Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Can You Dig It?

From Oliver Willis by way of Bob Cesca.


Anonymous said...

Maybe. Kharma is a serious thing and a force to be reckoned with. Palin does to Obama what Obama did to Hillary.

Kurgan said...

Is it just me or have you ever noticed that during elections, when things get tight, the GOP keeps saying "We're losing, we're losing, better take it up a notch".

At the same time, during elections, when things get tight, Democrats keep saying "Don't worry, Don't worry, we will be okay, it is not that bad".

I never thought that perpetual optimism could be a weakness.

b80vin said...

Really? He's got this? Says who? He is the most brilliant candidate in either party in 12 years and the news media is allowing Rove et.al. to Gore and Kerry him. A complete non-issue pig and lipstick comment gets play because the McCain campaign cynically plays it up, and the new "teach your pre-schoolers sex" commercial is as racist as the Willie Horton ad and a lie to boot, and so far not one of the major news networks is discussing it, they're too busy with the pig comment, which is nothing. Meanwhile, Palin tells her bridge to nowhere ad over and over, troopergate is not getting any traction even though it's important, and Palin is being hid from the news even though she is the only unknown candidate of the four. And the media is compliant and complacent. Chill the fuck out? Fuck that. Get fucking mad. We've seen this before, in fact, McCain isn't even waiting to be elected before he becomes Bush II.

Sasha said...

Very nice chez, very nice.

He has to win right? He's just, so much better than the alternative. People can't be that stupid.... right?

March said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Thanks, I needed that caption.

I was taking a shower this morning, and so wanted to remind the American people, "it is like, OK, you have been living with this guy who has beaten the shit out of you ever chance he got. He lied, he squandered, he *&^%ed your whole life up. Your bank account is gone, your relationships with past friends is destroyed, your reputation is in the toilet. He is finally moving out. So what do you do? Pick up some SOB who has even less of a brain who says he has never done anything like that, even though you have heard otherwise..." Let us hope all of the Rapture people are at church on November 4th.

Carol in Indiana.....

VOTAR said...



It's that simple. Don't fall for it. Don't allow yourself to be manipulated in this way. The litany of claims, promises, and assertions being made by the McCain campaign that are being proven to be demonstrably false grows with each new day. There are now, literally, too many examples to list (far too many, and far too easily fact-checked, to be blamed on a phantom "liberal media" bias).

And it's only been a week since their convention.

Don't let this be the legacy of the administration you help put into power for the next four years. Don't settle for "well, all politicians lie, better the devil I know than the devil I don't." Don't reward McCain for doing this to you.

You deserve better than this. We all deserve better than this.

Mr. Controversy said...

Glad to see I'm not the only one who saved this picture yesterday, and though "Yeah...we've got this".

Kurgan said...


I understand your view, but don't let it appear that bothparties are not manipulating you.

Obama is just manipulating you to move the direction you want to go.

VOTAR said...

List for me please the confirmed and demonstrable lies from Obama designed to trick me into voting for him.

It's too easy to intentionally miss the point to illustrate how all politics is about manipulation, and to suggest I'm not capable of thinking more critically than the hordes of gullible Americans who are falling for this cynical trap. There are those of us with the discipline, intellect, and skepticism to dig a little deeper, look a little harder, listen a little closer, and we're very troubled by what we're finding.

The direction I want to go is as far away from that as possible.

Anonymous said...

I won't raise your taxes. Economist agree that the revenue won't be there to pay for Social Security, the deficit, and Obama's social programs. He is going to have to raise taxes, ALOT. Eventually it will hurt the common man. We saw this under Carter. Talk about lipstick on a pig. The only way to generate more revenue is through a strong economy. Most economist agree that LOWER taxes is the road to a stronger economy.

slouchmonkey said...

As Votar mentioned. I'm tired of lies and decisions being made because "God told me so." I need a better way forward. McCain and Palin don't offer anything. Sure, Obama's going to raise my taxes but I'm okay paying an extra $2,300.00 over the next four years if things improve here and abroad. If not, then we get to vote again in 2012.

Steve said...

Lower taxes for corporations doesn't work, hasn't worked.

