Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)

Perhaps it is the time to ask…
What game is the NYT playing?

They ENDORSE McCain, and they do so AFTER they sit on this alleged story in December.
Then they come out with this week story in February, and the Conservatives (who here to fore had been in opposition to McCain) start backing him in earnest… if the the NY Times is against him, he can’t be all bad!)

Boortz, Hannity, et.al. have all made Pro McCain statements since this story “broke”, and callers have been predominantly “I did not like McCain, but the New York Times has gone to far and I am going to back McCain to put it to the NY Times…”

i think it’s to help Clinton Inc, not Obahma.
it puts McCain in the spot light in a bad way.
it gets the negative light of Mrs Clinton (the she is lossing a lot of states), and it also gets Obahma out of the good light (winning a lot of states).
all around it’s a win for Clinton inc, the true indorcement of NYT.

As I said.  The NYT et el have selected McCain FOR us, rammed him down our throats, and now have all the evidence they need to cripple him in the general election.  Why in the WORLD did you think they would endorse him?  They know he’s not a real consevative and they know where all his baggage is (shoot, the guy’s been in office since the dinosaurs roamed the earth, they had plenty of time to gather it.)

Now it’s time to let things start to leak out in a trickle.  They figure they can crush him and get their man, Obama, elected and, if for some reason the radical free thinkers of this nation (AKA, red blooded Americans who just happen to want more conservativism then liberalism) get the Republican back into the White House, they’re still covered since McCain’s a media slut and a very liberal Republican.

“all the evidence they need”…?

you mean no evidence.

@balungaloaf:

“all the evidence they need”…?

you mean no evidence.

Generally when the media goes after a Republican they don’t ever have evidence.  Since when has the media needed it?  Only republicans need evidence when going after a Democrat and even when it takes 11 tractor trailers to haul it all in, the Democrat still gets off.

Actually Jen, the NYT ALREADY endorsed McCain, in early January.

@ncscswitch:

Actually Jen, the NYT ALREADY endorsed McCain, in early January.

Darlin, I’m not disputing that the NYT endorsed McCain early last year.  (Dunno about this year, I think it was 2007, not 2008 - could be wrong.)

What I’m arguing is that the NYT and their compatriots fought to make McCain the Republican nominee because they had the dirt on him already researched and assembled from decades of his history and because he does not poll well with the grass roots Conservatives (with the blue bloods he does really well, however.)

This is their consolation prize.  If, by some miracle, Obama loses in November, they at least get the most liberal republican who ran AND a man they know will cave on conservative principles to court their favor later.

Now, maybe he WILL win, and maybe we’ll see a miracle and he’ll return to his conservative roots from the 80’s.  But I doubt it.  It’s like trying to run your bomber of 4 AA Guns to bomb an enemy capitol.  Sure, you COULD survive, but the odds are not in your favor. (about 48/52 actually, which is far better then I would give the McCain scenario.)

Oh, and yes, I am almost certain that Hillary is out.  That’s why I voted Obama in the Illinois primary. (I had to vote a straight democrat ticket because some upstart was running against my Congresswoman Bean and I had to fight to keep her in power.  She’s a good friend of the family…even if she is a Democrat.)

Anyway, the rationale was Anyone But Hillary. :)  Looks like I succeeded there at least.

In case anyone missed it, Nader is in the race again this year…

@ncscswitch:

In case anyone missed it, Nader is in the race again this year…

I think it pretty safe to say just about EVERYONE missed it. :P

(That was an attempt at humor.)

@Cmdr:

@ncscswitch:

In case anyone missed it, Nader is in the race again this year…

I think it pretty safe to say just about EVERYONE missed it. :P

(That was an attempt at humor.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nader

GG

Nader?  what’s that?  must be a typo. Radar was already invented long ago.

That guy is about as remote as Ron Paul or whoever is running on the communist ticket this year.

Actually he has less chance then Paul (8% Nationally)… And whoever is running on the Communist Ticket probably has more Kalashnikov’s voting for him then Humans…

GG

I believe Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a Communist.  Most Communists have moved into the Democrat party.  Not that being Communist is a bad thing.  You want all resources to be distributed fairly to all citizens, you want the government to ensure equitability.  These are noble goals.  Unfortunately, humans are involved and that totally screws up the system, which is why liberalism (which is very close to socialism, or what most Americans think of when they think of communism - aka USSR, China, Cuba, etc).

