Obama Wins!

[weshowe]

Isn’t it true that the senate of the past two years was divided 49 Democrats, 49 Republican and 2 independent?
Isn’t it true that the reason Harry Reid was the leader of the senate was that the two independent senators voted with the Democrats because they won elections registered as democrats,
and because of that they have to caucus in the Democratic side of the congress.

No, Victor. One of the two "independents" has always caucused with the Democrats, the other, Mr. Jeffords, was once a Republican who switched to Independent and now votes with the Democrats.

The reason Harry Reid is the leader of the Senate is because his part has control, and appoints the committee chairmanships. His henchmen, lead by Barney Frank, have overseen Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac for the two most recent years, those in which they invested the most in "Alt-A" mortgages.

Only the voters themselves stand in the way of, for example, Joe Lieberman switching to Republican the way that Jeffords switch to the Democrats. Voter can always punish a politician by voting him out.

Oh, the Republicans will be playing defense with a weak team for at least the next two years. But the real fireworks will be between the Democrats fighting over how far left the party should go.

And yes, I think Obama will be about as successful as Jimmy Carter was. I don't think Obama is as bone-headed as Mr. Carter is, but I don't think he will have much luck at herding the Senate Cats.

[VictorMoran]

The reason Harry Reid is the leader of the Senate is because his part has control, and appoints the committee chairmanships. His henchmen, lead by Barney Frank, have overseen Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac for the two most recent years, those in which they invested the most in "Alt-A" mortgages.

I love when the republicans come back for more.
You cannot just drink the Kool-Aid from Bill O’ Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and pretend to be informed, you got to read something in addition to that kind of nonsense.

You have not idea what you are talking about, you saw O’ Reilly bullying Barney Frank and you think you are getting information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ
Like I said when it comes to rage, Bill O’ Reilly is the go to man, but that does not mean he is given you information. Didn’t you notice when Frank was saying he is confusing the time. When the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac fiasco, he was not in the majority.
O' Reilly kept cherry peaking half quotes, he even had it highlighted so that he do not read more. He just wanted to find a high power bogie man.

You have to be careful when you watch those shows weshowe, they count on poorly informed audience,
that’s how they can get people to mix events and facts just like O’ Reilly did to Frank and you are doing here with Jeffords and Barney Frank. It is what happened to this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjvOeT8Hu8

Those shows have You very confused, you are talking about 2001 when the congress had 50 Democrats and 50 republican, and Dick Cheney presided the congress until Vermont Senator Merrill Jeffords switched party and gave the Democrats the majority control.
He kicked out Cheney, and Tom Daschle became the leader from 2001 to 2002 when the republican regained majority again.

For your information in the congress of 2006 the other independent Senator is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, He is the only Socialist house member in congress. I know, I listen to him every Friday in the The Thom Hartmann show.
He caucus with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments.
It is quite easy to check the facts by just doing a Google search.

Just remember O’ Reilly is running the political equivalent of the Jerry Springer show, he needs to provoke the audience so that he can get rating, he does it quite frequently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Nt8MQaKko
But it is just a show, here you do not get credit or rating for doing what he does.

[xavier]

I think you'll have to show us, where weshowe quoted anything that Bill O'Reilly said. I think you'll find, that you are the one that keeps bringing him up -- no one else here seems to pay much attention to him.

I love when the republicans come back for more.

I love how anyone who disagrees with you, is automatically a gay-hating, gun-toting, racist ignorant slave to conservative talk radio and the Republican National Committee.

It's pointless trying to have any sort of reasonable discussion or debate with you, because your world view simply allows no room for views that are not your own.

He is the only Socialist house member in congress. I know, I listen to him every Friday

And yet, you accuse others of not seeking alternate opinions.

[Walley]

Personally I've little faith in the so called 'democratic' process. The big candidates are always heavily funded by private interests, as well as members of many of the same groups. In a lot of senses the main candidates are pre-picked for the public - and then the public has the choice between essentially a bunch of rotten apples, at the exclusion of other fruits (other fruits do exist in the process, but the tables are heavily rigged against them).

I tend to think that Obama has been groomed to capitalize on this notion of change after Bush, and to come across as someone that the public likes. I think he's also been groomed for global consumption, and the media seems quite behind this notion - announcing him as 'president of the world' and 'the one' - almost like he is a new messiah.

There are things inevitably in motion which Obama may prove a good front man to bring the public along with - mainly things which tend towards globalization and loss of National Sovereignty. For instance, the Amero, North American Union, or even further moves towards global currency (which these already are, but they may take bigger steps - lord knows that with Obama at the front the public will fall for it).

Of course, globalization in of itself is not a bad thing. The real question, is whether those in power pushing these things into being are doing it for the good of the masses - or the good of themselves. Centralized global power has extreme potential for abuse - and personally things have lead me to think it strongly more likely that it will be used for abuse and control.

