Going back in time is fun.

Post #405,494 by hnick 10/22/15 6:24:25 AM Reply	Going back in time is fun. I remember being in my mid 40's and the bankers were saying "You're doing everything right! You'll be able to retire when you're 55 and travel the world!". We didn't get fun cars or bikes, we lived frugally, and saved a lot. Turns out that 401Ks are just a way to concentrate the savings of the middle class so it is worth the bankers time to steal them. "oopsie! There's been a 'correction'. But you still have half of your savings!"... "oppsie! Another 'correction'! Who's a thunk it? But you still have half left..." Fun times. Jump to now. Vote Democratic, no matter who they run because they are for YOU! Of course, to get along with the Republicans, they will have to gut Social Security and medicare. But you'll still have half! The current harridan^w candidate has in recent years gone from dead broke to being a millionaire by sucking up to big money in various forms. She's on the rubber chicken circuit and hasn't been inaugurated yet. She's clearly for any war anywhere. She is clearly a bankers bitch. She hasn't had an unscripted thought since puberty. Loves them trade agreements; making stuff is for peasants. "Lesser evil" and "purity" my ass, she's a fucking Republican. I am NOT voting for another Republican again, ever. I know, I'm evil 'cause I just won't go with the greater good. Hey! Over there! A rolling doughnut! Learn to fly! "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #405,495 by Another Scott 10/22/15 7:55:40 AM Reply	Just be sure to apply the same analysis to the other guy. You're not voting for a potential spouse for your only child. You're choosing the better candidate. Don't let their framing affect your need to make a clear-eyed choice. Hang in there. Cheers, Scott.
Post #405,496 by mmoffitt 10/22/15 8:18:19 AM Reply	You "lesser evil" guys slay me. When you vote for an HRC what you are saying is that you'd prefer to see your country taken a part bit-by-bit slowly with no hope of change rather than letting the system reach its natural disaster quickly and give the next couple of generations a chance to live in a sane (although perhaps smaller) nation. A vote for HRC is a vote for the abandonment of all hope - and you know which gate that is.
Post #405,498 by lincoln 10/22/15 8:42:34 AM Reply	Re: You "lesser evil" guys slay me. having the "country taken apart bit-by-bit slowly" sure as hell beats letting the RepubliCONS trash it completely within the next few years. Thanks to working for shitty managers I've been constantly out of work over the past 15 years, giving me numerous gaps of no income and all of the expenses reducing my bank account. And it's so much fun to have dothead recruiters call me with offers of jobs out of state for $35/hour with no benefits and no insurance. Try paying all of your living expenses of your house and family and the expenses of you living hundreds of miles away just to work. You can bail as fast as possible at that rate, but you can't stop the boat from going under. I'd rather vote for Hillary and let the ship go down slowly, giving me a chance to swim for it rather than have it explode and kill me immediately. Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous. - - - Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" 1897
Post #405,503 by mmoffitt 10/22/15 1:03:37 PM Reply	Frog fable. Results are the same. One just takes longer and I'm impatient.
Post #405,505 by lincoln 10/22/15 1:09:54 PM Reply	refill my bank account so I can survive your impatience Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous. - - - Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" 1897
Post #405,527 by Another Scott 10/22/15 10:49:37 PM Reply	Well said.
