I've got a right-winger telling me Obama is a socialist for nationalizing the banks and the auto industry.

Saying he nationalized the banks is a joke, since that was a straight "here's billions of dollars, do what you like with it" bailout.

But if memory serves, there were strings attached with the auto bailout. I think the GM CEO had to be fired and Chrysler had to sell to Fiat, but I can't remember the details and I'm having trouble finding them in old articles. Does anybody know of a good article or resource?

The RW story of course is that the feds now own 61% of GM, but unless I'm wrong GM is still a privately owned that is run entirely without government intervention? Am I correct in believing this? Isn't it just now that the US government (and by extension the taxpayers) is/are the primary holder of GM stock? This would presumably give the government some say in how the company is run, but how often is that muscle actually flexed?

And didn't this deal come about largely at GM's request?

At any rate, the government investing in a private company seems a far cry from nationalization to me.

(edit: changed subject to hopefully get more attention. was: Terms of the auto industry bailout)

It seems to me that a lot of unnecessary problems are caused because sometimes it's profitable to do things that are harmful (though not illegal) to society. For example, insurance companies deny care to their customers for the sake of profit. Drug companies fight to extend their patents and prevent the marketing of generics because it will help them profit. Halliburton and their ilk have made vast fortunes from war. Cheap prison labor has made it profitable to keep people jailed.

Sometimes, like in the case of for-profit health care, this just prevents large portions of our society from receiving basic services that everyone should have a right to. Other times, like in the case of private military contractors, it actually transfers taxpayer money to corporations run by CEO's who will take home in six months more money than most of us will make in a lifetime.

Of course this situation arose from the republican "privatize everything" mantra. The theory was that the private sector could provide all life's basic services better than the government could because a desire to make a profit kept private businesses efficient and lean. Rather than have the government actually try to do things, it should just hire corporations to do them for it.

Of course, if you think about this plan for even a little while, you'll notice one glaring flaw.

When it comes to programs intended to protect our society, the last thing you want is a profit motive. You want the sole focus to be on protecting society, not making money. If there's an opportunity to cut corners and pocket more money, the private sector will do it. They are in it for the money, not the good of country.

Here's an example even the most fervent right-winger should understand: Who do you want guarding our borders? A government agency, who will spend every penny of their budget toward guarding our borders? Or a company who will spend as little as possible so they can keep the remainder? Seems like a no-brainer.

Free market capitalism is great for most things. Profit off of TV's, cell phones, soda pop, vehicles, and dishwashers all you want. But health care? No, that will inevitably damage our society. Let the government handle it, because no one should have to be sick just because they're poor.

...those are the exact arguments conservatives use for keeping taxes low on the wealthy. I mean, are you suggesting that almost 30 years of trickle-down economics has been good for the country?

Your point is "This is my money, I worked hard for it, I earned it. Why should I pay higher taxes?" How about because you owe something to the country whose system allowed you to make all that money?

"But if the rich get taxed, why will anybody have any incentive to work hard?" Seriously? Again, I hate to keep pointing this out, but this is the stuff I hear from my right-wing still-defends-Bush brother-in-law.

Let's look at Japan, shall we? Their income tax system works like this:

• less than 1.95 million Yen = 5% of taxable income
  
• 1.95 to 3.3 million Yen = 10% of taxable income exceeding 1.95 million Yen plus 97,500 Yen
  
• 3.3 to 6.95 million Yen = 20% of taxable income exceeding 3.3 million Yen plus 232,500 Yen
  
• 6.95 to 9 million Yen = 23% of taxable income exceeding 6.95 million Yen plus 962,500 Yen
  
• 9 to 18 million Yen = 33% of taxable income exceeding 9 million Yen plus 1,434,000 Yen
  
• more than 18 million Yen = 40% of taxable income exceeding 18 million Yen plus 4,404,000 Yen

(Source: http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2206.html )

Now, the thing to notice is that the more money a person makes in Japan, the higher their tax rate is. Today 1 dollar is worth a little more than 100 Yen. The top bracket is paying mre than 24% on the first 18,000,000 Yen (US$179,131.86 at today's exchange rate) and then 40% on everything over that.

By your logic, nobody in Japan should be trying to succeed, because they have no incentive. I mean why bother trying hard when it just means you'll pay more taxes?

Because it also means you'll get more money. Yes, the government gets more, but you get more too.