So... in summary... I guess you might say I see Obama as a puppet (this one is self-evident really - presidents really aren't all that powerful (though much is done to give the public illusion of them being so - so that the masses are content to blame things like the Iraq war on someone like Bush and hence entirely forget about it when a new president comes in - despite the fact that the real movers behind such things are still very much present) - their position is much too dependent on other interests). There's a simple method to determine who is powerful anyway - follow the money.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

[KungFooMasta]

Personally I've little faith in the so called 'democratic' process.

You're not alone. Just by watching the public vote on Election day I saw the majority of states were voting very closely between McCain and Obama, yet Obama wins in a landslide because the states where he won majority received all electoral votes. As far as presedential elections are concerned, our votes don't even count. (Yes I voted, its still informative to see who the people wanted, even if they don't decide..) Unfortunately there is no easy solution to this problem.

[Walley]

Personally I've little faith in the so called 'democratic' process.

You're not alone. Just by watching the public vote on Election day I saw the majority of states were voting very closely between McCain and Obama, yet Obama wins in a landslide because the states where he won majority received all electoral votes. As far as presedential elections are concerned, our votes don't even count. (Yes I voted, its still informative to see who the people wanted, even if they don't decide..) Unfortunately there is no easy solution to this problem.

Personally I feel that the first deeper problem is one of ignorance (I say this with no arrogance mind you ). A lot of people will vote for folks because what they see of them on the TV seems nice, or because the rhetoric buys them in ('Change' anyone?). Not so many people actually dig into the candidates, their specific policies, their history, how they got to be a candidate in the first place, who trained them, etc etc etc. So on this front you have many many people voting for an apple because the skin looks nice - without knowing if it's rotten on the inside (oh yes, I love my fruit metaphors when it comes to politics).

The second problem is the one mentioned in my previous post of candidates being somewhat pre-picked. As I see it - there are pre-existing agendas (the Iraq war is one example of this), and these tend to move ahead regardless of who is the president - though certain presidents are more convenient for public consumption. Case in point - Bush was a good front man for staging wars, removing rights, etc etc - in my view he essentially played the role of a scape goat, so that in his absence the horrible events and changes are forgotten. And Obama is a good front man for things I mentioned in my above post too.

Of course, I can't be positive that this is why Bush and Obama have become presidents - it's quite plausible in my view that Bush was supposed to be president before the elections, and so too of Obama (there is curious evidence of significant vote tamperings in the realm of Bush as well - though Obama is publicly digestable to the degree that you wouldn't need to cheat if it was planned). But hey - I could be wrong - one of the great lessons I've learned when having an interest in these realms is to remain as unbiased as possible . That said though... I feel fairly safe in saying that 'there is something behind the throne greater than the king'.

[VictorMoran]

I think you'll have to show us, where Weshowe quoted anything that Bill O'Reilly said. I think you'll find, that you are the one that keeps bringing him up -- no one else here seems to pay much attention to him.

If you read the mistakes weshowe had made confusing current events in the senate, plus he brings the spectacle O’ Reilly made on Barney Frank as ilustration of his points, you will have to conclude that Weshowe was just being a foot soldier defending his party affiliation.
O’ Reilly, being the dishonest man he is, was desperate to attract attention, he seeing that not member of the DNC and RNC wanted to go to his show,
while they all parade on MNCBS and CNN, he felt he had to do something and he manufactured a fake scandal out of nothing by making bogyman man on national TV.
If Weshowe wanted to provide more credible names to support his points, he would have mention any of the people in this lists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQcP9bkF0xE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYVhIQ2z ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4zWpwij ... re=related

Instead he mention Bill O’ Reilly's report which only evidence is a sentence in a paragraph of a report by a Democratic senator that in 2007 was named chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Where else do you think Weshowe might had his talking point from, when O' Reilly was the only one seeing that line, and everyone else ignored it?

I love how anyone who disagrees with you, is automatically a gay-hating, gun-toting, racist ignorant slave to conservative talk radio and the Republican National Committee.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, I do not remember ever mentioning those words.
Do you feel like the RNC conservative talk is making an automatic gay-hating, gun-toting, racist ignorant person out of you? I feel your pain.
I thought that by using O’ Reilly to re-enforce my points, I was cutting you and the conservative out here some slack. Would you rather want me using a better representative of mainstream conservatism?
I could have gone with someone like Michael Reagan (son of Ronald Reagan)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntz7SWm-xWo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Reagan
Or perhaps Michael Savage or Mark Levin but that will probably be too cruel for non American users.

[warmi]

Michael Savage is not a representative of anything ... he is a shock-jock radio host.

[xavier]

And you continue to ignore the fact that I pay no attention to these programs of which you speak. If you are not going to pay attention to what people say, then you should expect that same courtesy in return.

In parting, Victor, I suggest you go take your amateur trolls and baiting over to Pundit Kitchen; I'd love to see how you do there.

[SiWi]

Personally I've little faith in the so called 'democratic' process.

You're not alone. Just by watching the public vote on Election day I saw the majority of states were voting very closely between McCain and Obama, yet Obama wins in a landslide because the states where he won majority received all electoral votes. As far as presedential elections are concerned, our votes don't even count. (Yes I voted, its still informative to see who the people wanted, even if they don't decide..) Unfortunately there is no easy solution to this problem.

