Software Spots Spin In Political Speeches

T.S. Ackerman writes "According to an article in NewScientist Tech, there is now software that can identify the amount of spin in a politician or candidate's speech. From the article, 'Blink and you would have missed it. The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second. But to Paul Ekman it was glaringly obvious. "Given that he probably feels jilted that his wife Hillary didn't get the nomination, I would have to say that the entire speech was actually given very gracefully," says Ekman, who has studied people's facial expressions and how they relate to what they are thinking for over 40 years.' The article goes on to analyze the amount of spin in each of the candidates running for president, and the results are that Obama spins the most."

Comments

Maybe

[antifoidulus]

he was just ripping some ass as the speech started, you know, to take the edge off.

Re:Maybe

[letxa2000]

... and the results are that Obama spins the most.

"I need some machine to tell me that?" War Games

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second.

Or maybe, as is FAR more likely, people just see what they want to, because it fits the narrative they so desperately need to create.

I mean, if we can't live in a world where all the corruption, fraud, and treason Republicans commit is actually the fault of Democrats... reality itself might unravel!

Only YOU (and Bush/McCain) can prevent the "Reality Based Community" from taking over!

Re:Maybe

[solidsnake12981]

But theres a difference between spinning and lying.

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

but the motivation is the same

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

But theres a difference between spinning and lying.

Do tell!

Re:Maybe

[Sj0]

Spinning tends to revolve around presenting the facts in a different light or using different words to elicit a different emotional reaction than the original. Spinning doesn't need to involve a lie at all. For example, one can say that the police action in Iraq is currently deterring islamic militants from attacking both soldiers and the civilian population. None of that is a lie, it's just a massive distortion of the truth(considering most of those islamic militants are iraqis trying to kill other muslims).

Re:Maybe

[letxa2000]

If the intent is to deceive, it's a lie. Spinning might not utter statements that are false, but the deceptive intention still makes it a lie.

Re:Maybe

[Sj0]

I always think of a lie as a false statement of fact made knowing it is untrue or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

Stating a true statement of fact stated in such a way as to alter the emotional impact of the statement isn't a lie, it's spin.

Malcom Gladwell poppycock

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You want to find out more about this kind of "thin slicing" of reality?

Check out Blink by Malcom Gladwell.

Never has so little been said so well for over 200 pages. Gladwell is the Barack Obama of the writing world.

Re:Malcom Gladwell poppycock

[oodaloop]

I was just thinking of that book. I think it was actually quite useful. As a member of the intelligence community, I see many implications of thin-slicing and other things in his book to what we do. I think they're right in the article, too, that we're going to be seeing a lot more of this.

Re:Malcom Gladwell poppycock

[Reality Master 201]

Gladwell is the Barack Obama of the writing world.

That IS a bad analogy.

Re:Malcom Gladwell poppycock

[gambino21]

Totally agree with you about Malcom Gladwell. I didn't read Blink, but I read some of The Tipping Point. I also saw him give a presentation. He's a great speaker in terms of being entertaining and engaging, unfortunately if you actually listen to the content of what he's saying it's garbage.

Re:Malcom Gladwell poppycock

[Ihmhi]

I know slashdotters tend to think highly of themselves, but just because we have a higher average I.Q. than most news sites doesn't make us an "intelligence community".

Re:Malcom Gladwell poppycock

[ScreamingCactus]

I think he means he works for the CIA. Didn't anyone ever teach him the first two rules of being a spy?

Re:Malcom Gladwell poppycock

[treeves]

No...it's spin!

Re:Malcom Gladwell poppycock

[Ihmhi]

I say, good sir, "Woosh".

Subject

[Legion303]

Perhaps I missed it, so could someone kindly point out where the New "Scientist" article quantified "spin"? Thanks in advance.

Re:Subject

[Minwee]

It's defined in the customary way -- As anything which runs contrary to the listener's political views, or is said by someone whom they personally dislike.

The way the article describes it, this is just an algorithm which counts how closely the speaker's diction and delivery match those used by McCain and assigns a value for the McCaininess of the speech. Calling it "spin" is, well, an interesting spin.

Re:Subject

[morgan_greywolf]

"Spin" is just euphemism for 'lying' and/or 'exaggeration'. As someone who was once an avid poker player, I can tell you that everyone has little 'tells'. See the movie "Maverick" for information about tells. Even the best of the best bullshitters have tells. Another of Bill Clinton's tells is that he bites his lower lip when he's about to lie.