Now lets look historically at the top brackets in the United states (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.... ).

Throughout the 1950's, the top rate was 91% on incomes over $400,000. 91%. That's an awful lot, but of course $400K was a lot more money in the 50's. Anyway, did the economy stagnate during the 1950's? Was there no incentive to work hard? Because the way I understand it, the 1950's were the time in our country when we had the most prosperous middle-class we've ever had. A man could work as a baker and afford to buy a home (which he was actually paying for instead of just paying interest on), a car, and his wife could probably stay home and take care of the kids.

But oooh! We don't want any scary evil taxes! Why would anybody bother to work hard?

In 1964, the top rate was cut to 77%, then to 70% in 1971. Did things get better or worse? Better for the rich? Worse for the middle class?

In 1982 they were cut back to 50% Did things get better or worse? Better for the rich? Worse for the middle class?

By 1988 the top rate was cut to 28% (that's right, from 70% to 28% under Reagan). Did things get better or worse? Better for the rich? Worse for the middle class?

Clinton raised the top rates to 39%. Things got a little better for the middle class. Are you seeing the pattern here?

The bottom line (and the point I was trying to make, albeit humorously) is that tax cuts are not a panacea for our problems, although the right likes to pretend that they are. In fact, if one looks at history (and oh, I dunno, the rest of the world) it becomes pretty apparent that countries prosper at higher rates of taxation on the wealthy, and that the taxes are not a deterrent to hard work, success, or even building family wealth.

Government doesn't have enough money? Tax cuts are what you need!

Unemployment out of control? Cutting taxes will fix that right up!

Got gingivitis? Tax cuts are your cure!

Car won't start in cold weather? You guessed it: tax cuts!

Toilet keeps running after you flush? You may need a new flapper. Or maybe more tax cuts!

Male pattern baldness? Tax cuts, my friend!

Tax cuts fix EVERYTHING!

Get Fuzzy
9/13


Sorry if this has been posted before. It's a couple days old, but I didn't find it in a less-than-extensive search.

This is the big map you can see on pollster.com right now (only it's interactive there).



The states in blue or red are as close to sure things as we can get at this point. Obama's up by at least 5 points in the states marked blue. Most are states Kerry won in 2004, and odds are extremely good that he's going to win all the Kerry states (with an unlikely exception of NH) plus IA, and NM. That puts him at 264 electoral votes, just 6 votes shy of the 270.

He only needs 6 points. How can he get 6 points? A lot of ways. Ohio would give him 20. Instant win from Ohio. Virginia has 13, another instant win. Not likely you say? The demographics of VA are changing. The northern areas around DC are growing and offsetting the southern rural areas. Macaca comments aside, VA sent Jim Webb to the senate in 2006 instead of favorite son George Allen. CO has 9 electoral votes, that's another win. Nevada only has 5 EV's, so that won't quite get him there. FL, unlikely though it may be, would also win it for Obama.

As I said earlier, there's really six states up for grabs this time around. FL, VA, OH, MO, CO, and NV. Maybe 7 if you count NH, but seriously McCain has no chance in NH. Bush won NH by 1% in 2000, otherwise it's been solidly blue for a long, long time. So of those 6, Obama needs, worst case, any 2 of them. 5 of them (OH, CO, FL, VA, MO) represent an instant win when added to Kerry states + IA and NM.

But for McCain to win the election, he needs to pick up all six of those states. All of them. Go to http://www.270towin.com / and play through different scenarios. Start by marking all the Kerry '04 states blue. Add in IA and NM, which are almost assuredly going to give their votes to Barack. That puts him at 264 electoral votes. Now give everything but Nevada to McCain. I pick Nevada because at 5 EV's, it's the smallest reward of the swing states. That puts McCain at 269 electoral votes. Still not a victory. It could come down to Nevada! Not bloody likely, but possible.

I'm going to repeat this to drive it home. If Obama can win all the Kerry states (and why would he not?) plus IA and NM (polling very strongly in both) then McCain can win OH, FL, VA, MO, and CO and still not have 270 electoral votes. Of the six tossup states, Obama needs at most two of them. McCain needs all six.

Of course, this all depends on no huge game changing events happening in the next 2 months. We go to war with Iran or Naked lesbian action shots of Palin turn up (and at this rate I wouldn't be too surprised) and all bets are off.

