http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvohYMgp0oo

If he wants to be taken seriously about not being in the pocket of Obama, he should probably be a little less obvious about it with his huge blue CHANGE across the screen over and over again.

You're absolutely right , of course.
We shouldn't pay any attention to the
truth of what mr. Lessig is saying,
nor should we address the points he is making, that would be crass.

We should attack the messenger, obviously.

Isn't that what McCain supporters do
when they don't have any real counterpoint
to offer ?

I'm not a McCain supporter, Im just pointing out his obvious partisanship and one-sided view in the face of him claiming that he isnt in the pocket of Obama.

" I'm not a McCain supporter, Im just pointing out his obvious partisanship and one-sided view in the face of him claiming that he isnt in the pocket of Obama. "

Like I said.
It is much easier to attack the messenger
than to address the statements and the
points he is making.

Is there something about the issue he
is speaking about you would care to
address specifically ?
Is there something he is saying that
you feel is particularly untrue that
you would like to counterpoint ?

If there is, maybe we can discuss the
ISSUE.

I'm just pointing out that those who
are particularly against obama never
seem to discuss the issues at hand,
preferring to attack the messenger.

Now, back to the issue ... anything
Lessig say that you particularly disagree
with ?

See, here's the deal.

I LIKE to think that most of us here are
smarter than the average bear.

Because of that, I think we can avoid
doing the same old crap that lamescream
media does day in and day out.

Attack the messenger, never the message.

It SHOULD be possible to have a rational
discussion of actual issues without
resorting to crap like .. "he's in
so and so's pocket, LIBS .. blah blah
etc.

Most of the time , we do this, and do it
well, to the pint where the ENEMY has
personally visited us here, and not been
roasted with profanity.

I am voting for Obama, that's probably
been pretty clear, therefore . YES, I am
'biased' towards him, but bias cannot
erase facts. If you have any dispute
with an ISSUE, all I ask is that we
discuss the facts of the ISSUE. You
will find that much more rewarding and
EFFECTIVE.

Speaking for myself, the moment
someone starts using those ad hominem
phrases we all know and love, I no longer
give that poster any credibility. All
I hear from that point on is

WHAAAARGAARBL !! ( stolen from Fark.com.

Let's discuss issues.

I found that interview with Pastor Rick Warren talking with Obama and McCain very helpful. Did anyone else catch that on CNN?

I think Obama came across as rather hesitant in a lot of key issues, while McCain just sailed through.

I think, for now at least, that interview may have been a turning point for McCain. I am surprised at just how serious the media took it considering they kept quoting it as a "religious" forum, which of course it wasn't. They, as Christians, were discussing moral attitudes, thats all.

Im also thinking that Obama may bring in Hilary as his running mate. I think he needs her. We'll see.

Yeah, as I've said before, barring any major setback for McSame, Obama may likely lose without having Hillary as his veep.
I expect he knows that, but I wonder if he'll act on it accordingly. If he doesn't, I'll be mystified.

I won't vote for an Obama/Hillary Ticket.
It'll be third party for me again.

Hillary as VP would be a guaranteed McCain victory.

Huh? How do you figure that?

"I think Obama came across as rather hesitant in a lot of key issues, while McCain just sailed through."

Yeah, John did better than I would have thought. He couldn't have done much better even if he had known the questions and topics beforehand.

[The following is a report one commentator filed, but I can't locate the source right now]

This is an excerpt from the transcript of the interview with McCain:

MCCAIN: "Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices?"

Strangely, at this point, McCain had not talked at all about Supreme Court justices with Warren. That topic had only been raised with Obama.


[So, if the above information is correct, it appears there may a good reason why McCain was able answer the questions rather smoothly. Otherwise, I would not have expected him to respond to some of those challenging issues "off the cuff" as well as he did. They may not have been off the cuff to him at all!]

Perhaps Karl Rove's protege is serving John McCain's interests even better than expected. Karl Rove is known as a master of dirty tricks, and somehow he managed to dodge and circumvent accountability. I would expect one his "students" to be pretty good at it too.

(I'm referring to Steve Schmidt, an unapologetically ruthless veteran of the 2004 Bush campaign.
The information which follows is from the Boston Globe, reported 8/22/08.)

John McCain's public appearances been more ambitiously conceived and staged . . .

Charlie Black, a McCain strategist, agrees. The candidate and surrogates have been given instructions not only what to say, but also what not to do and say each day, according to a campaign adviser.

And Roy Fletcher, who served as McCain's deputy campaign manager in 2000, had this to say of Schmidt: "I know Schmidt's got a rule that you do positive and negative at the same time. But I haven't seen much of the positive."


[That's okay, Roy; your observation matches what most of the rest of us have noticed as well. Nor would we have expected better, knowing who trained him.
All the more reason to say McSame or McBush in reference to the Republican nominee.]

