traderdave wrote: I know I'll be working to deliver NJ to Obama.

coming this fall: traderdave - jerseyhoya monkey knife fight, w/special terrorist fist jabs!!

AP

WASHINGTON - John McCain said Democratic rival Barack Obama is bad for business in a speech to small business owners.

McCain said Tuesday that Obama's policies would mean higher taxes and higher overhead costs. The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also criticized Obama for pledging to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

McCain said small businesses make the economy run and that his Democratic rival would slow the creation of new jobs.

Hmm...I thought big business made everything run

drsmooth wrote:

traderdave wrote: I know I'll be working to deliver NJ to Obama.

coming this fall: traderdave - jerseyhoya monkey knife fight, w/special terrorist fist jabs!!

I'm not gonna do anything to help McCain win NJ, except pester my brother to remind him to get an absentee ballot.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXHRi9ziPWA&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcBoDP2nQTo&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfL2P2HTchI&feature=related[/youtube]

Some attorney is being interviewed on NPR who says she has voted for all democrats in her life but will vote mccain in the election. she's 'for mccain and against obama', and was for clinton.

explaining her reasoning if anyone wants to plug in

pacino wrote:Some attorney is being interviewed on NPR who says she has voted for all democrats in her life but will vote mccain in the election. she's 'for mccain and against obama', and was for clinton.

explaining her reasoning if anyone wants to plug in

there is a houseful of cats on the radio?

The lesson, as always, is hippies suck.

traderdave wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:Most people I know like Obama and I live in SJ although my friends are early to late 20s. I know some women who liked Hillary over Obama, but definitely not McCain over Obama.

Where are you located, Phan? I am in the group that would be stunned if Obama lost NJ. I know I'll be working to deliver NJ to Obama. FWIW, the last reported poll for NJ had Obama ahead by 24 pts. I doubt he'll win by that much but I wouldn't be surprised if it were 10-12 pts.

Gloucester County

jerseyhoya wrote:The lesson, as always, is hippies suck.

only half the time

they have some great music, have the right ideas about personal freedoms, and make some really great ice cream.

I guess American Beauty is a cool album...

dajafi wrote:
I second the endorsement of this article. Brooks, when he chooses to think and write about issues and big social trends rather than embracing his inner hack, can really bring the goods.

Contrarian here. Brooks' morality tale is coherent, but founders on the cold realities of economics & human behavior.

Think the "well-educated" don't bet "lottery tickets"? You don't appreciate how many well-heeled people sank (& still sink) dough into cockamamie get-rich-quick schemes, whether internet-based or not, because some sharp suit laid it all out so clearly for them in a be-you-tee-ful powerpoint presentation. They're also susceptible to "temptation & chaos" - but thanks to resources largely NOT of their own making (unless you're prepared to count most of your orderly habits and the roots of your family tree as results of your own invention) are less likely to be reduced to ashes as a result.

Brooks' sober litany of cultural correctives ("raise public consciouslness about debt","create institutions that encourage thrift","churches could issue short-term loans"[!!?! ]) ignore the very real consequences of a society whose economic capabilities far outstrip its constituents' economic requirements. When, by & large, you're afloat on an economic sea that practically automatically feeds, clothes, & houses you in relative comfort, all else approaches a matter of preference.

His homilies can have about as much impact as pointing and laughing loudly at the boobs in beemer suvs for their relentless, mindless insistence that their accumulation of "tasteful" stuff is the premier marker of their worth.

pacino wrote:Some attorney is being interviewed on NPR who says she has voted for all democrats in her life but will vote mccain in the election. she's 'for mccain and against obama', and was for clinton.

explaining her reasoning if anyone wants to plug in

"That'll show, um, me!"

jerseyhoya wrote:And McCain has decided to respond to the Bush=McCain attacks by invoking Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately for McCain, Carter is not currently president, and hasn't been for 28 years.

Like we couldn't see this coming. Part of the GOP strategy to "paint Obama as too liberal"... targeted at indies, Reagan Dems, and folks close to center.

McCain: Obama Means 2nd Carter Term

Comparisons to Dukakis et al are sure to come.

OBAMACANS WILL EAT REAGEMS SHIT FOR BREAKFAST

Disco Stu wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:While it is ridiculous that some people accuse anyone who doesn't like Obama to be a racist, it's just as ridiculous to think there aren't an incredible amount of voters who won't for him because he's black.

thank you. Let's not be naive here.