There's been a lot of talk from the Clinton campaign and the talking head pundits about Obama's trouble getting white voters to vote for him, but I'd like to make a couple points.

First of all, I think that the racial divide is much more likely a geographic divide. Metropolitan areas have favored Obama, and rural areas have favored Hillary. This makes perfect sense if you admit that Hillary is a hawkish centrist democrat (and I know many here won't) because the rural areas are generally stronger for republicans in general elections. It stands to reason that the rural democrats would be a lot closer to the center than the urban democrats, and therefore Hillary, as a centrist, probably does better reflect their values.

Now if you consider that the rural areas are almost exclusively white and that African Americans live almost entirely in metropolitan areas, is it not possible, even likely, that the black/white patterns we've seen are just a byproduct of a rural/urban divide? Especially when that divide is almost unmistakable when looking at the county by county maps of primary results?

And lastly, whether Obama's issue is with white voters or rural voters, it needs to be said again that it is only a problem in one specific area, namely the Apalachian region. He did very well in many midwestern and western states that are quite white and rural. Keep that in mind when you want to claim he can't win votes from working-class whites.

He will lose in a landslide. Hillary is poised to win by more than 20 points.

Why, as an Obama supporter, am I bringing this up? Because I remember Pennsylvania. I remember the Clinton supporters, here and all over TV, spinning a victory that everybody saw coming as some kind of game changing event when it was nothing of the sort.

So I just want to point out today, the day before the West Virginia primary, that a large Clinton victory in that state's primary is a foregone conclusion. It won't change anything. She might net 10 delegates which will be undone by Obama's looming Oregon victory.

So please, don't go acting like the West Virginia primary outcome is some kind of surprise mandate. We all know it isn't.

I keep seeing these threads popping up to the effect of "You expect us to unite with your candidate after all the nasty things that were said to me and about me?" and I'm getting tired of responding to them individually, so I figured an OP was in order.

First, I'd like to say that with one notable exception, I have no expectations and I make no demands. I look forward to a day when we can put aside our differences and go back to being Democrats, but if you're not ready to do that I'm not going to try to force you. The one exception is that I do expect anyone calling themselves a Democrat to vote for the Democratic Party's nominee in November, whoever that may be. There is no way that a sane person can hold a candidate responsible for the actions of a few of his or her supporters on an internet message board.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that Hillary supporters were in no way the sole recipient of baseless personal attacks on these boards. Some people were always decent, some were nasty when provoked, and others (a very loud but very small minority in my estimation) were constant assholes. This is how it was on both sides. Now maybe an almost certain Obama victory makes the past six months of abuse an easier pill for Obama supporters to swallow, but you can surely see that we took our fair share of it too.

And lastly, it needs to be said that for all of your complaining about your treatment, you chose to be here. Not only did you choose to come to DU, you chose to read the posts in GD . There were stickies all over the place about how to hide GD posts, and if you chose to enter the fray, then I have to assume you were getting something out of it. Chances are good that you dished it out as well as you took it. It's not like we came into your home and started screaming at you. You willingly and of your own accord came to a common ground where it was widely known that people regularly argued in the most vitriolic terms possible, so please forgive me if I have little sympathy for your bruised ego.

But anyway, if you don't want to support Obama, then don't. I'm not gonna change your mind. Just don't use your unfair treatment in GD as a reason not to, because I ain't buying it. We were all treated shittily. Now let's all get over it.

Since the story broke, one thing has stuck out in my mind. They sat on it. For almost a week, they sat on the reocrding of Senator Obama's original comments. Why? Why not go public with them as soon as they had them? I can only conclude that they saw a risk in using them.

And interestingly, Friday was not shaping up to be a very good day for Hillary. There were three big negative stories for team Clinton.

There was the video of Hillary ineffectually trying to dodge the Colombia question. It was almost painful to watch as she laughed for far too long, laughed a little bit longer, scrambled to come up with something, but could only pretend it wasn't a legitimate question. It could have been a campaign ender.

Then there was Former President Bill Clinton's "I don't steal cars" comment. He's been dancing dangerously close to race-baiting (to put it in the mildest terms I can) since South Carolina, and this is more of the same. Oh sure, maybe he's got plausible deniability, but this was not going to go unnoticed. Not after so many other questionable comments.