Being not an US citizen, it is hard for me to understand, what sense your elector system does make. In most other democratic sates in the world the result of the vote is much closer to the voter's will because the winner of an election gets measured by the votes/voters percentage in the whole world, which means that every vote counts the same( compared to the "the winner gets it all" system in most of the US states, where the votes of the minority get obsolete).
I think it should be time for the USA to get rid of this old system.

On the other hand most Europeans(besides the French), can't understand why one person in a democratic state should have as much power as the American President...

[warmi]

Being not an US citizen, it is hard for me to understand, what sense your elector system does make. In most other democratic sates in the world the result of the vote is much closer to the voter's will because the winner of an election gets measured by the votes/voters percentage in the whole world, which means that every vote counts the same( compared to the "the winner gets it all" system in most of the US states, where the votes of the minority get obsolete).

It makes a pretty good sense for a federal state.

One thing to remember is that the system you are talking about has been in place and working continuously for longer than just about every other modern system of governance ( with the possible exception of UK.)
So , before you start pointing fingers, wait another 50 or so years ... given their track record , who knows what will be left of European democracies ...

On the other hand most Europeans(besides the French), can't understand why one person in a democratic state should have as much power as the American President...

I am not sure what are you talking about.
Any examples ?

[xavier]

Being not an US citizen, it is hard for me to understand, what sense your elector system does make. In most other democratic sates in the world

That's because

(a) we are not a democracy, we are a federal republic
(b) it's the United States of America, not the United People of America

(b) is a very important distinction. One of the very unfortunate casualties of the slow but steady decrease in civics education in the public schools systems in this country, is the knowledge of how the nation's government actually works. *

The reason that there is an electoral college, is because the people do not vote for President. The vote taken in each state is a determination of the will of the people, regarding which candidate their state's electors will choose. The President is the chief executive of the several states that make up the nation.

So yeah, until you understand this point, the electoral college won't make much sense.


* I won't go into my theory on this here, suffice to say it's a great injustice being undertaken on each successive generation of public school students.

[VictorMoran]

Well, well, well.
It appears that not everyone is as forgiven as Xavier, Warmi and Weshowe are.
I guess that people who where arrested at random for political reasons dot no want to get over it, that easy. Grand juries seems to have different idea of justice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ZtG6RO ... re=channel

It looks like the Vp and Gonzales had their own private torture prison in Texas.

[xavier]

Well, well, well.
It appears that not everyone is as forgiven as Xavier, Warmi and Weshowe are.
I guess that people who where arrested at random for political reasons dot no want to get over it, that easy. Grand juries seems to have different idea of justice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ZtG6RO ... re=channel

It looks like the Vp and Gonzales had their own private torture prison in Texas.

?

Er, non-sequitor? relevance, please?

[VictorMoran]

Xavier, I know you live in the real world and we do not, but wasn’t this the original topic.

Thanks god... now let's see Rove arrested for ignoring those subpoenas, and Bush for the wiretaps, and all the other evil bastards for their evil deeds….

You responded with “Get over with, there are far more important things to doâ€

[Kentamanos]

Every administration pulls this crap. It's frustrating every time it happens.

That said, should we go line by line thru this one too?

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

A quick glance over it has some interesting ones, but I don't have the time or energy to research all of them (assuming I could find a neutral reporting on all of them one way or the other).

[VictorMoran]

Kentamanos, there is a big whopping difference. The people on that list where tried, found guilty, serve time in prison, then they were pardon. No one is saying these people are innocents.
What we are dealing here are war crimes, torture crimes, violation of the constitution, of the unit state, prosecution and imprinting of political opponent, treason.
But the conservatives are calling for complete blank slate to the people suspected in the orchestration of these crimes.
Don’t you think they should go to court and testified when they are called upon?

And if they are tried and found guilty then they can apply for a pardon, Just like the president did to Scooter Libby and will probably do to
Randy Cunningham, Dustty Foggo, Jack Abramoff, Ted Stevens, Steven Griles, Lester Crawford,etc and those are just a few I remember from watching CSpan and cable news, but Bush's list is far bigger and more dangerous than Clinton list.

The new list is so huge that it even include the President and Vise president
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmAf2weMTzw

[xavier]

Xavier, I know you live in the real world and we do not, but wasn’t this the original topic.

Thanks god... now let's see Rove arrested for ignoring those subpoenas, and Bush for the wiretaps, and all the other evil bastards for their evil deeds….

Ahh, gotcha -- I guess we had wandered so far off topic that I got lost.

[weshowe]

I have never been afraid to say what I think bluntly, and I think Victor Moran is a lying, deceiving propagandist (as well as a troll). He won't confine his posts to facts, but rather panders to paranoid right-wing conspiracy fantasies.

From here on, I am no longer planning on reading, and definitely not responding to his unbalanced and unreasonable remarks. I might have more to say, but I have decided that scatological remarks, ancestral references and the proper location for his eternal residence don't belong here.

<* Wes *>