DescentBB

things that make you go HRM!!! and its not even FOX news so bite me

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/oba ... bamas.html

Obama File 36 How Socialist Was Obama's \"New Party\"?
Obama file 35 here

There has been a big buzz on the blogospere since US mega-blog Powerline picked up on evidence proving that Barack Obama was, in the mid '90s, a member of a short-lived socialist organisation, the Chicago New Party.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which also endorsed Obama that year and to which the Senator has longstanding and ongoing ties, has also been dragged into the fray.

The Obama camp has countered in two ways.

Firstly-claiming that while Obama was endorsed by the New Party he was never a member.

That lie is easily disposed of.

Here is a photo of Obama and other New Party members, including Danny K Davis (centre) from the front page of New Party News, Spring 1996.

Secondly-supporters claim that the New Party was not actually socialist.


Long time Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson has posted this statement on several blogs.

The New Party in Chicago was never a socialist party. DSA in Chicago had little to do with it in any practical way. It was a pragmatic party of ’small d democracy’ mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the US. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist. Most socialist left groups either ignored it or opposed it, even if a few of their members took part in it. That’s the truth of the matter.

This is so far from the truth.

The New Party was the creation of DSA and the radical community organisation ACORN-which was in itself something of a DSA front. In some areas the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was involved, but in Chicago the CPUSA splinter group Committees of Correspondence (CoC)was more prominent. Carl Davidson is well aware that Marxists set up the Chicago New Party because he was one of them.

comments???

I think the mainstream media won't allow their guy to be smeared by the truth.

What do you extremist right wingers honestly think Obama is going to do to harm the United States once he is president? Last time I checked, there's such a thing in U.S. government known as checks and balances.

Jesus Freak wrote:What do you extremist right wingers honestly think Obama is going to do to harm the United States once he is president? Last time I checked, there's such a thing in U.S. government known as checks and balances.

Mostly countervailed by the press?

Jesus Freak wrote:What do you extremist right wingers honestly think Obama is going to do to harm the United States once he is president? Last time I checked, there's such a thing in U.S. government known as checks and balances.

You mean go ahead and elect a socialist because our system can prevent anything too destructive from happening to our country? For example the way a bunch of congressmen who, once they were warned of a serious danger by their appointed regulator watchdogs, would sweep into action and stop government backed financial institutions from causing "the worst financial disaster since the great depression"!?!? You mean like that?!?

Lol, you have been smoking that rock Kool-Aid...DemoKracK!

Will Robinson wrote:I think the mainstream media won't allow their guy to be smeared by the truth.

oh, sort of like the 'muslim' thing, the 'refused to say the pledge of allegiance' thing and the 'lapel' thing?

lol

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think the mainstream media won't allow their guy to be smeared by the truth.

oh, sort of like the 'muslim' thing, the 'refused to say the pledge of allegiance' thing and the 'lapel' thing?

lol

Well I guess I should have said since he defeated Hillary in the primary...before they knew she was out they might have tried to peel away a few layers but seriously do you think they have followed up on his record, or the sealed record, or the years he spent working with ACORN and Ayers. Can you link to anything that the big three networks or CNN or MSNBC have tried to pin him down with since then?!?

While you are looking see if you can find something why he says he warned us about Fanny and Freddie but no one can find it...

Or why he can get away with saying, first, that Ayers was just some guy who lived on his street…and then he was someone he ended up on a few boards with but he doesn't really know him…. then he says he knew him, and yes, he did in fact launch his political career in Ayers living room, but that he really didn't know Ayers was that Ayers the terrorist...

When do you suppose the media will tell us about how he and Ayers have worked together for a long time going back to when he hired Obama to dish out a 50 million dollar grant to re-educate children in the progressive way of thinking and a lot of that money went to ACORN along with an additional 60 million Obama helped raise, all this over a span of many years working with Ayers!
Wow, that’s a far cry from just some guy who happens to live on his street!!
Now tell me if McCain had started out with that same deceitful lame excuse? Do you expect me to believe the big three networks would have done as little reporting on this story as they have done with Obama being the subject?!?