And lastly, Bill did a lot of dizzying spinning of the whole Bosnia sniper business, bringing a mostly forgotten Clinton fuck-up back to the forefront of the debate. Of course, he was trying to cover one big lie with several smaller ones, so the only thing he really accomplished was keeping Clinton brand dishonesty on everyone's minds.

On Friday, the Clinton campaign needed something, anything, to take the focus off of them on what may have been the worst of many bad days on this campaign. And wouldn't you know it, something turned up. Something a week old. Something that ended up being not nearly as bad as it was made out to be. Something that some people think may very well come back to bite Hillary on the ass.

Because after all, by clinging to this manufactured outrage, Clinton and McCain (who, interestingly, seem to be more on the same page with each passing day) are only serving to illustrate what has been one of Barack Obama's key points throughout his campaign. You know how he says that the American people are sick of "the same old politics" and "the politics of division"? Senators McCain and Clinton have just given him the perfect example to point to.

And Obama is right. We are sick of it.

I was a child of the 70's, and like the generation before me and every generation since, I grew up on Dr. Seuss. Mostly on the books, but also the animated television specials that were magnitudes better than the drivulous live action adaptations Hollywood has churned out the past few years. I may have been sharper than the average grade-schooler (and apparently became a less modest adult), but the messages that some of the Dr. Seuss stories contained were usually not lost on me. Once Sam I Am tried the Green Eggs and Ham, he found that they were actually quite delicious. The Lorax warned of looming environmental disaster, and I understood. Had the north-going and south-going zaxes simply compromised, both would have gotten where they were going instead of neither. And while the full implications of Foxes in Sockses to this day escapes me, I knew that the lesson of The Sneetches was that people were not to be judged by superficial appearances such as skin color. Even as a boy, I understood that it was a story about discrimination and racial equality.

Twenty-odd years later, I had kids of my own and of course the Dr. Seuss books were a big hit in our household, as I hope they will forever be in every household. But when I read The Sneetches to my kids, I realized that there was an element I actually hadn't understood as a child.

I am speaking of course of one Sylvester McMonkey McBean, opportunistic capitalist and self-proclaimed "fix-it-up chappie". McBean devised a way to put stars onto the plain-bellied sneetches for the low low price of just three dollars. When the original star-bellied sneetches complained, McBean told them that belly stars were no longer in style and devised a way to remove their stars for just ten dollars. Soon things got hectic with stars going on and coming off at a ridiculous pace. Once McBean had every last dollar of the sneetches' money, he simply left. It was then, when they had hit rock bottom economically, that the sneetches had their revelation that sneetches were sneetches, regardless of abdominal decorations.

Reading the story again as an adult, the implication was clear: Capitalist interests were playing the races against each other for their own selfish financial gain. I understood the message, but I wasn't sure I believed it. Now I can be a real cynical motherfucker, but this seemed like a stretch. Maybe it was a moment of naivety on my part, but I thought surely the good doctor had overreacted in this case.

But today I heard Barack Obama make his historic speech on race in America, and something he said connected that last dot for me.

"This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit."

Upon hearing this, it occurred to me that keeping people fighting about race really does benefit moneyed interests. If they can keep the masses arguing about affirmative action and immigration, they can divert attention from the real reason that jobs are being lost. For the sake of corporate profits. Keep them fighting amongst themselves instead of banding together against the common enemy. It's not about black and white at all. It's all about green.

Then again, maybe I'm not understanding The Sneetches at all (in which case my post title is way off). Maybe it's really just a parable about fashion and keeping up with the Jonses. Maybe it's just a story of rich vs. poor. Some have said it's about the holocaust, but that seems like a real stretch.

Or maybe the whole thing is just an inkblot in which each reader can see whatever they want. If that's the case, at least my own inkblot became a little more clear today.

I know that what I'm about to say will not be popular in some quarters. I'm also fully aware that it has been said before. And I realize that now is a contentious time here on Democratic Underground as everybody dukes it out over their favorite candidate. I've tried to stay out of that for the most part, but I can stay silent no longer. I feel I must say what I'm about to say in hopes that I can illustrate the danger we may be approaching to some of those who have not yet seen it or those who just plain refuse to see it. I am going to attempt to do this with reason and fairness, but I know that no matter how coldly I try to present the situation, I will be accused of built-in bias, of having been corrupted by the right, and probably of good old-fashioned sexism.