Post #405,510 by Another Scott 10/22/15 3:35:01 PM Reply	Serious question: Who would be your preferred candidate? If you have a preferred (living) candidate that meets the legal qualifications (natural born USian, etc.), please name him or her. If nobody is good enough to gain your vote, then please don't complain when someone is chosen (and someone will be chosen). Our system of government requires a President. If your default mode is always vote for the greater evil, or talk as if you do, then you'll probably like Davis X. Machina's posts. I'm pretty sure most of his are snark, though... Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #405,511 by mmoffitt 10/22/15 3:53:43 PM 10/22/15 4:09:12 PM Reply	Huh? I know I've posted here I'm supporting Bernie. Doesn't he count? Edit: Bernie is not my "perfect" candidate. But he is, IMO, the only candidate who actually believes that this country is not of, by and for corporations. Edited by mmoffitt Oct. 22, 2015, 04:09:12 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #405,525 by Another Scott 10/22/15 10:42:42 PM Reply	Ok. I can't keep track of as much as I used to. ;-) Juan Cole: Sanders supported the Israeli attack on Gaza last summer but thought the Israeli army was a little heavy-handed and ‘over-reacted’ with some of its actions like bombing schools being used as civilian shelters. (There were no weapons at these schools). Sanders excused Israeli actions against Gaza civilian populations on the grounds that missiles were being fired from Gaza into Israel from populated centers. The Israeli campaign killed around 2000 Palestinians, most of them non-combatants. Another 1400 or so were killed in 2008-2009, and there have been many other Israeli bombings and other military actions against Palestinians in Gaza. Gaza rockets, most of them tiny high school science projects, mostly land uselessly in the desert, so that totaling them up into the thousands is a mere propaganda point. Over the past decade, they have killed 44 Israelis. The launching of the rockets by Hamas is a war crime, and the majority of those killed have been innocent non-combatants. But the disproportionate use of force is also a violation of international law, and a thousand to one kill ratio suggests disproportion. Sanders’ Israel policy seems likely to tilt more toward Tel Aviv than that of Obama, though Sanders did boycott the address of PM Binyamin Netanyahu to Congress in March. Joan Walsh at Bill Moyers: If Democrats listen to Obama, that could be bad news for Bernie Sanders. Clinton has announced an ambitious new push for gun limits, in the wake of the massacre at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, Thursday, and she’s hoping it changes the momentum in the unexpectedly close Democratic primary. Gun control is one issue where Clinton stands to Sanders’s left. The Vermont socialist isn’t terrible on guns: Though the NRA endorsed him in his first race for Congress, he has a D-minus rating from the group. He supported the 2013 background-check bill, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, and closing the gun-show sales loophole. Yet Sanders has troubled gun-control advocates with a few vexing apostasies, most notably his vote against the Brady Bill. On that and other gun issues, he has said that he believes states and not the federal government should set limits. He also voted for NRA-backed bills granting gun manufacturers legal immunity against claims by gun victims, and making it possible to carry checked guns on Amtrak. He told Bill Maher last year that mental health was “maybe the more important issue” in stopping mass shootings than gun control. “We’ve got millions of folks walking the streets who are need of mental health and they can’t walk into a place and get it,” he said. “This is the NRA talking point.… that’s what they say.” Maher replied. On the issues: 2009: Voted against closing Gitmo F-35 fighter planes OK Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. There's more to a President than how they talk about corporations. What are you going to do when Hillary beats Bernie? Cheers, Scott.
Post #405,526 by rcareaga 10/22/15 10:47:30 PM Reply	Re: Ok. AnotherScott wonders, anent mmoffitt, What are you going to do when Hillary beats Bernie? Is this a trick question? cordially,
Post #405,528 by Another Scott 10/22/15 10:50:22 PM Reply	;-)
Post #405,529 by boxley 10/22/15 11:15:58 PM Reply	so you continue to support shit candidates because republicans? you can kill people for America at age 18 but need to be 21 to buy a beer
Post #405,545 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 10:06:15 AM Reply	What part of "not my perfect candidate" was ambiguous? You and Rand like to claim that I'm looking for unicorns and unreasonably criticize the big slide to the Right I've watched the democratic party go through over the years. Given what's to choose from, Bernie is the best candidate. Wall Street doesn't own him. That is a presidential qualification without equal. But then, you've always been a lot softer on the Worthless Thumb Oppressors than have I. ;0)
Post #405,548 by Another Scott 10/23/15 10:27:04 AM Reply	So you admit Bernie is the lesser evil for you? Fine. What will you do if Hillary beats him? In the US system parties matter. The lesser evil party needs to win for there to be progress. Heightening the contradictions or advocating the more rapid destruction of the federal government isn't the way to reach the goals we all want. If you want a more progressive Democratic party, you need to elect more Democrats. That broadens the sets of views and makes space for leftists. Punishing Democrats because they're not lefty enough is counter-productive when the other party is deranged. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #405,552 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 10:50:18 AM Reply	Sure. What will you do if Hillary beats him? I seriously don't know. I held my nose and voted for her husband and what did that get me? Repeal of Glass-Steagall which started us down the path to the sequel of 10/29/29 and the country still hasn't recovered. Median household earnings falling year after year (8 percent drop from 2007 to 2013). That won't change at all if HRC assumes the White House because she's as owned by big money as he ever was. Add to that her vote for Bush's Iraq War, USA Patriot Act, and well, what good could possibly come from voting for somebody who holds so many Un-American positions? I started out saying if HRC won the nomination and Trump won his party's nomination, I'd vote for Trump. At this point I can't see myself participating in the charade at all if she does beat Bernie. But if I do decide to participate and Trump is the Nutjob Party's candidate, next year will be the most difficult presidential voting decision I've ever faced in my life.