Or while you are looking for those expose’s they have done on Obama find the one that explains why he won't tell the truth about his involvement with ACORN and instead they let him get away with saying, first that he had nothing to do with them, and then that he only worked on the Motor Voter bill with them...instead of how he represented them in a lawsuit to sue CitiBank to make them give mortgages to unqualified borrowers....we all appreciate how that line of political pandering has played out in the economy!!

No Ferno, I think Obama has had a pretty easy ride in the media and you won’t be able to find he underwent nearly the scrutiny that he would have been put under if he was a conservative. You guys just don’t want to admit it.

I see words but I don't see an answer.

how boring.

Ferno wrote:I see words but I don't see an answer.

how boring.

Maybe Obama can give you a reading comprehension rebate....

personally, I think that \"global\" health care is a step in the wrong direction. it's a step towards socialism. Now I know that you'll all point to Canada as a ref. but it's just one symptom of a growing problem in this country. Me thinks that the banks crashing this hard is a good thing. We've needed a wakeup call for the last 20 years.

personally, I take solace in the notion that if I get into a major car wreck I don't have to worry about having to pay a 6000 dollar bill just so I can get back into the land of the living.

wouldn't you?


Nice try will. you didn't answer a single thing I posted. you just took whatever you wanted out of it, threw in a massive pontification, and i refuse to play your game.

Wouldn’t it be better if health care was just *gasp* affordable?

Spidey wrote:Wouldn’t it be better if health care was just *gasp* affordable?

That would be the most sensible thing imaginable, but I don't see that happening. I hope it does, though.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think the mainstream media won't allow their guy to be smeared by the truth.

oh, sort of like the 'muslim' thing, the 'refused to say the pledge of allegiance' thing and the 'lapel' thing?

lol

The "mainstream" (I prefer to say leftist) media won't mention these things.

... and it is good that way because each of these things is not true.

Ferno wrote:personally, I take solace in the notion that if I get into a major car wreck I don't have to worry about having to pay a 6000 dollar bill just so I can get back into the land of the living.

wouldn't you?

nice try Ferno do you have car insurance??? look at your policy because it has PIP coverage (personal injury protection)your heath care insurance doesn't apply

Pandora wrote:... and it is good that way because each of these things is not true.

I agree they aren't true. but what about the things that are?? they wont mention those either. yet its OK for them to post proven Lies about Sarah Palin and try to pass it off as fact

Ferno wrote:Nice try will. you didn't answer a single thing I posted. you just took whatever you wanted out of it, threw in a massive pontification, and i refuse to play your game.

I answered your question..if you can call it a question. You actually made a statement and stuck a question mark on the end of it, but regardless, I did directly address the point you raised.

If having a discussion on the topic you raised is considered a "game" then don't play. If you just want to walk around the edge of the field holding the football and shout at the players once in a while... well if that's your thing, go with it.
If, on the other hand, you really wanted to talk about it go back and read my response it's pretty direct and clear. It contains a clarification that my point was directed at Obama the party nominee, the post Hillary period, then I gave examples of stories they have let him avoid by letting his dishonest answers go unchallenged.
I also said the media wouldn't let McCain hide behind so many attempts to hide the truth.

Anyway, since you're over there on the sidelines posturing instead of playing why don't you bring us some towels and some water bottles....

For a look a how tolerant the Democrats are to opposing viewpoints:



Secondly, why is it that whenever someone brings up issues with Obama, someone on the left calls the person racist? The latest slur comes from representative John Lewis:

\"As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

\"During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

\"As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.\"

So where does questioning about The Messiahs past and present acquaintances lead to Lewis's inflammatory statement?

It doesn’t, it’s just more politics of fear those Democrats use every election cycle. (but never get called on)

Maybe we need to make a list of words and phrases that have become racist since Obama became the democrats nominee.

Just today I heard that McCain said he would \"whip his you know what\" and \"whip\" was quickly identified as a sign McCain is a racist, it proves he wants to round up all those darkies and get them back on the plantation down there in Arizona so I'll start with that:

whip - bad racist term
good people in small towns - Sara Palin invoked this white supremist term obviously not really meaning people in small towns are good people but rather she was really saying that she hates black people because a racist bastard had also praised people from small towns back in the 60's! I think he also enjoyed music and beer so if you are going to do the same just be forewarned everytime you tap your foot to the beat or take a sip of beer the Klan burns down another black church.
that one - Michelle Obama herself said she didn't take offense to that one...er... I mean to the use of this particular phrase but a black guy who knows better says she just said that to avoid conflict...

