The Love of Christ everyone. A continuing shinning example of why I hate the faith. Treat others as you'd have others treat you. Anyhow, I agree, no need for a ban, at least yet, though that is a new low, but in line with the rest of the Trump supporters. It again, just shows how evil and vile the faith is, because that's what they actually think Christ would act like, do and say, and have zero conviction in their heart otherwise. The modern right is the biggest reason cited why people leave the faith or are turned off by the faith, so the more Trump supporters dig in, the more and more people will leave the faith. Hopefully they'll turn to reason, or Paganism, anything but stick to a faith where they are happy at the death of a man who served his nation far better than the man they praise. As to Bob himself, I don't know if he's just a troll or what, my issue has never been with him, but the faith he represents. I am surrounded by people like him at home and work, and it isn't the people, it's their faith... sort of like how they say of the gays, "love the sinner hate the sin", I just hate everything about them, but I'm sure they are just fine people otherwise.

While I didn't like McCain, I at least respected his service. I respect the fact that he REFUSED to leave the POW camp when it was offered to him because there were others there before him, and he'd go on for another four plus years more of torture because of his refusal. He could have left the service long before he was even shot down, as he was injured on the deck of his ship when he was accidentally shot by another plane on the deck, an indecent that killed 134 other sailors and injured 161 others, himself included... of course many on the far right blame him for somehow being shot in that case and say he caused the deaths... As bad as he was on his political philosophy and the whole Palin thing (which I agree with what was pointed out already, was an attempt to lure the far right and women voters, and it worked on the far right, he probably wouldn't have got nearly as many votes as he did without her, because the narrative had already shifted far right on Fox and talk radio), he at least served and didn't dodge service because of a bone spur.

And this video just goes to show how gullible people are, "he's a Muslim" and he has to refute it. He has to keep saying how good Obama is as a man, and how true to himself he is, but they boo him. They are so wrapped up in the Fox and talk radio narrative, and their little social media bubbles, they don't know how to vet things they see and hear... they may do a quick Google search, not realizing that Google changes its search results to match what you'll find most agreeable... and then even if they do see a link they disagree with, they'll ignore it, find ones they like and coddle their bias.... I should know, I was among them for far too long. Up until basically this 2008 election, where I moved from Republican to supporting Paul, to supporting Obama, then loosing my faith shortly after the election because of the far right's actions...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, April 14th, 2016 9:34pm PDT - promote requested by notarobot.

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

Adding video to channels (Conspiracy, Controversy, Election, Law, Politics) - requested by notarobot.

Why aren't there channels? *election, *controversy, *Conspiracy, *politics, *law, *promote *related=http://videosift.com/video/Diebold-Accidentally-Leaks-Results-Of-2008-Election-Early

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Diebold-Accidentally-Leaks-Results-Of-2008-Election-Early

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Diebold-Accidentally-Leaks-Results-Of-2008-Election-Early

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

I'd still like to understand how you believe diplomacy to be a more workable solution. If diplomacy is to be the solution to extremism in Pakistan, I presume you look to the moderate leaders in Pakistan for the answers? When I go through the list of such leaders, a disturbing trend is observable.

Shahbaz Bhatti was an elected member of the National Assembly lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated on March 2, 2011.

Salman Taseer was a governor in Pakistan, lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards on January 4, 2011.

Benazir Bhutto, the nations first female Prime Minister had returned after being chased off by the nations military to run in the 2008 elections. She was assassinated on December 27, 2007.

This list is just highlights, countless more moderate leaders keep ending up dead in Pakistan. Meanwhile, elected figures like those from parties like the JUI-F survive, and give speeches in Pakistan's National Assembly declaring Osama Bin Laden an Islamic hero, and the assassins that killed those in the prior list as heroes as well.

I don't mean to be rude about it, but I just don't understand why you believe that diplomacy alone can be expected to succeed in such circumstances?

While not the greatest fan of your steady fare of human foible and suffering, or the abundant cute-overlord, we appreciate the energy and sincerity of your work. We especially appreciate, and personally applaud your taking the reigns from that zealous patriot of politics-at-large and NPR junkie, your hubster, NetRunner, who was about to induce embolism through steady threat of perfusion leading up to and during, the 2008 Election.

How is ol' NetRunner these days?? We get the impression the fire is but an ember or burning brightly elsewhere..


☣ Peace and Love from a nemesis and fellow traveler, choggie/chingalera ☣

Day in 100 seconds was always a fun clip during the 2008 election. Looking forward to more.

Once again because of shitty media, I can't take any sides. The interview was just noise. Neither side makes their case well. The only argument I can make is that once again, there is this ridiculous notion that this supposed bombshell was just missed during the 2008 election and just magically is discovered coincidentally before another election. It just reeks of desperation. In addition it's nothing that dramatically bad. There is no smoking gun. When push comes to shove, the argument is "Obama will give preferential treatment to blacks" not exactly a bombshell.

You can tell a man by the company he keeps. If the left is going to brand Ron Paul a "racist" for things he didn't write in newsletters bearing his name 30 years ago, then King Obama introducing another kook to the podium is more than fair game.

I also find it funny. Conservatives get so angry when the left "plays the race card" but its ok when Conservatives play it?

It's not racist to shine the light of truth on Obama's well-hidden-by-the-non-FOX-media history.

I don't see the point anyway. As if conservatives need any sort of evidence or logic. They're going to hate Obama regardless of what he does.

Here's where we kind of agree, at least as far as there being no need to excessively castigate Obama on his shady history when we have his nearly 4 year RECORD OF FAILURE staring us in the face. If the fakeservatives lose it will be for this reason.

once again because of shitty media, I can't take any sides. The interview was just noise. Neither side makes their case well. The only argument I can make is that once again, there is this ridiculous notion that this supposed bombshell was just missed during the 2008 election and just magically is discovered coincidentally before another election. It just reeks of desperation. In addition it's nothing that dramatically bad. There is no smoking gun. When push comes to shove, the argument is "Obama will give preferential treatment to blacks" not exactly a bombshell.

I also find it funny. Conservatives get so angry when the left "plays the race card" but its ok when Conservatives play it?

I don't see the point anyway. As if conservatives need any sort of evidence or logic. They're going to hate Obama regardless of what he does.

The movie Armageddon could be real and Obama could be Harry Stamper and save the entire world and they'd still find a way to hate him.

Why even Ron Paul?

Sure I agree with him on foreign policy and social issues, but everything else he's a complete lunatic and/or amoral.

What's that? I knowingly sold you something that was harmful? too fucking bad.

For a long time I thought if I had to vote for a Republican, I could vote for him. I can't say that anymore. They're *all* lunatics this year.

There was once a time I could have supported McCain, but you certainly couldn't say that during the 2008 election. They're all doubling down on crazy. Moderate Republicans are an endangered species. It's like they honestly didn't learn their lesson with Palin and it's like they're intentionally trying to lose. Buddy Roemer was amazing on Bill Maher a few weeks ago but even he has given up on trying to steer the Republicans more moderate.

Fuck this two party system...may it burn in hell.

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

Important point, this is from the 2008 election; just perusing comments and realized this.