Post #405,565 by lincoln 10/23/15 1:47:35 PM Reply	Re: Sure. mmoffitt says: I held my nose and voted for her husband and what did that get me? Repeal of Glass-Steagall Can't pin the blame on President Bill Clinton for that: The Financial Services Act of 1999, which repealed parts of the Glass-Steagall Act, was passed by the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act Even if Clinton vetoed it, there were more than enough votes to override his veto and make it become law. Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous. - - - Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" 1897
Post #405,568 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 1:58:37 PM Reply	How about Rubin? Can I blame him for Rubin?
Post #405,571 by boxley 10/23/15 2:44:47 PM Reply	No, the clintons are democrats, cant blame them for anything you can kill people for America at age 18 but need to be 21 to buy a beer
Post #405,592 by lincoln 10/24/15 10:49:03 AM Reply	bullshit. Clinton gets plenty of blame for things that happened during his 8 years of office. Quite unlike Dubya's 2 terms, where Republicans refuse to admit that he even existed - the White House went from Clinton to Obama and the years of 2001-2008 never occurred. Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous. - - - Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" 1897
Post #405,501 by rcareaga 10/22/15 12:42:58 PM Reply	nice doggie I will respond with a fanciful and inexact analogy: There are three animals outside and ten of us inside the room. Behind door number 1 there is an adorable kitten. Behind door number 2 there is a pit bull of uncertain temperament. Behind door number 3 there is a large, starving, particularly ill-tempered hyena. With rabies. We will vote as to which door we will open. I should add that door #1 has been bricked shut, as we are all aware, so in practical terms we are obliged to consider whether to admit the pit bull that might bite one or more of us or the hyena that certainly will, and which—did I mention?—regards human viscera as an especial delicacy. Several of us are fond of kittens, a couple, perhaps, to the exclusion of other furry creatures. Two or three admire the noble American Staffordshire Terrier, and a couple of others at least prefer them to the monster prowling outside door 3. Four of us, alas, think that a spotted hyena is just what we need to tie the room together, and one or two of the kitten fanciers, resenting the fact of the bricked-up door, think that admitting the hyena, or at least doing nothing to impede its partisans, would teach the rest of us a well-deserved lesson. Let's vote. It is not to be wondered at that feelings run high. Well, enough of me. Let's cite the classics. First, from Dr. Strangelove: "Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless distinguishable, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed." From the estimable tbogg: [There are those who say] "The Democrats don’t deserve my vote. They aren’t helping the left, why should the left help them?" Let me see if I can explain it this way: Every year in Happy Gumdrop Fairy-Tale Land all of the sprites and elves and woodland creatures gather together to pick the Rainbow Sunshine Queen. Everyone is there: the Lollipop Guild, the Star-Twinkle Toddlers, the Sparkly Unicorns, the Cookie Baking Apple-cheeked Grandmothers, the Fluffy Bunny Bund, the Rumbly-Tumbly Pupperoos, the Snowflake Princesses, the Baby Duckies All-In-A-Row, the Laughing Babies, and the Dykes on Bikes. They have a big picnic with cupcakes and gumdrops and pudding pops, stopping only to cast their votes by throwing Magic Wishing Rocks into the Well of Laughter, Comity, and Good Intentions. Afterward they spend the rest of the night dancing and singing and waving glow sticks until dawn when they tumble sleepy-eyed into beds made of the purest and whitest goose down where they dream of angels and clouds of spun sugar. You don’t live there. Grow the fuck up. cordially,
Post #405,513 by malraux 10/22/15 5:11:34 PM Reply	+1 Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #405,537 by pwhysall 10/23/15 2:53:50 AM Reply	Yeah, that.
Post #405,538 by hnick 10/23/15 7:25:45 AM Reply	Yeah, not a nice world out there. Unless Bernie gets the nomination, voting for either R or D gets me gutted on the altar of Big Money. I am not going to vote for somebody who wants to gut me. Voting third party may be "throwing my vote away", but I will not be voting for somebody who wants to destroy me. I know you and AS can not understand that. I can't help that. Smarm on... "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #405,539 by Another Scott 10/23/15 7:58:09 AM Reply	Tell that to the Nader and Buchanan voters out there. http://www.niu.edu/newsplace/wh9.html There are clear recent examples when voting for the lesser evil gives a much better result than protest voting. Hang in there. Cheers, Scott.
Post #405,546 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 10:12:11 AM Reply	Sheesh. Not that old refrain. If Nader had not run, Al Gore would have won Florida and New Hampshire with Nader votes. Assumes facts not in evidence. There is absolutely no reason to think that any voter who voted for Nader would have voted at all if he had not run. Some people don't equate presidential races and horse races. Some people vote their conscience, not some of the time, but all of the time.