This is one of the GOP's manipulations: the framing of an argument. They don't specify whose taxes they're lowering do they? Hmmm ?

The GOP wants to privatize government entirely and place it into the hands of their rich buddies. How does that work for you, me and your poor ol' grandma?

Everyone watch how they frame their arguments.

VOTAR said...

That's not a lie. At worst, it's misplaced optimism, and speculation. I do not require omniscience or flawless prognostication from a national leader. To expect that from them -- or as evidenced by the flag waving McCain bumpersticker crowd, to believe a candidate has this magic power -- is naivete of embarrassing magnitude.

You all remember the bribe...ahem, I mean, the economic stimulus rebate checks you all got a few months ago?

The one's that were the magic panacea for all our economic woes? The ones that kick started our sluggish economy, reversed the housing market collapse, and put a fat chicken in every pot?

George Bush promised me one of those, and promised me it would make all our boo-boos better. Well, for whatever reason, I never got mine. And ya know what? I didn't miss it.

I'm not dumb enough to have ever counted on a campaign promise of lower taxes; it's obvious that the executive branch has almost no direct influence over the macro-economy. If Obama's ideas eventually cost a little extra, ask me if I will cry a single tear that my 1040 rebate will be a few dollars lighter.

The question is still on the table: produce a list of verifiable, fact-checked, and referenced lies from Obama that equals the tremendous, and growing, catalog we already have of them from McCain.

Kurgan said...


Maybe you are 100% in agreement with the entire platform, I am sure someone is. You are oiously intellegen enough to chose to buy 100% of a Presidential campaigns rhetoric.

I see manipulations of perception from both parties.

If you want an example, here's one. Barcak Obama said in his acceptance speech that he would cut federal spending by going line - by - line through the budget. I am assuming he meant the budget request, as the real budget is not his and any line-by-line actions would require a line item veto, a power which the President currently does not have.

Do we really believe that the budget is going to get cut or are we really talking about changing the allotment?

The tax revenues will increase, regardless of the source. Whcih federal agency can you name that is operating at such effeciencuy that they cannot live another day without more funding?

I am not in favor of most of McCain's platform, but it is not a lie, it is just a continuation of what we have been doing for a while.

History shows that campaign promises are exactly that: promises.

Anonymous said...

As opposed to the bribe Pelosi and company are trying to push through now? As opposed to the bribe of a tax cut for the middle class Obama promises, while he guts our economy with his social programs? Economist agree the money simply is not there. The common man will pay in the long run. There needs to be an overhaul of the whole system. We need less taxes and less government, instead of campaign slogans and speeches. Answer me one question. If Obama feels his tax on the rich will not be harmful to the economy, how come he now says he won't rescind the Bush tax cuts on the rich if the economy is still sluggish when he gets into office? Is it only harmful in bad times?

March said...

Votar, Sorry, i deleted my comment (i shouldnt have posted anything while drunk...whoops).

However, I do have a significant problem with lying. I will agree with you that in all likeliness, Reps have lied. That's not to say that Dems haven't lied either, or are just plain wrong.

I'll focus on the Energy issue because its the most prominent for me. Dems want green energy. Great, in principle. However, studies have shown that the execution of a wind corridor in the middle of the US would break the current electric infrastructure, or just not work at all. On top of that, Dems want to push green and hybrid cars. Plug-in cars are a big draw. My best friend worked at AEP (based in columbus), came to find out that the current electric grid in the next 5 years can't handle more than 5% of the population getting plug-in cars. In 20 years, it still won't beable to handle 25% of the population having plug-in cars. Not to mention the fact that we need more power plants to power these cars. Wind is highly inefficient from a perspective of cost, materials, and output standpoint, leaving only the "classic" power plant distribution system as realistic, and we're trying to get away from anything that is fossil fuels (I'm all about that), so that leaves nuclear and the [just gaining some treading] geo-thermal power plants. Nuclear and geo-thermal I support, but that still leaves the problem of the electric infrastructure, which will need significant upgrades to meet the high hopes of democrats, and I'll let you figure out where the money to upgrade that will come from.

Burt D said...

