“Americans will remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday.” - George Carlin

Jim at 12:56am October 29 - He’s only slightly less liberal that Barack.

Don at 1:04am October 29 - Pity vote?

Jim at 1:15am October 29 - He looks like those other guys on the dollar bill and he doesn’t have a funny name?
http://travisstoliker.com/blog/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=151
Travis Stoliker at 1:15am October 29 - Don, I don’t think it’s going to be pity because I think McCain is going to win.

Don at 1:19am October 29 - Travis, you are right. just not in Michigan

Jim at 1:19am October 29 - I also think McCain’s going to win. There are still plenty of people out there that disagree with his politics, but won’t vote for Obama because of his race. That shouldn’t be an issue, but some people will never change. They will show strong support in public, but will change their vote in the privacy of the polling booth.

Travis Stoliker at 1:21am October 29 - I hate the electoral college sooo much Jim, The race dynamic is so sad. I have to credit both of the candidates though, neither of them really made race and issue and that was fucking awesome IMO.

Jim at 1:26am October 29 - It never should be about race or gender. My concern is whether their politics are somewhat closely aligned to my beliefs. They can be a funny shade of mauve for all I care. As for the electoral college, it still gives the states with smaller populations a voice in the elections. It’s not perfect, but without the e.c., Alaska wouldn’t make a difference.

Don at 1:32am October 29 - ok, if the EC is about small states having a say, don’t you think the election should actually be about the -people- having a direct say, (you know, like voting), and not just their states? The idea of the EC probably made great sense with only 13 states/commonwealths, but with 45% of people’s votes in some states being converted to votes for the other candidate through their elector(s), far more individual voters are being disenfranchised than caring about some uninhabited territories would make it worth.

Travis Stoliker at 1:36am October 29 - I also fundamentally think it’s sort of odd that the electoral voters are not required to cast their vote in accordance with the popular vote outcome of their state. I know most of them do and some states have laws that require it, but not all do, and it’s not a federal law. That’s just odd to me. It’s like the government saying through policy - “citizens, have your play vote, but if you fuck up, we know better”

Jim at 1:53am October 29 - I never did understand why all the states don’t require the e.c. to adhere to the popular vote. It’s that elitist attitude on both sides that says “you can’t be trusted to make the right decision”. Sorta like the superdelegates from the DNC. After the whole Wallace thing, it was obvious that the average voter couldn’t possibly be allowed to piss away the Whitehouse again.

Clint at 7:15am October 29 - I suppose the electoral college vs. popular vote thing could come in handy if, say, all the paperless voting machines in Pennsylvania report that Robocop wins but the popular vote without them has a real candidate winning.

Jason at 8:15am October 29 - In an election with two of the weakest candidates ever to make it this far: McCain is what Democrats used to be and Obama is obviously a Marxist. Voting for either one feels wrong. I believe Obama will win with more votes than actual voters as we creep towards third world status. So, vote your conscience.

Dirk at 8:46am October 29 - I’m writing in “No Confidence”

Joe at 9:20am October 29 - nader, nader, nader.

Dirk at 10:20am October 29 - “In sum, Obama may very well give Joe the Plumber a tax break, but only if Joe does not become too successful. Obama is offering real tax favors for the middle class, but not real benefits for the economy.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102802955.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Pretty clear to me…

Travis Stoliker at 7:15pm October 29 - Clint, Robo cop wouldn’t be half bad. Murphy was the shit!

Travis Stoliker at 7:16pm October 29 - Joe, if I was voting for a third party, it would most likely be the libertarian candidate Bob Barr (although his previous stances were rather horrible, I agree mostly with libertarianism.) Nader is an awesome individual though.

Travis Stoliker at 7:44pm October 29 - Dirk, Damn, we had to talk about Joe the plumber. Instead of saying “joe the plumber” lets say “you and I” since I assume we are both in his same tax bracket. “Obama’s tax plan gives you and I a tax break and if we are fortunate enough to become extremely successful in our own businesses, we’ll be taxed higher” - Okay, that seems pretty logical to me actually. Additionally, this is one of the principles of our progressive tax structure it is NOT unique to Obama. (of which McCain is in favor of also and continues in his policies).

As for the “no real benefits for the economy part” — In this progressive tax scenario we both are well aware that we would be paying a higher tax rate on income above a certain level. My question to you is would the progressive tax on your additional profits cause you to NOT seek the additional profits (ie: work harder, start your own business)? Of course it wouldn’t.

Travis Stoliker at 7:57pm October 29 - Jason, thanks for responding. I was really hoping for reasons to vote for McCain, not reasons to hate Obama.

The assertion that Obama is a Marxist can not be backed up when you compare each’s economic plans. You’re basing your characterization of him on who he hangs out with, an interview in 2001 and him saying “spread the wealth around” to that Joe the plumber dude.

I’m not comfortable judging someone based off a few words and the actions of their friends.

Sadly, when you name call someone and label them, the claim is it’s own truth. It is impossible to prove a negative. What I mean to say is, once you call someone a marxist, all they can say is “No, I’m not”. Just like once you call someone a racist, all you can say is “No, I’m not.” Neat tactic.

I disagree that these are weak candidates. I think McCain was an extremely strong candidate in 2000 and I certainly would have voted for him if he held those same beliefs. I also find Obama highly qualified for many reason

Travis Stoliker at 8:06pm October 29 - Thank you every one for trying to help me. I am still looking for reasons to vote for McCain, not so much reasons to hate Obama.