I actually thought that even though they were being asked questions live, these should have been relatively easy for them to answer and quickly. Example, To the faith based Christian, pro life is a no brainer.

Stem cell research is vital and of course he hates the idea of taking them from fetuses. There is the hope that one day they would find better ways of gathering these cells, and they are working on better ideas.

I don't believe it means that McCain would go off the deep end and end abortion. He'd still be working for the people, at least that would be the hope. Leaders have to make tough choices, many times going against personal belief.
I wish it didn't have to be that way, but it's a complicated world.

" Huh? How do you figure that? "

How do you figure Hillary on the ticket
will help him ?

I don't always concur with what Ralph Nader says, but his recent comments on that very issue did make good sense.
Should I post a link for that? (I can.)
And I'll contribute more information later; this is all the time I have on break for now.

Hillary and Obama? Perhaps just for a popular historical factor it would be awesome....not the greatest factor for choosing the leader of a country I imagine. But dumber things have happened.

Tim Kaine...who would have thunk....

" Hillary and Obama? Perhaps just for a popular historical factor it would be awesome "

I personally don't think someone who
got caught just outright lying so many
times during her own campaign is an
appropriate running mate. There ARE
other women who would be far better
choices, men too. Merit, not gender
or anything else should be the factor
of choice. Choosing Hillary would just
APPEAR to be an attempt to appease the
huge misandrist following she has.

Re: Tim Kaine . . .
This may or may not be Obama's best choice, though he would like to have Virginia's electoral votes.

Thank you all for that interesting discussion about Lessig's assessment of McCain's technological position.

"I think Obama came across as rather hesitant in a lot of key issues, while McCain just sailed through."

Right up to, "How many houses do you own?"

"To the faith based Christian, pro life is a no brainer."

That's why they're so pro-war. Don't even try to explain that one. Just continue to put emphasis on "no-brainer."

-----------

I just deleted two paragraphs that I typed before rationality set back in. I cannot participate in political discussions because you won't change my mind and I'm not particularly interested in changing yours.

" Thank you all for that interesting discussion about Lessig's assessment of McCain's technological position. "

My sarcasm meter actually exploded.
Sucks cause they're so damn expensive.

I really DID try to put the thread
back on track. But , for reasons I
am obviously too dumb to get, NO ONE
wishes to stay on an issue when it
comes to political discussion.

It almost always turns to political
distraction. Its a shame because this
IS a pretty important issue, and I
pretty much see things the same way
as Mr. Lessig. The one person who
seemd to disagree with him never did
come back to specify and discuss why.

" I cannot participate in political discussions because you won't change my mind and I'm not particularly interested in changing yours. "

Likewise.

Here's the important sequence, just for the perspective:

Dreddsnik
Date: August 21, 2008 @ 3:09 AM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Let's discuss issues.


[the very next post:]
pepe512000
Date: August 21, 2008 @ 1:01 PM
I found that interview with Pastor Rick Warren talking with Obama and McCain very helpful. Did anyone else catch that on CNN?


[After that, I picked up the ball and ran with it, posting more stuff than anyone, I'll admit.]

Class dismissed.

I listened to the audio stream. McCain is likely to continue favoring the support of the large internet isp corporations to the tune of billions, without increasing competition . . . and this is how he and GWB have been inclined for years now.

Obama is no miracle maker, but it is time for a change. Otherwise, expect more of the same (and I understand some people, AND corporations, would be quite content with more of the same).

" Obama is no miracle maker, but it is time for a change. "

True.
And it is also true he hasn't said a whole
lot on this issue.

But, we already know where we've been
and where McCain IS going to go on this.

I'll gamble on Obama on this.
Yup, the Telecom thing was disappointing,
but as I said to to shmoo, you have to
give a little to get a little. It's the nature
of the beast. Perhaps that little 'give'
will give Obama some positive leverage.

" Dreddsnik
Date: August 21, 2008 @ 3:09 AM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Let's discuss issues. "

I should have been more specific, I
MEANT to discuss the thread issue
I take some of the blame for not
being more specific. I earned George's
contempt on that.

"John McCain Will Pursue Protection Of Intellectual Property Around The Globe."
(That's a sub-headline about what John McCain proposes as part of his platform.)
And that, right there, is enough to make CodeWarrior barf.

McCain's plan would ultimately tend to stifle technological competition, which indirectly works to the detriment of citizens, while it fills the coffers of the big boys in business.
And his platform to promote more broadband is a policy to the liking of the fat-cat corporations, because the government would grant them generous subsidies.