Re:Subject

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Software like this will be really useful, you can train yourself against it, killing any "little tells" along the way.

And become a complete, perfect lyer.

Then steal the nomination from Obama at the next democratic convention. "Yes I will make your policies work".

I can't even say it without laughing. Where's the download ?

Re:Subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Why has no one pointed out yet that the software in question is a complete hoax that doesn't do even the brain-dead text scanning they claim but depends entirely on its users to flag instances of "spin"?

I believe in freedom of speech and the right to sell a product, but it should be a criminal act to offer up a steaming pile like this for sale to the public.

Re:Subject

[flitty]

Pardon me if i'm speculating here, but Isn't this similar to saying that "people whose handwriting includes closed 'e' Loops and small 'o's means they are shy. A facial expression does not always mean what you think it means.
IF we were going only off facial expressions, John McCain's Smile in the middle of speeches means he's Spinning faster than a proton in the Hadron Collider.

Re:Subject

[thedonger]

Spin isn't lying so much as it is making something look good for you whether or not they really are. Good spin doesn't lie.

Example: Katrina was a disaster. Someone wanting to blame FEMA spins the story so FEMA is the bad guy. Someone else can tell the same story (same facts) and make the mayor of N.O. the bad guy. No one is lying so much as they are carefully ignoring certain facts and emphasizing others.

Re:Subject

[jpate]

The algorithm does seem to consist primarily of a bunch of intuitions that David Skillicorn (http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/) has had about what textual attributes correlate with spin. The fact that statistical counts over the speeches gave different results for different politicians/speech writers is not surprising: such counts are specific to individual authors and can be used, for example, to identify authorship in the Federalist Papers (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.9.7388). I'm very skeptical that Skillicorn has shown that these politicians are more or less prone to spin; more likely he's verified that they (and their speech writers) are, in fact, distinct people.

Re:Subject

[Rocketship Underpant]

If that's the case, I don't recall seeing either candidate utter a statement that *wasn't* a lie, misrepresentation, or extreme exaggeration. Softer that could hunt for and identify words or phrases that *weren't* spin might be more useful, statistically speaking.

Re:Subject

[cayenne8]

Actually I think this has all been solved with the definitive answer many years ago...

Know how to tell if a politician is lying?

He has his mouth open....

Re:Subject

[Shotgun]

FTA:

when a person "presents themselves or their content in a way that does not necessarily reflect what they know to be true".

Re:Subject

[morgan_greywolf]

Lying by omission is still lying.

Re:Subject

[Anonymous Coward]

The algorithm counts usage of first person nouns - "I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example. It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin. Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin.

Right there.

Re:Subject

[geminidomino]

Actually I think this has all been solved with the definitive answer many years ago...

Know how to tell if a politician is lying?

He has his mouth open....

That's not true at all. There is nothing more true to the soul of a politician than an act that requires an open mouth.

Of course, when the corporate overlord zips up and our beloved senator wipes his mouth, it's back to business as usual.

Re:Subject

[geminidomino]

So the definition they give for "spin" is actually spin of just saying "lies."

Metadefinitions FTW.

Re:Subject

[smussman]

Then aren't you always lying?
I mean, I know I can never tell anyone everything. I have a limited amount of time to inform someone about something, and so can't give them all the facts (ie, must not be telling certain things). Is this lying?

Re:Subject

[morgan_greywolf]

There's a difference between lying by omission and leaving out irrelevant facts. Granted, it's a very fine line.

Re:Subject

[Leebert]

No one is lying so much as they are carefully ignoring certain facts and emphasizing others.

A definition I was once given by my high school principal (and one that I myself now tell young people) is: "A lie is the intent to deceive."

When you frame it that way...

Re:Subject

[tbannist]

Lying by omission implies that you are leaving out pertinent facts to mislead your audience. Not that you are leaving out unrelated facts.

Re:Subject

[rtb61]

The catch with the analysis of spin is of course, cultural differences, in language usage and expressions. In addition a good speech writer and of course speech presenter are required to alter their language and presentation to suit different audiences. Language and expressions and well as the content of the message needs to be different for, blue collars workers than to a group of students and educators or a broad community group, whilst the intent might be be same, the content will vary for each group and the focus of the presentation will shift to those areas each group has greater interest in.

Now as to the interpretation of the level of spin, the baseline will be shifted to align with the professor cultural baseline, his choice of language and expressions as well as his political alignment, not necessarily consciously but it is inevitable that it will occur subconsciously.