This next one is tricky because it can involve any word or words. The only clear way to identify it is if you point out that Obama has a long time association with a white guy named Bill Ayers the terrorist who got away with bombing police stations and the pentagon and proclaimed himself \"guilty as sin, free as a bird\". So even though Ayers is a white guy by telling people about Obama's involvement with him you are a flaming racist! So be careful out there people!
We'll just list it as:
linking Obama to his radical past or friends

CUDA wrote:nice try Ferno do you have car insurance??? look at your policy because it has PIP coverage (personal injury protection)your heath care insurance doesn't apply

irrelevant. I don't even have the same carrier or system you have.

Will:

AGAIN... I read both your posts. at least three times. nowhere did you address the fact that it was YOUR party that tried to use those as issues. all you did was talk about how obama did this, did that.. and again you try to pass off talking points as answers.

but I fear all you're going to do is recite more half-digested chum as an 'answer'. oh, wait.. you just did. I'm just going to go back to making fun of the stupid.

Can someone change the title of this thread to 'let's beat on the democrats and ridicule those who dare question our poor defenseless republicans'?

Almost Ferno.....

Ferno wrote:Can someone change the title of this thread to 'let's beat on the democrats and ridicule those who dare question our poor defenseless republicans'....[who have won seven out of the last ten elections]?

The liberal media must really suck at promoting its bias.

Ferno, since when are posting \"FACTS\" the same thing as a smear? I guess only if your a Democrat. Nice try tho. nice try at hijacking the topic too. FAIL. we are not talking about Smears here. your Party is every bit as guilty as the Republicans in that matter, look at what they said about Palin. address the facts posted in the topic \"if\" you can, Is Obama a Socialist??? because I can produce more evidence to support he is if need be. and yet he keeps denying it and trying to hide evidence about it. what is he afraid of?

Ferno wrote: Will:
AGAIN... I read both your posts. at least three times. nowhere did you address the fact that it was YOUR party that tried to use those as issues....

No Ferno, you are the one who is wrong, it was the Clinton democrats that dug them up and used them and of course republicans saw it and added it to their arsenal for use later. Here, an excerpt from a very respected, among liberals anyway, web site:

Clinton's guilt-by-association campaign has even moved to additional degrees of separation. For example, before tens of millions of viewers of the April 16 debate in Philadelphia, Clinton again brought up Obama's alleged "relationships with Louis Farrakhan," despite Obama's repeated and unequivocal denunciations of anti-Semitic statements and other controversial actions by the Black Muslim leader. The apparent extent of Obama's alleged "relationship" with the Nation of Islam leader which prompted Clinton's charge was that a magazine for which Obama's pastor's daughter serves as publisher granted an award to Farrakhan in honor of a successful program he had set up to rehabilitate ex-convicts.

During that same debate, Clinton went so far as to link Obama with the radical Palestinian Islamist group Hamas because the "pastor's pages" section of the weekly bulletin of the church Obama attended once included -- as part of a series of opinion pieces reprinted from various newspapers around the country -- an op-ed column from the Los Angeles Times written by a Hamas leader. Though Obama had already categorically condemned the decision to reprint that article, Clinton told the tens of millions of viewers that "we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to," such as the pastor who -- in Clinton's typically hyperbolic version of events designed to discredit her rival -- was guilty of "giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas."

Hillary Clinton has even attacked Obama for having served on the board of the Chicago anti-poverty group known as the Woods Fund at the same time as former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers. Ayers, who was never convicted of any crime, is now a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and served as a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley. Clinton apparently saw it as irrelevant that, at the time of Ayers' involvement in the Weather Underground, Obama was just eight years old and living nearly ten thousand miles away in Indonesia.