Look, I hate taxes as much as the next guy. But if you’re going to tell me how McCain’s going to cut taxes, also tell me what programs he’s cutting and how he’s planning to balance the budget.

As a follow up to my post on Not In Our Name I put together a short video that I shot at the peace protest in Lansing on February 15, 2003.

I decided to post this because many people, including one of my college professors, wrongly think that everyone believed the lie’s that lead to the war in Iraq. I had to argue quite ferociously (classmates were yelling “hippy” at me) with my professor and even had to provide him evidence before he believed the protest actually took place. He apologized after.

I don’t fault him completely since almost zero news organizations covered the rally’s. Quite sad. A true failure of the fourth estate.

We believe that as people living
in the United States it is our
responsibility to resist the injustices
done by our government,
in our names.
Not in our name
will you wage endless war.
Another world is possible
and we pledge to make it real.

This statement was published as a full page advertisement in several nationally recognized publications including the New York Times. The background of the advertisement was an impressive list of signatories that agreed with the statement. Among the names are Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, John Cusack, Spike Lee, Jim McDermott, U.S. representative Cynthia McKinney, U.S. representative David McReynolds, Gloria Steinem, Oliver Stone, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, Cornel West, Howard Zinn… and many more including myself.* Thousands of people signed this statement opposing a U.S. war of aggression against Iraq before July 17, 2002.

On February 15, 2003 a coordinated peace protest was held in 800 cities around the world to oppose the imminent invasion of Iraq. BBC News reported that between six to ten million people took part in the protest. Protests were held in cities all over the globe. In Lansing, 3,000 of us joined together to march from Beaumont Tower to the Capital.

Now we are several years into the war, most people agree that the invasion was a failure predicated on distortions of truth.

I hear often in this political season that we should forget the reasons we went to war and only focus on “where we are now”. I say, Bullshit! It is irresponsible for us to ignore the lessons of history. “Moving on and getting over it” might be a satisfactory remedy for a relationship, but it is not an acceptable reaction to a complete failure of policy that resulted in the death of thousands of people.

The people who participated in NION and Feb2003, were correct.
The people that supported war, were wrong.

We can only hope to learn from our actions.

“LET IT NOT BE SAID that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression……

LET US NOT ALLOW the watching world today to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.”

“Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.”

“Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.”

“Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.”

“Sec. 315. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations.” (Nice one for the casinos)

“Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.”

“Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.”

“SEC. 211. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS.” A tax break for companies that provide bicycles for employee commutes.

“Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.”

Some other key points from Eric and the CEO of GE. — The energy tax credits worked! - And it would again!

Jeffrey Immelt the CEO of GE and Eric Schmidt the CEO of Google talk about Electricity 2.0 and the reality that the energy crisis is 100% solvable.

Eric Schmidt at Corporate Eco Forum

Abandon all of your previous conceptions about what is possible in energy. The game has changed.

Increasing taxation is wrong. Increasing taxes on corporations hurts growth and the cost is ultimately paid by the consumer. I agree with all of this. I, and I believe many liberals (for lack of a better word), do not disagree with the republican party on this issue.

My disagreement with the republican party’s financial policy isn’t that I disagree with lowering taxes. Of course I want lower taxes. But the question is - what government programs are you willing to cut to do it?

To illustrate my point lets look at three aspects of our financial reality:
1. Our national debt is now over $10 Trillion dollars.

3. Our top general fund expense is Defense* (including Iraq.)

The reason I disagree with the republican financial policy is because it reminds me of a drunken gambler or a teenager with a credit card. They believe risking more money that they don’t have, will somehow payoff their previous losses.

Despite the fact that we have no money and are paying huge amounts of interest on our debt, McCain’s plan calls for cutting taxes even further. McCain’s plan reduces taxes by $4.2 trillion from 2009-2018. (To be fair, Obama’s plan calls for a $2.9 trillion reduction. Also unwise.)

“TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion.”

I disagree with leveraging additional debt without ANY plan for an equal number of cuts in government spending or increased revenue. I find it incredibly irresponsible for republican’s (or any individual) to assume additional debt without a plan for balancing the budget.

Defense Spending: Why isn’t Iraq discussed as a partial factor in the financial crisis? As we’ve discussed, the United States doesn’t have any money. So what’s our mistake-in-Iraq’s portion of the national debt? Since 2003 we have spent $845 billion in Iraq and the overall cost is expected to reach $2-4Trillion. McCain and the republicans (and many democrats) continually increase the funding for a war of aggression that was based on lies. Spending money that they do not have. Mortgaging our future. All the while lowering taxes. How is this responsible?

I currently find myself to be a libertarian that believes in small government and low taxation. McCain’s tax plan should be right up my alley. But it is not because I value sound monetary policy and a balanced budget first and foremost.

*I have generalized this statement a bit. It is true that the bulk of our taxes go to social programs but Social Security is reported as a separate account/fund than the federal budget. I certainly agree that these programs have serious cost excesses and need to be dealt with swiftly. However, these cost cuts need to be handled in the context reforming and cutting costs of each program based on results. The answer is not blindly cutting taxes, increasing debt and disregarding the budgetary constraints as the republican’s seem to believe.

I encourage you to share your feelings but don’t call me a democrat