So glad to hear that you can easily afford the taxes that will be placed on you. Some of us would rather keep ours to help support our families. Proving one point about Democrats-"A fool and his money are soon parted."

Chez said...

Wow, Burt. Nothing like digging up an oldie-but-goodie argument that the right always pulls out to supposedly thwart the left. The old tax-and-spend horseshit.

Have you not been paying attention to the money being spent by the Republicans in power? The war that's costing you -- as a taxpayer -- a damn fortune?

Any real conservative will tell you that nobody spends tax money right now like the Republicans.

But hey, you just keep spouting 20 year old rhetoric there.

Anonymous said...

What democrats fail to see is that people do want change. Just not the change they are offering. Now that there is a viable option for change while maintaining our values there will be a shift.

Chez said...

Stupidity isn't a value.

Chez said...

Stupidity isn't a value.

Anonymous said...

Chez and lot simply breeze over the fact that the money is simply not there. No word from them as to how Obama will pay for these social programs. Just that they are willing to pay-gladly.Obama will raise your taxes in the long run. Economist agree that just taxing the rich will not make up for the loss in revenue. Obama knows this, he knows it is an empty promise. Yet he goes with it to push through his social programs. I'll keep my hard earned money for my family.

atheistika said...

b80vin said...
Really? He's got this? Says who? He is the most brilliant candidate in either party in 12 years...
This from the man who's campaigned in all 57 states?
This from the guy who can't get a thought out without a teleprompter?
What are you talking about?! Obama makes Dan Quayle look like a freakin' genius.

VOTAR said...

These points may be meaningful to an economist or a tax attorney. I'm satisfied allowing the experts to debate the finer points of these issues; they mean little to most of the rest of us. Assuming all of the experts agree that all of Obama's plans can't be implemented as proposed, that's still not the same as anyone with any credibility concluding that this is a lie.

Clinton promised universal health care, and found later that the reality of completely overhauling a system that complex was impossible at the time. That was disappointing, but I don't consider it a lie. If Obama's economic plans don't come to fruition exactly as he now envisions them, it won't make a whit of difference to me.

This does nothing to address the curious lack of outrage that the Republican presidential candidate and his runningmate are lying to you.

At the turn of the last century, one of the largest infrastructure requirements of any significant metropolitan area was the fleet of carts they would have to employ to continuously scour the city streets to remove horse shit from the pavement. At that time, no one could have imagined the transformation of modern civilization that the internal combustion engine heralded. When Ford started cranking out automobiles, people laughed and said that crazy machine would never catch on. Imagine if he'd have been convinced by his critics to give up because the changes his product would necessitate would be too overwhelming to manage. You'd still be riding a horse to work (which, maybe, has a certain appeal).

Both candidates include a discussion of green technology and energy in their platforms. Except for the inclusion of nuclear, both sets of rhetoric are virtually identical. The reality is that the private sector will likely have more to do with developing solutions in this realm than the federal government, and if anything, utility companies will be invigorated by the need to keep up with a transformation on a national scale. Complaining that the task is beyond our current ability strikes me as pathetically anti-American, which is how the Europeans and some South American nations are decades ahead of us in this (nevermind the retard oil baron up on 1600 Pennsylvania). If certain elements of a green energy infrastructure will be difficult to achieve, this will be a burden on either administration anyway. As to the expense of overhauling our energy network, well, gee... the $600 Billion, so far, that we've pissed into the sands of Iraq might have helped with that (am I angry that my taxes aren't available to support my family because they've been used to fund a criminal occupation of foreign land? You fucking bet I am. Aren't you?).

Again, the green energy debate is not an example of Obama lying about a platform issue, this is an example of a potentially over-optimistic ideal that both candidates have enthusiastically espoused.

But it's time to move on to other discussions, because this one has not produced a meaningful example of anything this candidate has done or said that rises anywhere near the level of cynicism, fakery, and manipulation that McCain/Palin have been caught perpetrating every single day for the past two weeks, brazenly, and apparently to the outrage of few if any conservatives. You're eager to hand over control of your future to a team of people who you know are lying to and manipulating you. Very well, the rest of us will take up the slack and work harder to protect you from them.

