Cong, that would still deserve a Purple Heart. And John McCain agrees. Maybe he wouldn't now. Or he probably still does, but his masters have told him to stay quiet and just say "I'm John McCain, and I approved that message."
Or maybe they told McCain that they will "Attack" and he doesn't even see his own ads...
But back on the topic. The right-wing spin almost worked. It saddened me. But then I thought about it. That was 2000. And the media loved McCain. He had a huge internet campaign that if it had not been for Karl Rove, could have rolled what was REALLY the Straight Talk Express. And he probably would have beaten Gore, since he was truly a moderate.
If we had McCain in 2000, we'd be a lot better off now. I think if there had been an Iraq war, McCain would have managed it better than Bush. It might even be over by now, and we'd have someone, maybe even Obama, having an honest debate about supply-side vs. Demand-side economics with some random Republican.
Sadly, that never happened. If I could go back to 2000 and tell Nader to GTFO of the race (causing Gore to win) or help McCain run over Bush with the Express, I would do so.
But anyway, the right wing smear worked on me at first. I was saddened that Obama would attack McCain for being a POW. It didn't seem consistent with anything he had said ever before.
And I watched the entire Yahoo/Politico.com segment where they had Huckabee and Paul saying they used PCs, and then Romney saying PC and then saying he'd convert to Mac because his kids loved them. And then John McCain said his famous line. Nowhere did he mention things like "Cindy reads my emails to me and I dictate a response."
That was most likely the media trying to spin a moderate sensible experienced senator with a very moderate bi-partisan record to win the Republican nominaton instead of the drunken son of a former president. Sadly, it didn't work, and neither did the spin today.
Because Huffington Post caught on to it, after someone there found it on Drudge.
Matt Drudge plays a huge role. He's not really anti-Democrat. He just despsies the Clintons, and when Obama takes them on and defeats them with a campaign funded by small donors, the "Drudge-Obama crush" is a reality. You'd see it more before. Drudge would have a picture of McCain with a mole and saying "Does McCain have cancer again?"
Here's what happened. Jonah Goldberg of the National Review uses Lexis-Nexis and finds a couple of articles praising McCain 8 years ago. This gets out to all the right-wing bloggers, and someone decides to give it to Drudge.
See, everyone reads Drudge. The Huffington Post reads Drudge.
And here's what happens to this attempt at smearing Obama by the right-wing bloggers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/yes-mccain-can-use-electr_n_126130.html
The Huffington Post is clearly liberal, but it is a lot more coherent than the Freepers who think Libertarians are all people who only want guns (when it shows that Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative support Obama) and most right-wing blogs.
This right-wing lie has been exposed, and Obama does not have to apologize to anyone. Neither does McCain, of course. Though McCain should apologize for all the attack ads he's done, or admit he's decided to stay out of those and campaign instead.
What really pisses me off is how the right-wing tries to make Obama look bad. Old people use computers. Most of them do. My grandpa is 16 years older than McCain and he edits Wikipedia when it is inaccurate on chemistry articles. Most people older than McCain can use Google and check email. The fact is, the two articles about McCain were just trying to make him look good, and have been disproven.
If McCain can hold a cellphone to his ear, he can comb his hair, and he can easily type if he wants to.
He does understand the importance of blogs. I admit that. He reads them, though I imagine it's one of these scenarios:
His wife does a few bookmarks for him and makes them very easy for him to find.
So he has a few:
1. Drudge Report
2. His daughter's blog
3. Some news site.
Or worse he says
"Cindy, can you get me to that there Drudge site, I want to see if he got rid of the picture of me with my mole!"
And his trophy wife does it for him.
A lot of people say "the president doesn't need to understand computers" but it's about more than that. People who don't understand something usually fear it. Such as video games. McCain actually may be better than "For the childrens!" Hillary Clinton, who would have caused me to write in myself or Brian Holtz (CA-14, please look him up and spread his message for LP Reform) for President if she had been nominated.
The McCain camp (or more realistically, right-wing bloggers) are trying to make people bad for saying anything about their candidates. They have two "untouchables." A war hero/POW and a woman.