I think there will be people who will vote for him because he's black and there will be others who will not vote for him because he's black. I'm hoping those two groups cancel each other out. In any case, race will be an issue for many voters.

I think a lot more would not vote for him because he's black than vote for him because he's black. I tend to think that most black voters would be voting for the democratic candidate anyway. Wonder how it would all shake loose with Colin Powell.

You're probably right. That's why I'm hoping it evens out. I doubt it will.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:And McCain has decided to respond to the Bush=McCain attacks by invoking Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately for McCain, Carter is not currently president, and hasn't been for 28 years.

Like we couldn't see this coming. Part of the GOP strategy to "paint Obama as too liberal"... targeted at indies, Reagan Dems, and folks close to center.

McCain: Obama Means 2nd Carter Term

Comparisons to Dukakis et al are sure to come.

And if they don't, I'm sure you'll provide them.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:And McCain has decided to respond to the Bush=McCain attacks by invoking Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately for McCain, Carter is not currently president, and hasn't been for 28 years.

Like we couldn't see this coming. Part of the GOP strategy to "paint Obama as too liberal"... targeted at indies, Reagan Dems, and folks close to center.

McCain: Obama Means 2nd Carter Term

Comparisons to Dukakis et al are sure to come.

It shouldn't be hard to paint Obama as too liberal. The National Journal is neither a conservative nor a liberal mouthpiece, but they ranked Obama as having the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007. Obama says he wants to include everyone but his policy proposals are straight across Democrat. McCain, on the other hand, has policies that range along the spectrum. The Obama campaign has criticized McCain for voting with Bush 95% of the time in 2007, but he missed so many votes that he was hardly doing his job.

Obama's windfall profit tax hasn't been heard about since Jimmy Carter. With Obama continually trotting out the silly "Bush's third term" this response was inevitable. I have an idea. Run against each other.

Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."

Boren, a self-described centrist, is seeking a third term this year in a mostly rural district that stretches across eastern Oklahoma.

"We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them." He called Obama "the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate."

Politico

Christ he has our talking points down right good.

drsmooth wrote:Think the "well-educated" don't bet "lottery tickets"? You don't appreciate how many well-heeled people sank (& still sink) dough into $#@! get-rich-quick schemes, whether internet-based or not, because some sharp suit laid it all out so clearly for them in a be-you-tee-ful powerpoint presentation. They're also susceptible to "temptation & chaos" - but thanks to resources largely NOT of their own making (unless you're prepared to count most of your orderly habits and the roots of your family tree as results of your own invention) are less likely to be reduced to ashes as a result.

Fair enough. I guess the response is that it isn't unconscionable risk if losing the bet--whether on a lottery ticket or Pets.com--doesn't draw too much figurative blood. But the question (and this is where we get into nanny-state arguments, which I admit to feeling conflicted about) is the extent to which society at large/government has any right or even obligation to guide people away from (or even restrict their access to) "temptation & chaos."

(Great R&B band name, btw.)

drsmooth wrote:Brooks' sober litany of cultural correctives ("raise public consciouslness about debt","create institutions that encourage thrift","churches could issue short-term loans"[!!?! ]) ignore the very real consequences of a society whose economic capabilities far outstrip its constituents' economic requirements. When, by & large, you're afloat on an economic sea that practically automatically feeds, clothes, & houses you in relative comfort, all else approaches a matter of preference.

If I didn't know better, this might almost read as a Diggers argument... which isn't to dismiss it. But personally I'd only go so far as trying to close the information gap and encourage (not require) more prudent financial behavior. Brooks (whose "solutions" admittedly are somewhere between half-baked and half-assed at best) obviously doesn't win that fight with one op-ed on a hot June Tuesday, but maybe his point will resonate with an Obama or McCain or even some pol/s with more modest ambitions.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."

Boren, a self-described centrist, is seeking a third term this year in a mostly rural district that stretches across eastern Oklahoma.

"We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them." He called Obama "the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate."

Politico

Christ he has our talking points down right good.

reallly? i mean, REALLY?

when has there been an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis? has any republican in the last 10 years had even a passing interest in crossing the aisle to break party lines?

if i'm not mistaken the republican concept of bipartisanism over the last 7 years can be summed up as, "fuck you, we have 51 votes plus a veto, go to hell."

have i missed something these past 7 years? has bush ever reached across the aisle for anything without saying, "do it my way, or fuck off?" has any republican done that, for that matter?


if the republicans hold all the cards, and there's no give and take between the two sides, what reasonable expectations could there be for him to do?