The is only one way to detect and clear away spin, record the speech and fact check it for lies and when lies / spin is discovered publish it all over the internet. Attempting it any other way just doesn't make any real sense, especially without knowing any of the speech writers and their cultural biases.

Re:Subject

[Asic Eng]

They do wordcounts. Seriously:

The algorithm counts usage of first person nouns - "I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example. It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin. Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin. Skillicorn had his software tackle a database of 150 speeches from politicians involved in the 2008 US election race (see diagram).

Anyone here who believes that there is more to spin than using certain words? I understand that analyzing semantics is more difficult than just using "cut", "grep" and "wc" on a candidates speech text, but that's just pathetic. Seems a typical case of measuring something that's easy to measure, than claiming that was what you were looking for from the start.

Re:Subject

[letxa2000]

It's defined in the customary way -- As anything which runs contrary to the listener's political views, or is said by someone whom they personally dislike.

That's possible. And if we're cynical, we might even say it's probable.

But it's entirely possible that a very objective criteria was used based on known psychological information. Psychologists and others are very good at learning quite a few things about people by things that most of us don't know--at least not consciously... body language, speech inflections, eye contact, handwriting, etc.

I'm not at all an expert in this field but unless you have evidence that the algorithm was truly biased and based on the way McCain talks, I think it would behoove you to consider the possibility that just maybe the algorithm picked up on something about Obama that you hadn't picked up on yourself. At least consider the possibility before smearing the article/algorithm/etc.

Re:Subject

[aldousd666]

Facial Micro expression analysis is a science that long predate this years political campaign, and indeed predate the Bush administration. If you don't believe me, ask your friendly neighborhood spy hunter about it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression) I work with the intelligence community, and believe you me, it's a BIG deal, and it's not poppycock.

Re:Subject

[letxa2000]

Very true.

Politicians can avoid lying by admissions--and really sound a lot more convincing--if they at least mention in passing the facts they are admitting.

Example:

"The response to Katrina was all Bush's and FEMA's fault." -- Comes off very absurd because it ignores the failures of local government entirely.

"Although New Orleans and Louisiana's response to Katrina was inadequate, FEMA and Bush had some shortcomings as well." -- Comes off as significantly more honest, less polarizing, and lets us get to the issues and maybe even discuss them rationally.

Unfortunately, lying by omission is one of the most common lies of politicians. It's also extremely polarizing. Quite unfortunate.

Re:Subject

[letxa2000]

I believe in freedom of speech and the right to sell a product, but it should be a criminal act to offer up a steaming pile like this for sale to the public.

If offering up a steaming pile for sale to the public was criminal, the Democratic party would cease to exist.

:)

Re:Subject

[letxa2000]

I'd say that counting words like "hate" or "enemy" are bogus because they can greatly vary their meaning on context. If I say "You're my enemy" then that's negatively charged while if I say, "You're not my enemy" then it most definitely isn't.

I can see things like the I/we compariso and "go" and "going" to be possible indicators, though. And hopefully the folks that made this algorithm either had some training in psychology or speech analysis, or worked with someone who did. Otherwise it's just bogus.

The truth is, when candidates--especially presidential candidates--speak of what they're going to do, especially what we're going to do, I would agree it's usually spin. Or wishful thinking. There are very few things a president can really unilaterally decide to do. To promise most of the things presidential candidates promise is to take advantage of the dreams of their supporters since most of what they promise doesn't really depend on the president.

I wish presidential candidates would just state their position on the issues and maybe have some debates on the merits of those positions. Then let us decide. Because when anyone promises a bucketload of changes or policies or whatever, it's just nonsense. Tell us what you believe and let us decide if we want someone like you in the White House.

Re:Subject

[dubl-u]

The algorithm does seem to consist primarily of a bunch of intuitions that David Skillicorn has had about what textual attributes correlate with spin.

And I'll note here that Skillicorn is a computer scientist, not a cognitive scientist. If we're just talking about his intuitions, then I'm not seeing why I should trust his over anybody else's.

He seems to hang a lot on Obama's use of "we" instead of "I". It seems to me that heavy use of "we" is exactly how community organizers would talk. Not because they're spinning, but because they're trained to generate collective action.

And heck, that's what I like about him. After 9/11, a great national tragedy, I wanted to serve, to help, but George Bush told me to go shopping. It was a bit of a letdown. This election, I'm really excited that both McCain and Obama truly believe in public service. But I think Obama's much better at getting people to actually do it.