Also, before I really get into it, I need to make something else clear. I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, neither personally nor politically. She may not be my first choice for a nominee, but I do believe she would make a fine president if elected. On points where I disagree with her, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because I am reasoned enough and seasoned enough to know that politics is often a game of compromise and that there will never be a politician I agree with on every single point, at least not until the unlikely day I run for office myself. And rest assured that come November of 2008, I will be voting for whatever democrat is at the top of the ballot and whatever democrats are below.

But all that aside, I still must say it: We simply cannot risk choosing Hillary Clinton as our nominee for the presidency in 2008. The stakes are just too high.

I doubt anybody needs reminding, but I won't let that stop me from reminding you anyway. Our country, the country we love, the country we would all fight and die for, is facing the greatest peril it has faced since the Civil War. Some would argue that it's facing a peril even greater than that, for which is worse: The country splitting into two democracies or staying together as a fascist dictatorship under the rule of an imperial "president"? A democrat elected in 2008 will begin to correct our course, but the likeliest republican candidates will, if elected, continue the march toward fascism, and I'm afraid that it won't be a long march at all. Those who think I'm being alarmist need to open their eyes and smell the secret prisons. Or the wiretapping. Or the preemptive wars. I could go on, but I trust you all know the score.

And it's because of these things that some say the presidency is already a done deal for democrats. The American people are ready for a change and the democratic nominee, any democratic nominee, will win the general election handily. I would say that our odds are good, better than they've been in a long time, but now is not the time to rest on our laurels, and now is not the time to take unnecessary risks.

It has long been said that Hillary Clinton is polarizing, but that term is misleading. The sad fact is that Hillary Clinton is polarizing within the democratic party. There's no polarization on the right. They unanimously hate her with a passion. They have hated her since 1992, and nothing has happened to change that. What has changed is the regard she is held in by democrats. Among democrats there is what appears to be at least a 50/50 split.

When someone brings this up, Senator Clinton's supporters often say that democrats who oppose her have been corrupted by right-wing slander, and you know what? Maybe they're right. We could argue all day what has led to the situation, but that does not change the fact that Hillary Clinton has strong opposition, stronger opposition than any other candidate, within the democratic party. This is a simple, obvious, provable fact and how we reached this point is irrelevant. Pointing out that water turned to ice because of the cold does not change the fact that it is currently ice. Every day here on Democratic Underground we hear a self-identified democrat say that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. While I think this is horribly misguided, I believe that they are sincere. I am not saying they are right, far from it. But it is what it is, and we need to face that reality.

My mother, who is 78 years old, is a life-long democrat and she has never missed an election. I remember her taking me into the voting booth back in the days when they were curtained off panels of hundreds of mechanical switches and I could not yet even write my name. And she has made the same sad pronouncement we hear here every day: She will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Ever.

But on the other side of the ideological fence, there isn't even any debate on the subject. Republicans would sooner vote for Satan Himself than for Hillary Clinton. On the right, she is loathed with a level of vitriol that is as viscious as it is illogical. While their hatred flies in the face of reason, it is not hard to understand. The right-wing media (and through its echo chambers, the mainstream media) have demonized Hillary Clinton since she appeared on the scene in the early 90's. If there's one thing the right doesn't like, it's a strong woman.

And while it has taken me a long time to get to it, this is my point. Nothing will bring out the republican vote like a Hillary Clinton nomination. And nothing will keep democrats home like a Hillary Clinton nomination. This, my friends, is the ultimate recipe for disaster. Are we seriously going to let this happen? Are we going to let this happen when the stakes are so high?

And need I point out our slim majorities in both houses of congress? What will happen to those if we help their turnout while simultaneously hurting our own?

Everyone is fond of saying that America is ready for a change, and you know what? I think they're right. Many republicans have begun to wake up and feel that they've been betrayed by their party. Many would be willing to vote for Edwards or Obama. I've talked to some of them. But they would die before they ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. We've actually got the potential to peel some votes from the opposition here, but we're going to throw it away?

But let's go back to those asshole "I'll never vote for Hillary" democrats for a moment. Yes, I think they are assholes, and I think most rational democrats agree with me, but that doesn't matter. They exist, and that's a fact we must deal with. Now, if the tables were turned, would those currently supporting Senator Clinton refuse to vote for Edwards or Obama? I posit that they would gladly support whoever the eventual nominee is, even if they were not their first choice. Yes Hillary supporters, that would make you the bigger persons and the better democrats, and I have faith that you would do what was needed for the good of your country.

