American Stories, American Solutions

[Bond]

So, who watched Obama's 30-minute commercial? Thoughts?

Here it is incase you missed it:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GtREqAmLsoA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GtREqAmLsoA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[GameMaster]

A lot of staging but that's probably common nowadays.

[Angrist]

I heard 'Naomi Campbell' when I skipped through that. Must be about the oil commercial she did.

[DeathsHand]

Did he just go 30 minutes without even mentioning John McCain or am I crazy?
Because all I remember from McCain's 30-second commercials is him talking about how Obama is a crazy left wing terrorist-hugging socialist who doesn't even know how to ride a bike and still gets carded when he tries to buy booze.
And the pictures of him happily staring off camera while the voice over talks about how he's the better choice.

[TheGame]

Yeah he basically ignored John Mccain in that ad. Which I personally like, at this point I doubt mud slinging will help anyway.

[Professor S]

I'm not a huge fan of mudslinging in campaigns, but in reality Mccain has little choice. In terms of campaign dollars, McCain is overwhelmed by a 3-1 margin or more. Statistically, negative ads are more effective than positive ones, and having so much less to work with, I understand why McCain's camp has concentrated on the negative.

Quite literally, Obama can afford to be positive in more of his ads, but he still has a great number of negative ads as well. Only his percentage is less than McCain.

Back to the 30 minute infomercial, I watched about 10 minutes of it but then shut it off. It was so damn manipulative, with sob stories and meleodramatic voiceovers and music. Its like he took notes from Michael Moore. Obama would have been better served if he treated that 30 minutes like his positive campaign ads and simply sat down and had a frank conversation of his policies and views in detail. Overall, I'm not sure that with such a long election cycle and politically weary country, that infomerical helped him or hurt him.

McCain may be negative when it comes his ads, but Obama was achingly negative when it comes to his view of America. I simply don't agree with his world view or his solutions to his perceived world view.

And I'm sure that opinion shocks none of you at this point :D

[TheGame]

I have no problem with negitive ads, as long as the negitivity has something to do with political decisions the person made. Negitive ads that create fear, questions a person's faith, or implies that the person running is anti-american or a terrorist are the negitive ads I don't like... And the republicn party is the one that's still constantly playing these cards.

Obama may have a lot of "negitive" ads, but all his negitive ads are relevant to Mccain's political career.. And if Obama went the route of guilt (on the religious/antiamerican side of things) by association like Mccain did, he has more things to pick from that Mccain did while he was a senator.

If Mccain wins like this, then politics are going to stay screwed up for a long time.

-EDIT-

By the way, what is anti american? Isn't america a democracy, therefore what defines america would be the people's needs/votes based on what time period they are in? Isn't America set up to where everyone has a voice for what america should be?

The only people who are anti american are terrorists, or people who undermine democracy. Neither Obama or Mccain do this.

I think people are confusing capitalism with democracy. Both Mccain and Obama are in favor of helping make america a beter place, but they have different ways of expressing how to do this. I'm conservative, but I would ot say change is anti american, in fact the fact that we can change based on people's opinions IS what makes us stand out from the rest of the world.

[Professor S]

Game, I think you're confusing some e-mail smear mongering and 527's with approved McCain campaign advertisements. McCain has concentrated primarily on Obama's record and political associations, and only dipped into the Ayers pool (which I think is legitimate) for short period of time. McCain even went so far as to state that Reverend Wright was off limits. Considering some of Obama's past associations that are rife with potential for attack, I think McCain has shown amazing restraint.

If you want to hold McCain responsible for every wacko message out there you would have to do the same for Obama and the 527 messages about Palin murdering wolves.

[TheGame]

No, I'm only judging off of 100% Mccain approved ads, and what himself and Sarah Palin say at events. Their ads are built to make people scared of Obama, and it doesn't focus on the issues that matter. And the whole deal with Ayers is not relevant, the only reason they brought it up is because they wanted to imply Obama is a terrorist. The board itself was head by a republican.