Re:Subject

[dubl-u]

It depends on whether you define a lie as a) a deliberately false set of words or b) a communication intended to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Both definitions are in the dictionary. Those who like to deceive favor the first definition, as they can deceive without getting called out for it. Those who have a commitment to clear understanding favor the second.

Using that second definition, which is the one I favor, spinning is just a fancy form of lying, in that deception and manipulation are still the goals.

Re:Subject

[PopeRatzo]

Know how to tell if a politician is lying?

On Monday, I was watching CNN while eating my lunch, and there was video of John McCain talking about the economy.

In the lower right hand corner, there was a little graphic showing real-time DOW and Nasdaq numbers. As McCain was saying that the "fundamentals are strong", the Dow was dropping by about 2 points per second. There was a big red arrow pointing down. It seemed to be providing a live evaluation of the senator's remarks.

To be fair, though, Senator McCain probably wasn't actually lying. After all, if you had a wife with a few hundred million dollars, it might seem like the economic picture was pretty fucking rosy.

Plus, since as Jonah Goldberg says, McCain is too disabled to use a computer or Blackberry, he might not have been able to see that the front pages of Barron's, The Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg were screaming "We're FUcked!!1!"

Re:Subject

[PopeRatzo]

See the movie "Maverick" for information about tells.

We can learn a lot about lying from another pair of "mavericks", too.

Re:Subject

[hey!]

The catch with the analysis of spin is of course, cultural differences

I've read one of Dr. Ekman's books, and one of the points of that research is that facial expressions are more cross-cultural than previously thought.

The thing that makes this tricky, in my opinion, isn't the difficulty of deciphering flickers of emotions in micro expressions (although that is as yet poorly scientifically attested). It's the cultural and personal differences in the conception of what things like "deceptiveness" and "lying" are.

Re:Subject

[Sj0]

Correction: Both political parties would cease to exist.

Remember when Bush ran on balancing the budget, reducing the size of government, and a humble foreign policy?

Let's see. Excluding the wars in Iraq and Afganistan(which are off the books), he's increased the budget(in 2008 dollars) by 777 billion dollars, twice the largest budget increase in history, Reagan at 350 billion dollars in 2008 dollars. He's increased the debt by 2,700 billion dollars(in 2008 dollars), more than Reagan, at 2,000 billion dollars (in 2008 dollars). He's declared war against a country that hasn't done anything to us, and wants to attack Iran and Syria next.

Yeah, Republicans and Democrats are both damned dirty liars. The only difference is that Democrats don't increase the federal budget and the federal debt as badly. Unfortunately, at no point since WWII have the Republicans had a platform consistent with their message. Eisenhower was a New Dealer, Nixon was an amoral jackass, Ford was a spendaholic, Reagan was an ignorant retard spendaholic debtaholic, Bush 1 was a Reaganite, and Bush 2 makes Reagan look like a fiscal conservative.

If the Dems weren't such dirty warmongers with their Wilsonian delusions, they'd be greatly superior to the Republicans in practical terms.

Re:Subject

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, it definitely predates the Bush administration.

Re:Subject

[xant]

this is just an algorithm which counts how closely the speaker's diction and delivery match those used by McCain and assigns a value for the McCaininess of the speech

Yep, exactly right. FTFA:

"I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example"

Well, ffs, of course Obama is going to score high on the spin-o-meter then. How about we use the algorithm to determine the selfishness of the speaker instead? "I" scores higher than "we".

Re:Subject

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

After 9/11, a great national tragedy, I wanted to serve, to help, but George Bush told me to go shopping. It was a bit of a letdown.
This statement puzzles me, I've never understood the masochistic need of certain people post 9/11. Will it assuage your survivor's guilt if I told you to sit at home and beat your self bloody with chains? Or could you not volunteer some of your time or money to a cause unless the POTUS tells you to?

Re:Subject

[Anonymous Coward]

How about having any actual information regarding it's credulity in the first place? That is - any information not actually in the article...

It's not as if anyone is infallible. New Scientist might just have produced a sensational and spin filled article of their own for their own reasons.