Bottom line: Lessig seems just about on track with his informal assessment/criticism of McCain's platform.

~~~That's why they're so pro-war. Don't even try to explain that one. Just continue to put emphasis on "no-brainer."~~~

Well, way off the topic now...Being Christian doesn't mean one is a door mat...you have to do whqt you have to do..as I said, it's a complicated world. Remember, at the time America went to war in the first place, EVERYONE agreed to it.

"Remember, at the time America went to war in the first place, EVERYONE agreed to it."

Afghanistan — yes.

Iraq — no, a few like Obama didn't.

OK, I will comment on the issues in the Lessig video, and not other issues. Network neutrality is a loaded phrase. While we want net neutrality, do we want a new government bureau of net neutrality and more onerous reporting requirements on business to get net neutrality? I do not. I like watching an occasional TV show and/or YouTube, and I would hate to see that get shunted to slower pipes. As online television becomes increasingly popular, I believe that customers will become more aware of the issue and make it very unpopular for telecoms to do any major filtering of content. If that does not happen and it does become a problem, we can always regulate. But it seems to me that we shouldn't legislate unless the problem becomes much bigger than it is. And even then, companies might find ways around the legislation -- just as anti-spam laws did not end spam. We need to be realistic about what the government is really capable of achieving. Often, not very much. I, like Lessig, favor net neutrality, but so far I do not think infringements in this area warrant the kind of legislation I've heard talked about. It's something to watch.

Broadband penetration is another issue. It is true that other countries have better service at less cost. We do need more competition in this area. That's something the GOP ought to promote, but apparently it has not. So I'll give Lessig a point on this issue. How is it done in Japan or Korea? Is the ISP a public utility, i.e. a monopoly? Is that what we want here? I am not against public utilities -- my dad's home town has its own city power and telephone utility, and it seems to have worked well for them. I'm not sure it would work universally well in all locations, but I suppose it could be considered.

" I believe that customers will become more aware of the issue and make it very unpopular for telecoms to do any major filtering of content. "

It will only be unpopular if the customer
FINDS OUT about it.
Comcast already got caught doing it
( It took a LOT of evidence to get them
to finally ADMIT to blocking certain
protocols .. ones that a lot of LEGAL
content gets transmitted with ).
I see the FCC ready to step in, but not
a mass customer upheaval .. simply
because the same major corps don't
give it a lot of mainstream noise. It's
against THEIR interests to let the
customer know too much.
There's already been incidents of
content censorshit ( sic ) .. ATT/Pearl
Jam etc ..that dully outline the NEED to
make such practices ILLEGAL.
I DO think infringements so far warrant
legislation, or it will only get worse, and
we simply won't be allowed to hear
about it.

Okay, Obama picked Biden for VP.

Once again, the only reasonable candidate remaining is Dave Barry, who I voted for in 2000 and 2004 and cannot possibly have avoided turning out to be a better president than Bush was.

He also plays in a rock band.

"How do you figure Hillary on the ticket
would help him?"

I never did get back with you about that.
A news update, below, gives a good clue.

"A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Sunday night showed that Obama's lead over McCain has evaporated. Forty-seven percent of those questioned are backing Obama, with an equal amount supporting McCain.

Taken after Biden's selection, the poll showed that the number of Clinton Democrats who said they would vote for McCain increased 11 points since June, enough to account for most of the support McCain gained."

Regarding: " ... cannot possibly have avoided turning out to be a better president than Bush . . ."

[broad smile]
neat choice of words there, George

Never paid any attention to polls.
A poll can be created to reflect any
data the poll sponsor wishes.

There are also polls that show Obama
gains.

The only poll that matters is the one
in November.

Besides. That's not an answer.
Hil on the ticket is good cuz a Poll
says so ?

Sorry, but as I said, someone who
got caught in that many lies during
the PRIMARY wold only be a liability
as a VP candidate, no matter what
the 'polls' say.

Polls can be clues, as I said, but the main reason is that a portion of Hillary supporters (and they were legion in number) might not vote at all (or they may turn traitor and go for McCain, since having him as President would give HRC the best shot at a run in 2012).
That prospect is despicable, but it can mean a big difference come November.

Who knows how many of Hillary's supporters it will take to become non-voters or be turncoat and thus trip up Obama? Not a large percentage, since there are millions of HRC sympathizers overall.
The point being that having her on the ticket could very well have averted a crucial number of them doing that.

Remember the polls back when Bush and Gore were neck and neck? 50/50 The country was so divided right down the middle, it took them awhile to figure who actually won. There are still those that figure Gore had been robbed.

Hope that's not going to be the case this time around.

" Who knows how many of Hillary's supporters it will take to become non-voters or be turncoat and thus trip up Obama? "

And who knows how many who normally
vote third party, that are voting Obama,
would go BACK to voting third party
with Hillary as the VP choice, also
tripping up Obama and handing it to
McCain. Also not a percentage to
ignore.

Having a proven liar as your VP pick
is NEVER a good idea.

The distinguishing feature among politicians is
those who have already been proven liars
and those who have not.

(the latter likely being in the minority)