But the whole calling Obama anti-american, or saying he has antii-american views is very much an outrage. How is his view on america negitive?

[Jason1]

The new McCain ad will call Obama a Communist because he shared his toys in Kindergaden.

[Professor S]

No, I'm only judging off of 100% Mccain approved ads, and what himself and Sarah Palin say at events. Their ads are built to make people scared of Obama, and it doesn't focus on the issues that matter. And the whole deal with Ayers is not relevant, the only reason they brought it up is because they wanted to imply Obama is a terrorist. The board itself was head by a republican.

But the whole calling Obama anti-american, or saying he has antii-american views is very much an outrage. How is his view on america negitive?

You're obviously overstating things for effect. Neither McCain nor Palin have ever called Obama anti-american or has anti-american views. Ever. In fact, when confronted by a member of his own party at a rally, McCain went out of his way to alay any fears that Obama might be a "terrorist" as you call it.

Using your logic, you could say that Obama's negative ads are accusing McCain of being a fascist as all he cares about is rich people and he'd rather fork himself in the eye than piss on a homeless person if they were on fire. Is that an overstatement? Yes, and so is your emotional reaction to McCain's ads.

McCain has specifically attacked Obama's judgement on the Ayers issue, and it is an issue, as Obama and Ayers did more than just sit on a board together. Now Ayers is anti-american and unapologetically so, going as far as to bomb and kill innnocents and only stopped because he acidentally killed his wife when making a bomb, and Obama once called him a friend when it was politically convenient. If that isn't fit for examination when it comes to someone's personal judgement, I don't know what is. As for your complaint that a Republican headed up the board they sat on, unless that Republican's name was John McCain it's irrelevant to this discussion.

McCain's claims were about idealogy more than actions. Very little is known about Obama's ideaology in practice, because he has so little public experience. The little that he does have rated him the #1 leftist in the Senate by the National Journal. McCain has even purposely avoided Reverend Wright as I stated earlier. You can't disregard Obama's past political associations and friendships, because quite honestly thats pretty much the only record that McCain can use because Obama's senatorial record is so short.

Even I've never claimed that Obama was anti-american, just a politician that holds socialist views and wants to essentially flip the constitution on it's head. Honestly, thats dangerous enough.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L3DrrwtqPt0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L3DrrwtqPt0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Thsi is the second time I've posted this interview and I'd love to hear eveyone's thoughts on it.

[TheGame]

I won't directly argue with you, since judging by your last replies I'd probably will not get a responce until after the election is over. Plus I'm getting ready for work and don't feel like digging through videos to find a responce. :P As for Palin though, I'm pretty sure when she was asked if Obama is a terrorist, she said no but that she believes he may have anti american views.

As for the whole "redistributing the wealth" deal, you should look up and see what the difference is between Obama's tax plan and Clinton's was. And when you see how similar they are you should ask yourself why at this point they're using terms with Obama like 'socialist' and 'redistributing the wealth' but they didn't use it with Clinton.

Maybe its because it was working back then, or maybe its because 'redistributing the wealth' implies something else. I'll let you think about that one.

[Professor S]

I won't directly argue with you, since judging by your last replies I'd probably will not get a responce until after the election is over. Plus I'm getting ready for work and don't feel like digging through videos to find a responce. :P As for Palin though, I'm pretty sure when she was asked if Obama is a terrorist, she said no but that she believes he may have anti american views.

Ok, now that you said that I know who you're talking about but it wasn't Palin. It was a lady politician from Florida on Hardball.

As for the whole "redistributing the wealth" deal, you should look up and see what the difference is between Obama's tax plan and Clinton's was. And when you see how similar they are you should ask yourself why at this point they're using terms with Obama like 'socialist' and 'redistributing the wealth' but they didn't use it with Clinton.

Maybe its because it was working back then, or maybe its because 'redistributing the wealth' implies something else. I'll let you think about that one.