We've got what is pretty much a three-way race right now. It may not look like it from national polls, but in Iowa and New Hampshire Obama and Edwards are competitive, and I'm sure I don't need to point out the importance of those races. Edwards, though in third place, seems to be picking up steam, so I consider him still very much in the game. So let's look at likely scenarios based on our three front runners.

If Barack Obama is our eventual nominee, all democrats will rally behind him. He'll also easily pick up a majority of independents and probably even peel enough republicans (especially Christians) away to be significant. A fair number of republicans, disappointed in their party and unhappy with their nominee would just stay home.

If John Edwards is our eventual nominee, again, all democrats will rally behind him. His populist message will pick up the majority of independents and probably a few republicans also. Again, many unhappy republicans will just stay home on election day.

If Hillary Clinton is our eventual nominee, every republican in the nation will turn out on election day to vote against her. You can take that to the bank. What's more, a significant number of democrats, unhappy with their nominee, will stay home on election day.

And I know, if you count registered democrats vs. registered republicans, our chances look good no matter who our nominee is. But one scenario looks far riskier than the others. I'm not saying that Hillary can't win the general election, and I'm not saying that Hillary won't win the general election. I'm merely saying that she is the riskiest candidate we've got, and now is not the time to take any chances. Especially if one considers that we don't just have to win the election, we have to win it by a large enough margin that it can't be stolen.

And lastly, has anybody noticed that the right-wing media seems to really want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee? Do you think maybe, just maybe, it's because they know what it will do for republican turnout? Or do you think it's because they've strategizing against her for 15 years?

But I don't know why I bother. I don't really expect anyone to listen to me. If there's one thing the democratic party has shown me time and time again, it's that they have a remarkable ability to screw up a sure a thing.

A couple days ago I had a minor epiphany. I think a majority of our country's problems can be summed up by the idea that we are unwilling to admit our mistakes and therefore insist on following policies that have failed pathetically and resolutely.

The most obvious example of this is the war in Iraq. Anybody with a pulse (or a pulse that reaches their brain anyway) can tell you our little escapade in Iraq has been a monumental catastrophe with no hope for redemption. The smarter among us even predicted it beforehand, but that's beside the point. Even those who insist we stay have trouble giving a reason outside of "well, we can't just leave". Bullshit, we can too. We fucked up, failed miserably, and now it's time to go. Will staying any longer make the situation any better? Will leaving now make it any worse?

And of course there's the war on drugs. What's the war on drugs done for us? Well, it's filled the prison system with largely nonviolent criminals for one. It's also created more violence within the drug trade, as prohibition always does. And driven up drug prices, thereby increasing profits for the dealers, who are of course the dangerous element I mentioned just a moment ago. But it's curtailed drug use, right? Well, not exactly. Since the drug war began, we've had two major drug epidemics spread through our nation. Crack starting in the late 80's and methamphetamine beginning in the early 90's. So that's worked well. Yet we continue to pursue the failed policy.

What if a candidate, as part of his or her platform, promised to end the war on drugs. Would they be greeted with rational debate or hysteria?

Lastly, let's consider republican fiscal policy. We've been trying this for 26 years now, even though it was obvious it was only benefiting the wealthy by five or six years in. Please tell me again exactly how cutting the taxes of the richest people helps the poor-to-middle classes? Why is it that we give corporations free, unregulated, reign while the small business owner gets reamed? And more importantly, where have these policies left us? We've got a wealth divide that's reached staggering proportions, jobs flying out of the country, and a housing market that's in danger of disintegrating and leaving millions of people with less than nothing. And yet we continue to pursue the failes policies.

Well fuck all that. I want real change, god damn it. Now who's going to step up and offer it?

I realize there's already a couple of turnout threads kicking around here, but thought I'd post the question as a poll to try to gather some visual data. I trust you know what blue, purple and red mean. Please vote.

Thanks.

FatDave

Do you ever have to watch Fox News? I made a silly little game that may make that time more bearable.

See it here: http://www.bileduct.com/toys/talking_point...

If you stray from that page, beware, you will encounter language of the foulest sort imaginable.

(Sorry if I'm out of line posting this here, mods delete at will)