I say fuck them. Seriously. They attacked Hillary Clinton all the time, and you know what they did to John Kerry.
And as I was saying, someone who does not understand something will want to ban it or blame it for society's ills. Bill Clinton (or more likely Joe Lieberman) tried to blame Marylin Manson and "violent video games" for Columbine. You've heard all of that.
Games like Doom are "realistic" and train kids to be murderers. Now, it's GTA.
I think it'd be good if kids tried to act those games out literally. For most shooters, you'd have someone try to attack people. After killing one person and getting seriously injured, they'd run around looking for "Health Packs" or eat Food and wonder why they are not getting better.
If people actually tried to act the "violent video game" universe, there would be a lot of Darwin Awards.
My friend and I used to joke that I'd be a video game lobbyist. I'd say:
"Mr. Lieberman, how about we have some Kosher dogs and fried Matzo? I used to love that as a kid. I am half-Jewish, and I love the food even though the tradition died with my grandma. Want to try out some video games with me? I want to show you they are not as bad as violent movies."
What I'd like to see is more warning against Saw movies. What's worse: Running over people in GTA, which is very cartoonish-looking, or watching "real" fake torture?
Obama is the candidate for gamers and after hearing him talking to parents and his propsal to help autistic/AS kids, I am very excited for his campaign.
John McCain (or the bloggers) need to shut up about the POW thing. The Democrats have been nice enough not to pretend the "Songbird McCain" people were serious. It was probably a few extreme right-wingers who did not want a "moderate" in the White House, so they Swift Boated him.
No matter what you say, Obama is not doing "dirty politics." He is telling the people that John McCain is a liar, which any site FactCheck, etc will show you. He still talks issues on campaign stops while McCain likes to say things like "OMG OBAMA CAL PALIN PIG HE SEXIST."
The Republicans think that just screaming SEXIST because the VP is a woman will make all women abandon their belief in women's rights to vote for a Tina Fey lookalike that hunts moose.
The real issue with McCain is gun control. He's for it. More than Obama, I'd suspect. Obama just has some things he said as a state senator, but he also said that communities can make laws to control guns. I'm not sure if he meant States or just cities. Probably just cities, urban crime areas.
Neither of the men are strong with the gun-rights type, but neither of them are the "OMG GUNS BAD THEY KILL PEOPLE I WANT THEM GONE FOR THE CHILDRENS" that most Democrats before Obama said. Obama needs to make an ad about McCain's votes with the NRA/other gun sites, and explain his rational take on gun control.
The Republicans know that the Democrats could steal states like Montana. Obama had a 5 point lead a few months ago, then was tied, but now Obama has a lead. The reason: Palin.
People actually think Palin will do something. She's just there to get votes from the NRA and "moral values" voters. And moral values mean gay couples cannot adopt kids. Which is not moral, and if anyone held that value, I would never vote for them.
And it wasn't just Montana. Blacks had given Obama a lead in North Carolina. Even South Carolina was close. The Palin pick was not to get women, but to get the gun-rights vote.
Obama, or the gun-rights folk need to examine their records. There's very little difference between the two, and no one will take away guns from hunters. I hope Obama doesn't want to ban a Colt 45 which is a semi-auto. He might think of "automatic" guns as being big, so maybe he doesnt' realize the first was the Colt 45. If I had a criminal attacking me, I'd rather have a Colt 45 than a regular pistol. I could defend myself a lot better, but at the same time, a Colt 45 is not really that dangerous at all compared to assault weapons.
A lot of people think the "gun" vote is going Republican, but this is the LEAST gun rights friendly Republican, and the most gun rights friends Democrat since gun control became a big issue.
Obama will win. McCain can call Obama sexist all he wants, but that's only because he knows Obama will kick his ass in the debates.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Some Demographics.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
House of Representatives 2006. 60-38 youth toward Democrat. 12% of the total population. That should go up. The whole "cell phone" polling theory matters now, because Obama and social networking have changed the face of politics.
I've donated $301 to Obama. I donated $201 after McCain's anti-gamer comments and listening to Obama tell parents to raise their kids and not tell the government to do it for them.