Obama's tax plan more severely punishes business than Clinton's did, but thats beside the point. As President, Obama doesn't make laws, he can only sign them or veto them. Saying that, your statement assumes two things:

1) I think Obama's tax plan is legitimate policy, and I don't based on his past actions, not his current rhetoric. Plus, even his current rhetoric gives those that don't pay taxes "tax credits", or a free money collected from other taxpayers, which is literally redistribution of wealth and a socialist philosophy. There is no arguiment in this. Clinton NEVER did this, so he never redistributed wealth. There is a difference between progressive tax systems and literally taking mone from one person and giving it to another, which is what Obama proposes.

2) That even if Obama is honest in his policy statements, Obama will veto the spending and tax bills that the Pelosi and Reed led congress will throw his way. Obama wants to raise spending $1 trillion... the democrat bill that was put in front of Bush and was vetoed was $3 trillion. Remember that Clinton worked with a Republican led congress during his tenure and helped pass many of their bills. There will be no such checks and balances this time around, especially if the dems get a 60 vote majority and the filibuster is eliminated.

[KillerGremlin]

30 minutes is 29 minutes too long for me.

[BreakABone]

Just curious if we will have a GT election thread today or tomorrow?

[Professor S]

Probably tonight or tomorrow. I think Obama has this sewed up pretty tight, though, with well over the 10 point lead I estimated he needed to win. It will be tighter than the media expects it to be, though.

I give McCain a 1 in 5 shot to pull it out at best.

[KillerGremlin]

I give McCain a 1 in 5 shot to pull it out at best.

lol this isn't a game of craps

I'd say that we will more than likely see an election that is closer in the popular vote than predicted by the polls (as a result of bunk voting machines and white people who lied about voting for a black dude), but I still think Obama wins the electoral vote without flexing that much.

[Jason1]

Nah, even the popular vote wont be close. I mean, that depends what you call "Close."

Obama wins by at least 5 million votes, thats my prediction. Maybe 10 million.

[Dylflon]

Hey Professor, if we want to base opinions solely on a person's past decisions and convictions, how about I recall the six-seven years of Bush rallying and supporting you did, calling him great at every turn and only stopping when it became a matter of public record that he is a fuck-up and has failed to accomplish much at all that has helped your country in any way.

Let's recall that you supported the war in Iraq when others said it was going to be a quagmire. You ate up many of the reasons that the Republicans gave for being in there (and there were a lot of them that constantly changed) such as Hussein's ties to Al Quaeda (which was bullshit), WMDs (also bullshit), and to create democracy (once again; bullshit).

You argued in multiple paragraphs against anyone who had anything critical to say against the Bush presidency. But where are your pro-Bush convictions now that the economic bottom has fallen out of your economy? Where are your convictions now that you are still in Iraq, locked in a war that was entered under false pretenses and can't be won? Where are your convictions now that Bush will most likely go down in history as your country's worst president?


If we're going to judge solely by what has been said and done in the past, then I believe it fair to hold your judgement entirely suspect. If you supported Bush that much, and you're willing to support McCain as vehemently, then I don't think McCain is the kind of politician I'd want anything to do with.


I am honestly super excited to see Democrats back in power and have a much desired break from your pro-neo-con rants and rhetoric.

Though I'm sure we have at least 4 years of anti-Obama threads that you'll create any time Obama does anything.

[Jason1]

Hey Professor, if we want to base opinions solely on a person's past decisions and convictions, how about I recall the six-seven years of Bush rallying and supporting you did, calling him great at every turn and only stopping when it became a matter of public record that he is a fuck-up and has failed to accomplish much at all that has helped your country in any way.

Let's recall that you supported the war in Iraq when others said it was going to be a quagmire. You ate up many of the reasons that the Republicans gave for being in there (and there were a lot of them that constantly changed) such as Hussein's ties to Al Quaeda (which was bullshit), WMDs (also bullshit), and to create democracy (once again; bullshit).