Post #405,549 by Another Scott 10/23/15 10:27:59 AM Reply	I voted for Nader in 2000. I would have voted if he hadn't been on the ballot. :-p
Post #405,550 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 10:34:19 AM Reply	OH! THAT'S why you gave me so much grief in 2008 for doing the same thing. As it turns out, my vote literally didn't count. But that doesn't change the fact that I would have not voted at all if I hadn't voted for Nader in 08. Most of the Naderites I came into contact with in 08 felt the same way.
Post #405,562 by Another Scott 10/23/15 1:31:44 PM Reply	Some of us learn from our mistakes, and want others not to make the same ones. ;-)
Post #405,563 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 1:33:56 PM Reply	Ha!
Post #405,544 by rcareaga 10/23/15 9:54:27 AM Reply	I take it, then ...that you were in a coma between 2001 and 2009, because the practical consequences of your kind of petulance remain vividly in the memories of those of us who didn't sleep through that tunnel of carnage. "I'm going to suffer economically no matter who becomes president, so I don't give a shit whether we kill x foreigners or 20x foreigners over the coming years." It's not about you.
Post #405,547 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 10:24:33 AM Reply	Oh, right. 2009 was so much better for foreigner (and Americans, too, because Justice said so).
Post #405,554 by pwhysall 10/23/15 11:15:37 AM Reply	Cherry-picking mode: ACTIVATE!
Post #405,555 by malraux 10/23/15 11:29:55 AM Reply	Form of... A BAR CHART! Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #405,557 by rcareaga 10/23/15 11:44:09 AM Reply	for your next barchart I'd like to see a depiction of the number of civilians killed by aerial bombardment conducted by German jet aircraft between 1939 and 1945, and by US jet aircraft between 2009 and 2015, which will demonstrate that Obama is the greatest war criminal in history, surpassing even the notorious A. Hitler. If you'd care to submit a passport-suitable photograph of yourself, I'll submit it to Merriam-Webster to go alongside the definition of "disingenuous" in some future edition. cordially,
Post #405,564 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 1:43:37 PM Reply	Hmmm. Time spans differing by 8 years is the same as time spans differing by 70. Yep, that sounds fair to me. Er, no, wait. You're showing me what disingenuous means, right? Are you saying that assassinations by drone did not increase with Obama? That the first and only Americans murdered with that technology did not occur during his presidency and at his direction? Not to mention the Americans we kill with those things by accident (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-u-s-keeps-killing-americans-in-drone-strikes-mostly-by-accident/) Or is it that none of this matters because REPUBLICANS!?
Post #405,572 by rcareaga 10/23/15 3:22:01 PM Reply	Yeah, it matters I'm saying that the number of furriners who will die by orders of the Hillabeast is likely to be significantly smaller than the number who will die if one of the GOP contenders takes the prize. But hey, don't let a little thing like that sully your moral purity, keed. "It is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless distinguishable, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed."
Post #405,573 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 3:33:39 PM Reply	I don't think the difference on that issue is as great as you seem to think. I'm saying that the number of furriners who will die by orders of the Hillabeast is likely to be significantly smaller than the number who will die if one of the GOP contenders takes the prize. Why do you think that? HRC's hawk credentials are well known. How did you arrive at the conclusion that more furriners will die if it's Trump and not Hillary?
Post #405,580 by Another Scott 10/23/15 7:21:09 PM Reply	Hillary was pushing for war with Iran? Like, say, Rubio? http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/politics/marco-rubio-iran-war/ Or how about Trump? http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/20/donald-trump-in-2007-we-have-to-strike-iran/ The Teabaggers can't wait to have another war. Hillary may be more hawkish than Obama, maybe, but she's not itching to get into a war the way the GOP is. Cheers, Scott.
Post #405,577 by hnick 10/23/15 6:10:21 PM Reply	You take it incorrectly. I voted for Obama both times, holding my nose the second. As such, I accept my responsibility for the bullshit Obama pulled on us. I do not wish to take responsibility for another pseudo-democrat. I don't agree with everything Bernie stands for but I do not consider him evil. Therefore he is not a lesser evil. I live with disagreement daily; np. In response to your smug assertions of disaster due to my "purity", I consider the condition of our country to be the fault of those who compromise with evil, claiming it could be worse. That would include you. We aren't going to agree. I'm done. "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #405,578 by rcareaga 10/23/15 6:21:33 PM Reply	Give my regards to the Lollipop Guild.
Post #405,583 by crazy 10/23/15 7:38:26 PM Reply	Of all those fantasy creatures, one is real, and she is my boss Dyke on a bike. She's got a couple of incredible hogs. And said she will teach me how to drive a bus. Greyhound size. Imagine me driving a bus. Scared yet?
Post #405,585 by Another Scott 10/23/15 8:21:03 PM Reply	:-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!