My.BarackObama.com is amazing. The right wing loves to complain about Socialists or whatever, but there are also Libertarians and Republicans for Obama.
Four years ago my mom had to give my email to her friend to get me to volunteer for Kerry. Now I can give my address and phone number and RSVP for an Obama event to call voters in Nevada. And it even offers me directions for MaqQuest! Times have changed. It is easier to volunteer. I would have done it a lot more in the past few weeks if I had known I could just find some house in a city nearby and volunteer.
I've donated money instead of volunteering mostly this year, because I figured my money would help more than my time, which for most of the past two years, I've had very little. But for the next couple of weeks, I have plenty. I could even try to get my dad to do it.
Some said this: Howard Dean was the Wright Brothers, and Obama is the moon landing, in terms of internet donors. Obama may have a huge supply of funds, but it's because of millions of small donors like me, not special interests. Picking Biden was a step back, but Biden was picked to fight against the Republican spin machine so Obama could still seem like he was running a clean campaign.
Look at these demographics. Basically, it shows the only Republican group is really the Religious Right.
John McCain picked Sarah Palin to get that group, and to trick gun-rights advocates into picking him over Obama, when neither of them have a good record on gun control.
Obama's state gun control bans can't be viewed from a national level. He's said the second amendment is an indvidual right, but communites can enforce common-sense regulations. So what he did for Chicago would not apply to what he would do as a president.
Obama and McCain are both on the fence on gun control. Obama is honest about being on the fence. He never really flip-flops. McCain is claiming he's against things he's consistently voted for. The NRA sort who claim they need an AK-47 to shoot dangerous animals are insane, but if Obama stopped supporting semi-automatic bans, he'd get some votes.
I didn't know what a semi-automatic is, but apparently it inclueds the Colt-45 and Garand. Those aren't really that dangerous, I think.
This election will go to Obama easily. I predict that Nevada, Florida, and New Mexico will go to him from 2004, and Iowa.
I think that gives him 296 votes. That's all based on messing around with sliders on some site.
Of course the site didn't factor in white men/white women, just men, women, black, white, etc.
Obama should also go hunting with the Democratic governor of Montana.
He was right about "clinging to religion and guns" whether you like it or not.
What was ignored was clining to anti-immigration, anti-trade. That comment also show he believes in trade, and is not a racist protectionist, but may just want to renegotiate NAFTA, which is probably a good idea, since things change pretty often. I hope he uses trade with Cuba as a bargaining chip. Cuba means nothing to us, but trading with us would help them,
We could say: Be a Democracy and we will trade with you.
Sane Libertarians vote Obama. the LP writes in Ron Paul or votes for an AK-47.
House of Representatives 2006. 60-38 youth toward Democrat. 12% of the total population. That should go up. The whole "cell phone" polling theory matters now, because Obama and social networking have changed the face of politics.
I've donated $301 to Obama. I donated $201 after McCain's anti-gamer comments and listening to Obama tell parents to raise their kids and not tell the government to do it for them.
My.BarackObama.com is amazing. The right wing loves to complain about Socialists or whatever, but there are also Libertarians and Republicans for Obama.
Four years ago my mom had to give my email to her friend to get me to volunteer for Kerry. Now I can give my address and phone number and RSVP for an Obama event to call voters in Nevada. And it even offers me directions for MaqQuest! Times have changed. It is easier to volunteer. I would have done it a lot more in the past few weeks if I had known I could just find some house in a city nearby and volunteer.
I've donated money instead of volunteering mostly this year, because I figured my money would help more than my time, which for most of the past two years, I've had very little. But for the next couple of weeks, I have plenty. I could even try to get my dad to do it.
Some said this: Howard Dean was the Wright Brothers, and Obama is the moon landing, in terms of internet donors. Obama may have a huge supply of funds, but it's because of millions of small donors like me, not special interests. Picking Biden was a step back, but Biden was picked to fight against the Republican spin machine so Obama could still seem like he was running a clean campaign.
Look at these demographics. Basically, it shows the only Republican group is really the Religious Right.
John McCain picked Sarah Palin to get that group, and to trick gun-rights advocates into picking him over Obama, when neither of them have a good record on gun control.