This raises the very disturbing prospect that, as president, Clinton would use similar guilt-by-association smears against anti-war activists, environmentalists, opponents of neo-liberal globalization, and others who -- like Obama -- dare to challenge her pro-war and pro-corporate agenda.

So get off your indignant soap box and face reality.

Sean Hannity is largely given credit for the Rev. Wright story/tapes. Which is the only one of these \"issues\" that really knocked Obama.

Cuda, on the photo you originally posted. It seems bit like it's shopped to me. Is Obama really that big a man? or are those folks that short?

I'm not trying to discredit the implications of what the article(s) are putting forth as frankly I haven't read up on it well enough.

I'm just saying that there is something about the image that doesn't look quite right. I can't put my finger on it and I've waited until now to post in hopes I could define it. Maybe I'm off and I need to get my glass or oil level check. .. wouldn't be the first time.

I was thinking the same thing.

The shadow that Obama's head has seems a little inconsistent with the others as well. I didn't post because I don't have a good eye for these things. (Unless they are side by side, I usually can't even tell if a TV is HD or not.) Sucking at this sort of thing saves me money though.

I don't even understand how a picture of Obama taking a picture with a New Party member \"proves\" Obama was a New Party member. Is there something I'm not seeing here? Or do some people have different standards of evidence than others?

In any case, \"socialist\" has become such a meaningless buzz term as of late. We should argue the merits of each policy on its own instead of seeing if it brings us any closer to \"socialism.\" Some political parties like to demonize policies by saying that they bring us closer to \"socialism,\" but this is just a thinly veiled slippery slope argument.

Someone is in denial…

Gooberman wrote:Almost Ferno.....

Ferno wrote:Can someone change the title of this thread to 'let's beat on the democrats and ridicule those who dare question our poor defenseless republicans'....[who have won seven out of the last ten elections]?

The liberal media must really suck at promoting its bias.

I figured the last bit that you added was common knowledge.

Will Robinson the tape recorder, stuck on repeat... wrote:Words

blah blah blah. more talking points but never addressing anything close to what I posted. Socialist! Fascist! Terrorist! ACORN! all the same vomit as everyone else is talking about.

and then you decide to throw out insults. go you!

tell you what.. when you come back to earth and learn how to carry on a conversation instead of regurgitating from a script.. maybe things can progress. Until then.. enjoy your spacewalks.

How 'bout you Jetta your butt back to Canadia and leave US alone Ferno. Don't ya'll have enough to deal with concerning Quebec?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sov ... y_movement

Ferno wrote:blah blah blah. more talking points but never addressing anything close to what I posted....

You: republicans brought up the muslim thing
Me: no, Hillary did (proof included)
You: you didn't address my point

You are getting pathetic now.

Duper wrote:Cuda, on the photo you originally posted. It seems bit like it's shopped to me. Is Obama really that big a man? or are those folks that short?

I'm not trying to discredit the implications of what the article(s) are putting forth as frankly I haven't read up on it well enough.

I'm just saying that there is something about the image that doesn't look quite right. I can't put my finger on it and I've waited until now to post in hopes I could define it. Maybe I'm off and I need to get my glass or oil level check. .. wouldn't be the first time.

Gooberman wrote:I was thinking the same thing.

The shadow that Obama's head has seems a little inconsistent with the others as well. I didn't post because I don't have a good eye for these things. (Unless they are side by side, I usually can't even tell if a TV is HD or not.) Sucking at this sort of thing saves me money though.

Looking back at that "photo" ... I think you're right. I'm pretty sure that's been shopped.

Will Robinson wrote: You: republicans brought up the muslim thing, the lapel thing, and the non-patriot thing
Me: no, Hillary did (proof included)
You: you didn't address my point

You are getting pathetic now.

really..