Honestly, I don’t know where I really fall.  I think corporations should be the only governments.  That way you can live anywhere in the world you want and be in any government you want.  No borders.  No armies.  You don’t like your company, you resign from that government and join a competing government.

And, to be quite frank, I think society is heading that way.  Over many centuries we have moved from absolute authority resting in one man, one government to authority in just one government, to authority in many governments and many men.  It would only take a few nudges to move us into infinite numbers of governments (aka corporations) with people changing “citizenship” (aka employment) at any time.  And people would run these micro-governments because they would purchase shares in those governments.  Unlike the USA where every “shareholder” only gets one vote and it doesn’t really count for anything (electoral college, judges, etc can all over rule the popular vote) now you can invest in a lot of nations, have dual citizenship in many and even vote as many times as you have shares.

Dunno, maybe that makes me a Super Capitalist?

If Nader is the ONLY third party candidate, he will hurt Hitlery in the General Election.  If Paul also runs as a Libertarian then the Republicans are net negative votes, and the Democrats almost certainly win the White House in 2008.

I don’t think Vader will hurt Celery Clipping, but i do think Huckleberry Hound should just give up because mathematically he has no chance and is only running for first dibs in 2012.

Actually Huckabee might be keeping in to prove to McCain that he is his logical choice for running mate, assuming he grabs some more delegates…

GG

@Jen:

Unfortunately, humans are involved and that totally screws up the system

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

I suggest reading some of this book.  Kropotkin argues that mutual aid and assistance of others within a species comes naturally to all animals and that war is avoidable if everyones stops competing and begins to pool resources.  The need for competition and war over resources is a capitalist social construct.

Libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is definitely not socialism or communism.  I dont know if you were trying to say that but your train of thought cut off mid sentence and confused me, hahaha.

Honestly, I don’t know where I really fall.  I think corporations should be the only governments.  That way you can live anywhere in the world you want and be in any government you want.  No borders.  No armies.  You don’t like your company, you resign from that government and join a competing government.

Corporations as government is called corporatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Dunno, maybe that makes me a Super Capitalist?

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini

think of GE and its campaign to “go green”.  they are trying to please the democrats.  and hope to be the corporation that will make tons of money from contracts from the government to make invent green products.

and this photo scares me.  :|

@Cobert:

@Jen:

Unfortunately, humans are involved and that totally screws up the system

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

I suggest reading some of this book.  Kropotkin argues that mutual aid and assistance of others within a species comes naturally to all animals and that war is avoidable if everyones stops competing and begins to pool resources.  The need for competition and war over resources is a capitalist social construct.
is that why both China and USSR expanded and conquored nations around them?

Libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is definitely not socialism or communism.  I dont know if you were trying to say that but your train of thought cut off mid sentence and confused me, hahaha.
classic liberalism (not Demacrats) was born around the 1920’s or 30’s. this was around the time of “The Great Deal” where FDR inacted many socialist ideas into the US government. Social Sacurity and other government aid programs are part of that.

now i don’t think socialisam can work on any large scale. it can work if I am with a group of say 100 families as if i stop working then i will directly feel the pinch, but when you look at it on a national level then it inables people to be lazy, we see this already with people who work as little as posible and gather as much as they can from the government. this is why socalisam can not work for even a government as large as a state.

Liberalism and libertarianism are not the same.  Libertarians want to reign in government spending.  Liberalism, by definition, is spending as much money as possible.

“I do not know a single problem that cannot be eased by throwing money at it.”  Senator Barrack Obama - IL Senate.

Anyway, Benito was a moron.  No one quotes him. :P  Corpratism or whatever is a catchy phrase.  Anyway, the idea is that there would be no more counties, states, nations, alliances, etc.  People would be free to live where they want too, work for who they want too and thus, change employment whenever it becomes beneficial for them to do so.

Companies, already handling security, health care, vacations, corporate espionage, etc can easily handle this.  Meanwhile new industries would surely arise to contract out these services to smaller companies to keep them viable.  Capitalism should end up ruling the day with Unions and Corporations meeting in arbitrations to ensure the best possible policies, products, services and human relations so that none are hurt.

Finally, Americans would be able to buy the cars they want because the companies would be free to build the cars the people want.  No cafe standards, since there’s no US Government.