Obama's state gun control bans can't be viewed from a national level. He's said the second amendment is an indvidual right, but communites can enforce common-sense regulations. So what he did for Chicago would not apply to what he would do as a president.
Obama and McCain are both on the fence on gun control. Obama is honest about being on the fence. He never really flip-flops. McCain is claiming he's against things he's consistently voted for. The NRA sort who claim they need an AK-47 to shoot dangerous animals are insane, but if Obama stopped supporting semi-automatic bans, he'd get some votes.
I didn't know what a semi-automatic is, but apparently it inclueds the Colt-45 and Garand. Those aren't really that dangerous, I think.
This election will go to Obama easily. I predict that Nevada, Florida, and New Mexico will go to him from 2004, and Iowa.
I think that gives him 296 votes. That's all based on messing around with sliders on some site.
Of course the site didn't factor in white men/white women, just men, women, black, white, etc.
Obama should also go hunting with the Democratic governor of Montana.
He was right about "clinging to religion and guns" whether you like it or not.
What was ignored was clining to anti-immigration, anti-trade. That comment also show he believes in trade, and is not a racist protectionist, but may just want to renegotiate NAFTA, which is probably a good idea, since things change pretty often. I hope he uses trade with Cuba as a bargaining chip. Cuba means nothing to us, but trading with us would help them,
We could say: Be a Democracy and we will trade with you.
Sane Libertarians vote Obama. the LP writes in Ron Paul or votes for an AK-47.
Gun Control
I do not own guns. I do not know if I ever will. If I ever bought one, it would be the Garand from World War II because I liked it from Call of Duty. Barack Obama bans the sales of "semi-automatics." I believe this is because he knows little about guns. He probably thinks semi-automatics are a lot more like AK-47s and M-16s than a Garand or a Colt 45. Someone needs to show him the Wiki page of guns.
John McCain is pro-gun control as his record shows. He chose Palin to hide that because he was tied in a lot of red states or even losing on some polls. If Obama learns about semi-automatic guns before the election, he will easily defeat McCain.
Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, would all be on his side if Obama learns more about guns. This is very important.
And here is a video of Obama on video games.
The Clintons loved to ban video games, especially Hillary.
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/02/obama-talks-grand-theft-auto-at-campaign-stop/
This is a big issue, and Obama is the only pro-game, or not-anti-game candidate.
He may say things like "put the games away" but he is talking to PARENTS.
He's saying what Libertarians and all gamers have been saying for a long time. Put the games away. And he's not talking about educational games. I'm sure he'd like learning games. He's saying kids are spending too much time watching TV and playing video/computer games that it hurts their grades, and parents need to watch what their kids are doing.
On the video, he doesn't pretend he knows about the game. He uses the phrase "goo gobs of money." Which is technically true. He doesn't make up lies like kids can learn how to steal a car. If kids really tried to imitate GTA games they would run out in the middle of a street because cars get stuck trying to drive past you. If the kid didn't die, he'd try to open the door and throw the driver out.
Obama grew up playing games. Not the games we played, but he was born in fucking 1961. My dad was born in 1950, and I think he played Atari/Pong.
Obama was born in 1961. Assuming he played games until he was 20, he would have seen many of the early system. 30, he'd have seen Nintendo and the birth of the SNES.
Obama is the Gamer's choice. He takes the Libertarian position on a very important issue. Never before has a major candidate told parents "raise your kids, the government can't do it for you."
Any TRUE Libertarian who votes for John McCain is not a Libertarian.
They are just a Republican who has been told Obama will raise their taxes because he is a Marxist.
And on Economics:
You know who Adam Smith would pick? Obama.
Adam Smith talks about the invisible hand directing money to where it is needed thus the government should not interfere. But the government should not also encourage loopholes in the tax system that encourage companies to move elsewhere. A lot of neoliberal economists love to use a sentence out of Adam Smith to say he is for the way things are.
We are back at Mercantillism, what Smith rallied against. Adam Smith would vote Obama. Corporate tax loopholes are the visible hand of special interests. Obama knows his economics. McCain, as well know, does not.