Here's the thing. While Hilliary bringing that up may be true, it is irrelevant to what I am trying to hammer into your parrot-like brain is the fact that your party took that ball and ran with it in order to scare voters. At this point, it doesn't matter what Hilliary did. I don't care about that. I DO care about the fact it was used over and over again by your party to try and shift the blame from what they have done.

now I have tried and tried again to get you talking about the three things I have brought forth, but you steadfastly refused to even acknowledge it's existence by trying over and over again with your time-honored ploy of shifting the blame. I have to wonder now... do you not hear it? or do you know about it and pretend it does not exist?

but I fear that all you will do now is keep pointing the finger at the other party, acting like they are the demons instead of acknowldeging what your own party has done (and they have done a lot of nasty things) in your name.

your myopic, borderline fanatical view on issues recently have caused me to view you in a fundamentalist light willing to do anything if it means the 'other party has done it first'. It does not matter what the 'other guys have done'. It matters what you have done, because it puts you in as bad or a worse light. Clean up the garbage you have strewn about your own yard before pointing out the garbage in other people's yards.

People will not stand for being treated like morons especially when you have shown that you cannot focus on what is being said and would rather filibuster your way though a topic while not answering a single question. Until you learn how to actually converse with others instead of repeating talking points, you will not be able to convince anyone of a single thing.

Ferno wrote:really..

Here's the thing. While Hilliary bringing that up may be true, it is irrelevant to what I am trying to hammer into your parrot-like brain is the fact that your party took that ball and tried to cover it up in order to hide it from voters. At this point, it doesn't matter what Hilliary did. I don't care about that. I DO care about the fact it was covered up over and over again by your party to try and shift the blame from what they will do.

now I have tried and tried again to get you talking about the original topic I have brought forth, but you steadfastly refused to even acknowledge it's existence by trying over and over again with your time-honored ploy of shifting the blame. I have to wonder now... do you not hear it? or do you know about it and pretend it does not exist?

but I fear that all you will do now is keep pointing the finger at the other party, acting like they are the demons instead of acknowledging what your own party has done (and they have done a lot of nasty things) in your name.

your myopic, borderline fanatical view on issues recently have caused me to view you in a liberal light willing to do anything if it means the 'other party has done it first'. It does not matter what the 'other guys have done'. It matters what you have done, because it puts you in as bad or a worse light. Clean up the garbage you have strewn about your own yard before pointing out the garbage in other people's yards.

People will not stand for being treated like morons especially when you have shown that you cannot focus on what is being said and would rather filibuster your way though a topic while not answering a single question. Until you learn how to actually converse with others instead of repeating talking points, you will not be able to convince anyone of a single thing.

Fixed


UHM Ferno FYI the topic was about Obama being a socialist, your the one that tried to change the subject not Will. you have not once ever commented about the original topic. you would make a good politician tho. you never touch the topic you evade the question and deflect.

Just to refresh your memory he are all your posts in this thread. not one single time have you commented on the topic at hand. and your VERY FIRST POST was to change the subject. so pot meet mister kettle

Ferno wrote:oh, sort of like the 'muslim' thing, the 'refused to say the pledge of allegiance' thing and the 'lapel' thing?

lol

Ferno wrote:I see words but I don't see an answer.

how boring.

Ferno wrote:personally, I take solace in the notion that if I get into a major car wreck I don't have to worry about having to pay a 6000 dollar bill just so I can get back into the land of the living.

wouldn't you?


Nice try will. you didn't answer a single thing I posted. you just took whatever you wanted out of it, threw in a massive pontification, and i refuse to play your game.

Ferno wrote:That would be the most sensible thing imaginable, but I don't see that happening. I hope it does, though.

Ferno wrote:irrelevant. I don't even have the same carrier or system you have.

Will:

AGAIN... I read both your posts. at least three times. nowhere did you address the fact that it was YOUR party that tried to use those as issues. all you did was talk about how obama did this, did that.. and again you try to pass off talking points as answers.

but I fear all you're going to do is recite more half-digested chum as an 'answer'. oh, wait.. you just did. I'm just going to go back to making fun of the stupid.

Can someone change the title of this thread to 'let's beat on the democrats and ridicule those who dare question our poor defenseless republicans'?

Ferno wrote:I figured the last bit that you added was common knowledge.


Will Robinson the tape recorder, stuck on repeat... wrote:
Words


blah blah blah. more talking points but never addressing anything close to what I posted. Socialist! Fascist! Terrorist! ACORN! all the same vomit as everyone else is talking about.

and then you decide to throw out insults. go you!

tell you what.. when you come back to earth and learn how to carry on a conversation instead of regurgitating from a script.. maybe things can progress. Until then.. enjoy your spacewalks.