You argued in multiple paragraphs against anyone who had anything critical to say against the Bush presidency. But where are your pro-Bush convictions now that the economic bottom has fallen out of your economy? Where are your convictions now that you are still in Iraq, locked in a war that was entered under false pretenses and can't be won? Where are your convictions now that Bush will most likely go down in history as your country's worst president?


If we're going to judge solely by what has been said and done in the past, then I believe it fair to hold your judgement entirely suspect. If you supported Bush that much, and you're willing to support McCain as vehemently, then I don't think McCain is the kind of politician I'd want anything to do with.


I am honestly super excited to see Democrats back in power and have a much desired break from your pro-neo-con rants and rhetoric.

Though I'm sure we have at least 4 years of anti-Obama threads that you'll create any time Obama does anything.

Nice. Put him in his place. Please keep in mind Dyflon not all of us Americans are bad, a lot of us are actually smart people and thats why Obama will win Tomorrow.

[Dylflon]

Jason, I don't think Americans are bad or dumb or anything else.

I just have a problem with people who are ego-maniacal bullies no matter what nationality they are.

[Professor S]

Hey Professor, if we want to base opinions solely on a person's past decisions and convictions, how about I recall the six-seven years of Bush rallying and supporting you did, calling him great at every turn and only stopping when it became a matter of public record that he is a fuck-up and has failed to accomplish much at all that has helped your country in any way.

How many times do I have to say that I am not a fan of Bush? Honestly, how many times? You continue to try and pigeon hold me into the Karl Rove box but a cursory review of my posts specifically about Bush show that the only thing I agree with him on were Iraq and taxes. I split from him on almost every other issue. Now maybe you think thats all there is when it comes to American politics or conservative values, but thats more a reflection of your ignorance than political reality.

If you want specifics on where I disagree with Bush, here's an idea... read some of my posts on the subject. There are MULTIPLE when I always have to clarify my stance because single minded clods want to assume the totality of my views based on the few we discuss here. My views are nuanced, and you should try that sometime.

Let's recall that you supported the war in Iraq when others said it was going to be a quagmire. You ate up many of the reasons that the Republicans gave for being in there (and there were a lot of them that constantly changed) such as Hussein's ties to Al Quaeda (which was bullshit), WMDs (also bullshit), and to create democracy (once again; bullshit).

Once again, you over simplify and twist my views to fit what you'd like them to be.

1) There were ties to Al Quaeda, but none directly associated with those in the 9/11 attacks. And technically the Bush "doctrine" was against all states that sponsored terror, and Iraq was always a huge sponsor of terror accross the Middle East and Nothern Africa.

2) My arguments about WMD's centered around the assinine "Bush Lied and People Died" mantra from the left. My arguments, if you care to read them and not insert your own opinion and create them for me, were that Bush was WRONG, but did not LIE. There is a difference and the rest of the free world was WRONG as well, and most of the world's intelligence parroted our evidence. If you'd like to remember, the U.N. arguments were about what to do about Iraq's WMD's, not whether or not he HAD THEM, but considering the misinformation in this post I think your memory is either suffering greatly or simply activates based on convenience.

3) Creating democracy was not the reason to go to war rather than a reality of our current place there. No one can argue that we went to war solely to create democracy, but I believe that was a secondary objective that became primary after no WMD's were found. Creating a democracy was always the plan after the war and part of reconstruction just as it was after WW2, but not the reason to go.

You argued in multiple paragraphs against anyone who had anything critical to say against the Bush presidency.

Once again, what are you smoking? Do you even read my posts about Bush? There are areas that I agreed with Bush on, and those areas were the ones people wanted to discuss at length. No one wanted to talk about a subject when I agreed with them on a Bush subject... its just the arguments they remember. I guess thats human nature.

But where are your pro-Bush convictions now that the economic bottom has fallen out of your economy?

My "pro-Bush" convictions on the economy don't exist, but my belief in free trade still survives, even though I've always been a fan of sensible regulation since the days of ENRON. And honestly don't pretend to make arguments about our economy until you can explain to me the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there relation with government regulation, and the effects of the 1993 expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act. Do that, then get back to me. Until then you make sweeping generalizations about subjects you don't come close to understanding. But something tells me "business bad, taxes good" is the ldepth and breadth of your economic beliefs.