Re:Subject

[MythoBeast]

No, it's a lot more scientific than that. As a simple example, because of how our brains are structured we tend to look to the left when lying (your left, not theirs) because we're using our constructive centers, not our rememberence centers. We'll look to the right (your right, not theirs) when piecing together memories.

http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php

As it turns out, our facial expressions aren't tied 100% through our front-brain. We flex certain muscles based on emotional response as opposed to intellectual intent. This makes it possible (but not necessary easy or reliable) to determine what someone is thinking when they talk. Humans are pretty good at picking up on the rough cues, and some of these cues actually bypass our front brain and directly interact with our emotional centers. This is an attempt to replicate that facility with computer systems.

Re:Subject

[dzfoo]

If I had mod points I'd mod you up +5 Funninterstinsightful.

      -dZ.

Re:Subject

[NeoSkandranon]

He seems to hang a lot on Obama's use of "we" instead of "I". It seems to me that heavy use of "we" is exactly how community organizers would talk. Not because they're spinning, but because they're trained to generate collective action.

It's interesting you think of it like that. I tend to associate heavy use of "we" with corporate speak, where rather than generate collective action, the speaker is attempting to impress collective responsibility for some action.

Re:Subject

[Anonymous Coward]

As McCain was saying that the "fundamentals are strong", the Dow was dropping by about 2 points per second.

Are those number live now? They used to be delayed. Then McCain was probably delayed too, but the people trading were have been watching the delayed McCain, so that wouldn't matter. I'm so confused.

Re:Subject

[sesshomaru]

SUPPRESSIO VERI - Concealment of truth.

In general a suppression of the truth, when a party is bound to disclose it, vitiates a contract. In the contract of insurance a knowledge of the facts is required to enable the underwriter to calculate the chances and form a due estimate of the risk; and, in this contract perhaps more than any other, the parties are required to represent every thing with fairness.

Suppressio veri as well as suggestio falsi is a ground to rescind an agreement, or at least not to carry it into execution.

--SUPPRESSIO VERI

SUGGESTIO FALSI. A statement of a falsehood. This amounts to a fraud whenever the party making it was bound to disclose the truth.

--SUGGESTIO FALSI

Latin saying suppressio veri, suggestio falsi: The suppression of the truth is the suggestion of a falsehood.

Re:Subject

[Citizen of Earth]

Quantifying 'spin' in political speeches is very easy to do:

spinLevel = strlen(speech);

Re:Subject

[dubl-u]

This statement puzzles me, I've never understood the masochistic need of certain people post 9/11. Will it assuage your survivor's guilt if I told you to sit at home and beat your self bloody with chains? Or could you not volunteer some of your time or money to a cause unless the POTUS tells you to?

Point one: blow me.

Point two: I already make substantial charitable contributions and volunteer with a couple of local non-profits. So again, blow me.

Point three: I'm not guilty. I'm just community-oriented. When there are troubles, I like to help. Most people do. If you don't, that's fine; being an asshole is its own reward.

Re:Subject

[squidinkcalligraphy]

Yeah; I was just thinking that - but since its a "computer" that is making the calls everyone will believe it since "computers" are infallible.

I call shenanigans.

Re:Subject

[rtb61]

The catch is it is not just facial expression but the matching of facial expression to language usage. So while facial will generally be the same to express the same emotions, cultures do differ significantly in their willingness to publicly express emotions ie. so while people will generate the same facial expression to indicate sadness, different cultures will restrain the expression of that emotion to differing degrees. Now add that to language usage and language norms and well the results are more likely to be what the experimenter expects rather than what the subject intends.

The largest problem is of course politicians in and of them selves are outliers, they a most definitely not representative of average human behavioural norms. In amongst are consummate liars, true sociopaths, whose expression of emotion is only bound by what rewards they believe that expression will gain for them. So any statistical analysis that draws it's baseline from the average population will fail when used to grade a non-representative segment of that population. Especially when historical evidence has demonstrated that numerous politicians have gotten away with many lies and are still able to convince people with regard to those lies right up until they are actually thrown behind bars, even after all the facts have been presented.

So for the work to have any validity, the baseline sample can only be other politicians, with a statistical analysis of their speeches and the lies/spin that have been latter discovered.

Re:Subject

[Lost Engineer]

I'd leave out the part that's not your point.

"FEMA failed to adequately respond to Katrina."

This is honest and doesn't expand the scope of your argument.

Re:Subject

[mrbooze]

They're both just examples of using the language of inspiration. The difference is one group uses it out of learned experience in inspiring people, the other group once read a few pages of a book on how to inspire people.