Lets see who is avoiding what....

Cuda shows Obama's link to a derivitive of the socialist party. He asks for comments.

My comment:

Will Robinson wrote:I think the mainstream media won't allow their guy to be smeared by the truth.

You respond by challenging my assertion that the media won't smear Obama by bringing up three issues that were in the media back when Obama was running against other Democrats:

Ferno wrote:oh, sort of like the 'muslim' thing, the 'refused to say the pledge of allegiance' thing and the 'lapel' thing?

lol

I'm assuming you did that to show how the media has in fact smeared Obama.
So it is pretty clear to me that within this thread you and I are debating this point:
is the media going easy on Obama or not.

You lament a an alleged lack of conversation but apparently don't want to entertain the discussion that once Hillary, who was all but anointed Queen early in the race was knocked out, the dynamic changed. You instead want to cling to the few trivial topics that managed to make their way into Obama's path and you also want to blame their being brought up by republicans!

So I corrected you and showed those issues are the results of being in a race against a Clinton, I showed you in one quote of a rabid Obama democrat that it was understood by team Obama that Hillary was the one who threw the Muslim connections and the Ayers connection at Obama's feet, not McCain or some other republican! I don't know who managed to talk about the pledge and lapel pin first but really, give me a break! If that's the only thing the media was willing to toss in Obama's lap while ignoring the much bigger issues I can't buy into your notion that they were trying too hard to smear him..not even close to hard hitting journalism considering the stuff they could have exposed about him!! Your lose big time if you want to go down that road!

At the same time Hillary was trying to get the media to pick up on that dirt McCain was either still battling with Romney and Huckabee or had just vanquished them and was licking his chops letting the democrats tear into each other while he concentrated on fund raising. He was dead silent on the issue because the long standing conventional wisdom is, "when your enemy is destroying themselves stay out of their way".

In spite of all that potential, relevant discussion you now want to keep repeating your self that I have been dodging your really big important points about "lapel pins and pledge of allegiance and someone said he is a Muslim".

The truth is I did address your point, I exposed it for being slightly irrelevant to the point I was raising, clarifying that I was talking about the current media environment now that Obama is their guy, and brought up examples of much more hard hitting issues than trivial little digs you are focusing on, current issues that the media doesn't want to raise but would report on endlessly if it was on the other side!
The conversation was definitely there if only you were willing to engage your mind in an open fashion, instead you knee jerked your foot deep into your mouth and now all we hear is mumble mumble you suck mumble mumble.
It isn't a lack of engagement of the issues on my part, you just don't like how your examples are shown to be lame and the discussion didn't go down the road you wanted to keep them on.

Another thing, you are trying to pin me down as a republican and I'm far from it.
I abandoned their team over 6 years ago, most recently I voted for Obama in the Primary, I voted for Badnarik in the last Presidential election and have already said I will most likely vote third party again in this election out of protest to both the two big parties. So just because you see me going off on my disappointment in Obama now that he's shown me what a typical democrat he really is doesn't mean I'm a republican.
If you want to know how to stereotype me you'll have to invent a new category, I'm anti-lefty media and anti-loopy liberal policy, anti-political correctness for the sake of pandering for votes. And I'm pro slap-Islam-in-the-face for spawning and branching out their kill-the-infidel program!
That is a portion of my ideology along with some liberal notions about drug law and I'm pro affirmative action but against quotas... I'm all over the place and don't fit in either of the big two party's ranks.
As it turns out, in this cycle, Obama embodies much more of that which I dislike than McCain so of course I'm railing on Obama and primarily the media's lack of objectivity and protection of Obama's history.

And in spite of all that I'm still at least thinking of voting for Obama, but not because I think he's going to be good for the country, but for other, more selfish reasons. Because I'm losing my faith in my fellow citizens to rise above the bull★■◆●, so from a survival instinct I think maybe I should just milk the system for all I can get to provide for my two daughters and at some point make sure they know where to move to once this place turns into a bad version of France! Obama wants to give me someone else's money to get my vote so maybe I'll just cash in on some of that free money he's going to spread around.