My assertion stands:




Kurgan said...

There is no doubt the people are being worked.

I am sure that somewhere on the far right, there is actually someone who is offended.

But the point is to get Obama as far off message as possible.

Put him in a position where he is almost defending Palin and close to apologizing.

This fabrication worked.

Has anyone seen Karl Rove lately?

Chez said...

Atheistika --

Sorry, who can only read the same basic cue carded lines over and over and has drawn comparisons to Dan Quayle?

Yeah, I thought so.

Anonymous said...

"Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

Purposefully manipulating voters. When are people going to wake up. This man is just another politician.

Anonymous said...

What I uh, think, uh, they are uh, trying to say uh, when they say uh, the things they say uh, is that I'm uh, that is I can uh, when I have to uh, well I think we all know, uh, you aren't stupid, uh, I can give speeches, uh, and hey did I mention Oprah is my homegirl?

March said...

well taken votar, and I completely agree that Obama's green plan is overly optimistic. The power needs of the US can be answered with the cleaner nuclear and geo-thermal plants, so that isn't the problem (but building a wind corridor is because that won't solve the problem at all), it's really the infrastructure that's the problem. Superconducting power lines are just now being put into use (NY state being the first to use them). But unfortunately, the range of places they can be successfully implemented currently is small compared to the growing need. We're still quite a significant amount of time away from the R&D that will overhaul the infrastructure to something that is able to handle whatever may come in the near future. As it is, I'm pretty anti-green in the way Green is being done now. Hybrid cars really don't solve shit. They offset gas pump costs with terrible batteries (ex: Prius) that save the consumer no money over time, and add weight to the car. In my honest opinion, what should be done to curb low gas mileage is reducing the weight of the vehicle. Reducing a SUV's weight by 10% will increase it's gas mileage by just over 10%. Yet (and American cars are the worst at this), we are constantly increasing the weight of the car with useless "features" and bad engineering (we should be using more plastic and aluminum in cars that we currently are). Execution is the biggest problem with Obama, like Clinton before him, he was too idealistic (as your example of universal healthcare pointed out, which universal healthcare imo would actually be a mistake in the US imo), however, I will more than agree Clinton did an excellent job for the US as president.

Kurgan said...

V said :

Again, the green energy debate is not an example of Obama lying about a platform issue, this is an example of a potentially over-optimistic ideal that both candidates have enthusiastically espoused.

Absolutely. You underscore my point on campaign money.

Make no mistake though, neither party is pursuing alternative or green fuels to save the squirrels.

We are on the verge of creating another industry. There is more at stake than the space race. The first one there will make beau coup cash.

Of course, the law of unintedned consequences is that you will suck the wind out of some seriously wealthy folks who have already shown their disdain for us. I am sure they will be tickled when oil is at $10 a barrel again.

VOTAR said...

You see there, the rest of you? March and I just had what we grown-ups call a conversation. It doesn't address the original question I asked, but it was something other than ad hominem cliches from the neocon talkingpoint memo.

I agree march that the so-called "green" fad is exactly that, unfortunately, and it is being poorly implemented here in the states. I would put a significant part of the blame for that on the heads of those who stick their fingers in their ears and yell "la la la la" whenever we try to discuss even the possibility of the phenomenon of global warming (people like Sarah Palin)... but that is another conversation.

Automobiles and energy infrastructure are only part of the picture. I'm not sure how well known it is around here, but I'm an Architect. We've been developing "green" strategies since long before they were ever called "green" like it's some kind of label on a bar of soap. It's a vast, comprehensive issue. The use of materials, the orientation of buildings to maximize human comfort with minimal energy consumption, the design of whole communities that discourage the use of a car just to go buy a sandwich down the street, we've been studying these ideas -- and lobbying local governments to weave them into the building codes -- for decades. It's only recently that "going green" is seen as something more than being a stinky hippie living in a hut made out of recycled tires and bottlecaps.