Where are your convictions now that you are still in Iraq, locked in a war that was entered under false pretenses and can't be won?

Can't be won? Are you paying attention? We are WINNING IT RIGHT NOW. 2/3's of the nation are under self-rule and the political consolidation is tightening up considerably, including reforms for women and minority religions/parties. When both democrats and Republicans admit the surge is working, guess what... IT'S WORKING. The only person that held out was Obama, ans even he eventually caved and admitted it was/is a success.

The only one's who think we're losing the Iraq war are those who WANT us to lose and haven't thought about the situation or read an article on the subject for nearly two years. Guess what category you're in...

Where are your convictions now that Bush will most likely go down in history as your country's worst president?

I kind of think Bush is one of the worst Presidents ever, domestically. He's an absentee landlord who spent way too much and let Fannie and Freddie get away with murder and cronyism. His legacy will be Iraq, though, and if that works how his place in history will be much more forgiving over time as domestic issues tend to correct far more quickly and fluctuate more than international issues. The current economic situation is likely already on the road to recovery even though we'll be in a recession for a year or so (depressed growth is better than none and any time the markets leave a free fall people will invest and the economy will grow out of it), but if Iraq works the affects of a democratic Middle Eastern nation could be felt for a thousand years

Why can't people like you ever hold me accountable for things I've actually said? You call me a ego-maniac, but at least when I quote your opinions they're based on your opinions and not some deranged fiction I've created that fits my emotion based world view.

In the end, I support McCain based on McCain's record, which is centered on fiscally conservative principles, with dashes of political reform and some social progressiveness when it comes to the environment and some other centrist values. Bush does not factor for me, but apparently when you look at a Republican thats all you see. It must be nice to not have to think about politics but still have a loud opinion.

As for Obama, he has no real record and the little he has is far left in practice, and that does not fit in with my political philosophy. I don't ever vote based on what a politician says he'll do. I vote based on what they've done. Words have no meaning compared to actions. I guess that makes me a ego-maniac?:unsure:

And Jason1, the only "bad" people in politics are those that base the goodness of a person on their political affiliations. Be prepared to have a sad, angry little life focused on empty half of the glass.

[Jason1]

And Jason1, the only "bad" people in politics are those that base the goodness of a person on their political affiliations. Be prepared to have a sad, angry little life focused on empty half of the glass.

Ouch, that really really hurts man. You might not agree, but this is going to be a great day in American history.

[Professor S]

Ouch, that really really hurts man. You might not agree, but this is going to be a great day in American history.

Jason, in case you haven't figured it out yet, my opinion of you has nothing to do with your politics, but instead the mythical reasoning behind it. You live in a world of your own creation, seeing good and evil represented by Donkeys and Elephants.

I do not agree with liberals, but I think they have America's best interests at heart. They are just wrong, not evil. Unfortunately you're mind has been so diseased by partisan messages that you can't return that favor and instead write continuous one line hate filled barbs with zero content and 100% emotion.

Its not that I disrespect your vues, I have no respect for how little you think of them and the emptiness of your polical reasoning.

[KillerGremlin]

you guys all need to spank your monkeys and smoke some weed

it'll mellow you out so we can all hang out with the kool aid man

http://www.edinformatics.com/inventions_inventors/Kool-AidMan.jpg

[Jason1]

I think someone pridicted this despite nay-sayers saying the popular vote would be close...who was that again?

Nah, even the popular vote wont be close. I mean, that depends what you call "Close."

Obama wins by at least 5 million votes, thats my prediction. Maybe 10 million.

[Bond]

I don't think politics should be akin to predicting a sporting event.

[KillerGremlin]

Someone I know voted Nader, I guess Nader got like 1% of the popular vote. I still maintain that our 2 party system is broken. I basically voted for the 'lesser of two evils' and I felt that many people did the same as well this election.