Keynes would do, but Keynes and Smith, if they had known each other would both be against communism.
For those of you who think Keynes = Communist, Keynes is the last thing communism wanted. He told capitalists that they could adjust to conditions. Communists would say that is the capitalists bribing the poor to not revolt.
His theories did work for a while. I think it was more Richard Nixon abusing Keynesian theory and completely fucking it up that make it look bad. Price freezes on all goods were not something Keynes wanted.
Any sane person who has taken any advanced economic class and Economic History/econmic thought will realize Obama is the best candidate. I've never heard a major candidate actually reference Adam Smith before. Hopefully the American people respect that. I certainly do!
The Libertarianism Livejournal group does not represent Libertarianism, but a few people who want to argue beastiality and the right for a private person to own nuclear weapons.
Ron Paul may be a nutcase, but a lot of his supporters did not agree with all he says, and are going to Obama. They aren't going to fall for his "vote for any third party" trick.
John McCain is pro-gun control as his record shows. He chose Palin to hide that because he was tied in a lot of red states or even losing on some polls. If Obama learns about semi-automatic guns before the election, he will easily defeat McCain.
Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, would all be on his side if Obama learns more about guns. This is very important.
And here is a video of Obama on video games.
The Clintons loved to ban video games, especially Hillary.
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/02/obama-talks-grand-theft-auto-at-campaign-stop/
This is a big issue, and Obama is the only pro-game, or not-anti-game candidate.
He may say things like "put the games away" but he is talking to PARENTS.
He's saying what Libertarians and all gamers have been saying for a long time. Put the games away. And he's not talking about educational games. I'm sure he'd like learning games. He's saying kids are spending too much time watching TV and playing video/computer games that it hurts their grades, and parents need to watch what their kids are doing.
On the video, he doesn't pretend he knows about the game. He uses the phrase "goo gobs of money." Which is technically true. He doesn't make up lies like kids can learn how to steal a car. If kids really tried to imitate GTA games they would run out in the middle of a street because cars get stuck trying to drive past you. If the kid didn't die, he'd try to open the door and throw the driver out.
Obama grew up playing games. Not the games we played, but he was born in fucking 1961. My dad was born in 1950, and I think he played Atari/Pong.
Obama was born in 1961. Assuming he played games until he was 20, he would have seen many of the early system. 30, he'd have seen Nintendo and the birth of the SNES.
Obama is the Gamer's choice. He takes the Libertarian position on a very important issue. Never before has a major candidate told parents "raise your kids, the government can't do it for you."
Any TRUE Libertarian who votes for John McCain is not a Libertarian.
They are just a Republican who has been told Obama will raise their taxes because he is a Marxist.
And on Economics:
You know who Adam Smith would pick? Obama.
Adam Smith talks about the invisible hand directing money to where it is needed thus the government should not interfere. But the government should not also encourage loopholes in the tax system that encourage companies to move elsewhere. A lot of neoliberal economists love to use a sentence out of Adam Smith to say he is for the way things are.
We are back at Mercantillism, what Smith rallied against. Adam Smith would vote Obama. Corporate tax loopholes are the visible hand of special interests. Obama knows his economics. McCain, as well know, does not.
Keynes would do, but Keynes and Smith, if they had known each other would both be against communism.
For those of you who think Keynes = Communist, Keynes is the last thing communism wanted. He told capitalists that they could adjust to conditions. Communists would say that is the capitalists bribing the poor to not revolt.
His theories did work for a while. I think it was more Richard Nixon abusing Keynesian theory and completely fucking it up that make it look bad. Price freezes on all goods were not something Keynes wanted.
Any sane person who has taken any advanced economic class and Economic History/econmic thought will realize Obama is the best candidate. I've never heard a major candidate actually reference Adam Smith before. Hopefully the American people respect that. I certainly do!
The Libertarianism Livejournal group does not represent Libertarianism, but a few people who want to argue beastiality and the right for a private person to own nuclear weapons.
Ron Paul may be a nutcase, but a lot of his supporters did not agree with all he says, and are going to Obama. They aren't going to fall for his "vote for any third party" trick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)