Chilly

This whole paragraph goes completely against your candidate's platform, cept these two lines:

Might want to click on the first link in the thread...

Of course its not being realistic, and I don't hold it above Bush's head either. Know why? He didn't campaign on a platform of honesty and change in Washington. And this is similar to fundamentally changing Washington how, exactly? Which is exactly what I am talking about here - not eliminating our Government, but making it significantly different, thought of different, and approached different. Here is your problem: By allowing some special interest groups and lobbyists to influence government, you are allowing all of them a path to influence government. The politicians will again pick and choose which special interest group they support, and which they don't - they will pick which ones they view as benefiting their people, and which ones they don't. This is what currently happens in today's government. Want proof? Look at Obama's speech on the farm bill, where he chooses one group of special interests over another. If Obama means that he will still allow some to influence government, instead of eliminating all of them, this does not represent, as you put it in your words, a "significantly different", "thought of different", or "approached different" government. This is the same old government that we currently have, not change of any sort.

Erm, the only way he was "wrong" on BCRA is that it didn't go far enough.

His definition isn't that he is going to fundamentally change Washington? "And four years later, you're right back, making the very same promises about the very same problems. I mean this isn't the first time this gas tax holiday has come up. It comes up every two years right before election time, because somebody thinks this is going to be good politic, but it doesn't solve the problem. Well, this year, you have a choice. If you want to take another chance on the same kind of politics we've come to know in Washington, other candidates to choose from. But I still believe we need to fundamentally change Washington if we want to change America." - Barack Obama. I believe he phrases it as "transcending divisive politics". Here are the definitions of the word divisive from M-W: Transcending: a: to rise above or go beyond the limits of b: to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome c: to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence) Divisive: creating disunity or dissension <a divisive issue> His rhetoric isn't to remove special interests from Washington, just to scale them back? "Do we continue to allow lobbyists to veto our country's progress, or do we finally put our national interests ahead of the special interests, and address the concerns people feel over their jobs, their health care and their children's future? That's why I'm running for President of the United States. Because to meet these challenges, changing parties isn't change enough. We need something new. We need to turn the page," said Senator Barack Obama. "My experience tells me that real change and reform come when we're willing to put the people's interests before the special interests and partisan interests." - Barack Obama "That's the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it's just the beginning," said Barack Obama. Which means his campaign is complete crap. One of his main calls is for honest and open government. By definition, if his rhetoric doesn't match up with reality, then it is not honest and open.

lol Do you dislike Symbian a lot? You can do some cool things with that OS - its got a Python interpretor and some nice open source software, like putty.

I highly doubt you've used the N96, as it isn't out yet, and it uses Symbian, not Windows Mobile.

Only needed to watch like 20 secs to get the context. A terrorist fist jab? WTF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N96

I disagree that there is a huge incentive for them not to be successful in R&D - the long-term success of their companies depends on finding more forms of oil and energy. I also am not going to pretend that any R&D solutions to oil and energy will be anything short of very-long-term solutions (cept Exxon, apparently) I'm not so sure anything should be or could be done to oil companies by the government. Anything done will likely have the effect of causing gas prices to increase. I think the real question would be: How do you better encourage investment into R&D of alternative energy sources? The classic Republican answer would be to cut taxes in exchange for doing so, while the classic Democratic answer would be to have government spend money researching it.

Really? Where have I said that I would have had an issue with Obama endorsing Claypool? Its called Politics - of course they're all going to endorse the guy from Chicago, to not do so would be suicide. Not endorsing the person that you are aligned with politically, and then in fact endorsing someone who is the exact opposite of your message is politics as usual, and is not consistent with Obama's message. The idea that Obama is going to fundamentally change Washington is laughable and quite off-putting. There is a history of him acting just like any politician would, which means he isn't fundamentally changing Washington. This is one more notch in the "do as I say, not as I do" act that he has formed.

He didn't endorse John Stroger. He didn't endorse Les Claypool. He did endorse Todd Stroger, who pretty much ran on his dad's platform.

And how do you think this idea of rationing gas would impact the US economy?

Yes, perhaps you should look at how the country went to shirt and the wonderful ideas of both parties have contributed to it.

The real question is, will we add another chapter to the Bible for the Obamessiah, like Jessie Jackson suggested? "The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”

Which ideas of the new deal would apply successfully to the current energy situation?

Nope, not at all. Claypool did all sorts of stuff to combat fraud and corruption as the head of the Cook County Board. He was the one candidate that actually had a shot at reversing corruption on the board, and Obama wouldn't endorse him. Instead, Obama ended up endorsing the candidate that would continue the legacy of corruption of his father. Transcending race here, eh? Yet, he had actually brought "change" to the Chicago government in the places that he had worked, forcing some elected officials out of jobs due to corruption and fraud. Why did Obama refuse to endorse Claypool? Further, why in the world would he endorse Stroger?

You think that I'm not for change? Hell, I'm all about change, just not the type that the Republicans or Democrats want to implement. I also understand that you need to try your best to understand the consequences of instituting a policy decision before you attempt it, not just install it and see how it works. I realize that its important to NOT completely screw up the American economy.

Which Obama clearly didn't see as a problem, since he ended up endorsing Todd Stroger, another one who worked for Daley.

I have absolutely no clue what the hell you just meant.

Correct. If that is actually the case, then I completely question the sincerity of Obama's message, and his judgment skills. Stroger was well known for corruption in the Chicago area: http://openline.blogspot.com/2006/02/cook-...dorsements.html http://indignantcitizen.blogspot.com/2006/...er-dilemma.html http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-...democratic.html

Due to this comment, I hereby propose that we remove the "right" to vote, and make it a "privilege" to vote. Step 1 is passing a question that says: 1.) Is "Hey it is worth a try" a logical reason to institute a policy that would affect every single person in the the entire country? A.) Yes B.) No If you answer A, you are automatically eliminated from being able to vote for 10 years. Oy vey.

Nope, Roman Belic's.

Someone who wishes people in Texas would die calling someone else a dirtbag.