To be fair, I've found it comforting that McCain has traditionally broken with his party and is brave enough to be honest and daring about this issue. If he's elected, any of his efforts in this one singular arena would not trouble me. Up until two weeks ago, however, he was a very different kind of politician than he seems to be now. So, in the balance, with both candidates approaching the issue in roughly the same way (with the exception of nuclear... and I'm not sure about you but I'm old enough to remember Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, so yes I'm understandably wary), I'm going with the man whose campaign has not been getting caught lying every single day for the last two weeks.

On your point we are in total agreement. :)

Anonymous said...

It's the congress that makes the law, not the president. S/he can only do so much with what they are given to work with.

The current situation of the country is the fault of the Democratic congress we currently have. That would also explain why Clinton's years seem to be remembered so fondly - we had a Republican congress....

March said...

Old enough to know Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, no, I'm 24. However, I'm a huge proponent of the nuclear industry as it is what I'll be studying to become (specifically I'll be going through schooling to become a nuclear reactor operator). I can understand your uneasiness with nuclear energy, but I can also assure you nothing like either of those will ever happen again.

Indulge me here for a second. I'll start with the worse of the 2 example you just gave. Chernobyl: Firstly, its the worst fucking design for a nuclear reactor, period. There's a reason that only the USSR ever built RBMK plants, because (quite literally) they were the only ones stupid enough to build them. Their containment design is almost completely non-existant; it is not a reactor vessel as much as it would be better to call it a "shell" to hold the fuel. The design is risky because it relies on voids in the reactor to work with it to make steam; voids that in all other reactor designs would be fatal, and every other reactor design has a multitude of sensors and whatnot to make sure a void doesn't exist (void meaning literally no water or steam). On top of that, the reactor operators in the plant weren't even nuclear operators, they were coal power plant operators. A lot of missteps, bad decisions, along with a poor design led to the disaster that is Chernobyl.

Now, Three Mile Island isn't a disaster at all. In truth, all that happened at TMI was a partial meltdown, and that part is completely contained and when TMI's other reactor will be decommissioned, the huge fund that is waiting for TMI to be decommissioned will cover the complete disposal of the plant and the melted-down reactor (and fyi, all nuclear plants have huge sums of money in banks to cover in full the cost their decommissioning, its part of the license to have an operating plant). I'm not sure how many people know this, but there was in fact a release of radiation that was made for the release of pressure (which the NRC didn't sanction that specific action because of all the bad decisions that led up to that one). The amount of radiation released was within the yearly limits of the plant, which of course they try to keep to a minimum, and the radioactive gas that was released has a half-life of 8 hours, which within 3 days it was no longer a threat to anything, and anyone that could have been affected by the gas was already evacuated.

MANY things have changed since TMI, in fact, a number of procedures, policies, and equipment have changed thanks to TMI. In a way, TMI was a good thing. Did you know that because of TMI no more than 5 controllers are allowed in the reactor control room at any given time, and that there are actually colored carpeted sides in which no more than 3 people are allowed on a side. Although it sounds a bit silly, its specifically to avoid the "too many hands in the cookie jar" problem that happened at TMI.

And nuclear reactors are among the cleanest power plants, even in terms of radiation. 1 1,000 MW coal power plant (basically, an average coal plant) releases more radiation into the air (in the form of U-235) in 1 year than all the operational nuclear power plants in the US combined are allowed to in 1 year? I could spew a bunch of other different stats, but basically, I'm gunho about nuclear for a number of reasons, and its side effects are very small. Only Geo-thermal plants do a eco-friendlier job than nuclear plants, and geo-thermal plants still need to do their maturity yet (it is quite an exciting time for geo-thermal).

Anonymous said...

LMFAO! That's just awesome! I could almost see Obama saying that if it weren't for network censorship.

Anonymous said...

Man...you shut the hell up ... why the hell didn't you select clinton?
Who was the idiot that told you to select Biden?

I hope you win but if you don't you brought this on yourself ... brother

Anonymous said...

What a lame post! Considering that Obama has absolutely no previous experience with economics, how could you claim he would be able to fix anything. Considering that he selected Joe Biden, an old white dude for VP, he really doen't know what he's doing, let alone be able to fix the economy.

Damned Socialist! If a community organizer can run for president and claim to be qualified, than I should be elected emperor of the world.

Damn you extreme lefties! You're killing us moderates.