Re:Subject

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Counter point one: Wow, that's a witty retort.
Counter point two: If I already make substantial charitable contributions and volunteer with a couple of local non-profits. were true why did you need to feel inspired to do more by the POTUS?Again, witty retort.
Counter point three: If you're not guilty why the hostility? Why so serious? I merely asked the simple question, why is there this massive need to be told by our leaders that volunteering to help others in a time of crisis is a good idea?

Re:Subject

[dubl-u]

You didn't ask a simple question. You used loaded words and hostile assumptions, presumably to be a dick. Don't act all shocked that your hostility begets hostile replies.

I don't need people to tell me what to do, or what's a good idea. But it's helpful to have leaders tell us all how best to go about it, especially in novel situations. That would be part of leading. And I'd like them to remind everybody, especially during times of crisis, that public service is valuable and welcome.

Re:Subject

[Raenex]

But it's helpful to have leaders tell us all how best to go about it, especially in novel situations. That would be part of leading. And I'd like them to remind everybody, especially during times of crisis, that public service is valuable and welcome.

I agree, I felt the same way after 9/11, and many Americans did. However, Bush was right, as crass and disappointing as "go shopping" sounds. What could the average American do after 9/11?

If the answer was a generic "serve your community", that's an even emptier answer than "go shopping". At least the shopping answer was a nudge to Americans to go on about their lives and keep the economy going.

Re:Subject

[dubl-u]

At least the shopping answer was a nudge to Americans to go on about their lives and keep the economy going.

That's certainly valuable. I'm not complaining that he started there. But I think it was a mistake to stop there.

What could the average American do after 9/11?

I'm sure others have considered this at length. But off the top of my head:

• Recognize that the goal of terrorists is to cause fear, and remain calm.
• Recognize that the goal of Osama Bin Laden was to cause conflict and polarization between the West and Islam. Be more aware of the international situation, understand where we are unintentionally causing friction, and work to reduce it.
• Get to know people overseas. Get a pen pal. Travel. When your church goes overseas to volunteer, go with them. Join the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders. Or just learn about the world from the comfort of your couch.
• Pressure your elected representatives to work on solving international sources of tension like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
• Understand that although it was a terrible tragedy, it was not the only terrible tragedy, and that as others have suffered, survived, and moved on, so can we.

Instead, our energies were directed into an unrelated war, billions of dollars of security theater, weakening the rule of law, and a lot of hatred and fear. Oh, and shopping.

Re:Subject

[Sally Forth]

The newspapers always scream that. Up 5 points, good. Up 20 points, good. Up 200 points, good. Down 2 points, THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!

Weather forecasters do the same thing. O gosh we're going to have TEN INCHES OF SNOW!!!! Brace yourselves, folks, this is going to be BAD! New-Englanders don't do milk and bread runs on the local grocery stores over ten inches of snow. Sure, it's a pain to clean up and might net you a half day out of work (or less, depending on your area), but c'mon guys this happens at least five times a winter.

Sure, things are tight, and my family is hovering within $500/year (I am not kidding) of being able to receive all sorts of federal aid because of it. (We're getting no help this year, needless to say.) But you know what? There's still food in the fridge, there's still oil in the tank, and the car's still running. Thanks to a bit of thrift and some unexpected kindnesses, we'll weather out the storm.

So when we're facing an artificial, government-created bubble bursting and bringing down several stocks that were artificially high and prices that were artificially low, as we bounce slightly downward in our efforts to stabilize, would you rather hear the OMG THE SKY IS FALLING? Or that we're bouncing slightly downward in our efforts to stabilize? McCain says that the fundamentals are strong, and I don't believe that the current turbulence negates that statement.

The guy who faced enemy torture and appreciates the value of a safe, sturdy home says that while things are hard, they will get better. The guy who's popularity depends on making people believe that the outgoing President personally and single-handedly ruined our economy near-permanently claims that the skies are falling. However, sometimes you have to sell someone the problem before you can sell them the solution...

Surely

[Anonymous Coward]

there are more important things to talk about in this race - economy, Iraq, education, health, science policy, Saturday Night Live.

Why focus on this pseudoscience?

Re:Surely

[RiotingPacifist]

Because its new scientist Thursday, as a teenager i used to read new scientist but as i went to university whenever they covered something i knew, i realized how ridiculous the articles were. newscientist should be treated like wikipedia, if an article is interesting link to a more indepth review on the topic elsewhere (preferably with less bs)

Re:Surely

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? Liberals have been using Global Warming pseudoscience as a way to swing votes and make money for years now. Just ask Gore and the company he co-founded (they a global leader in the carbon trade market)

So what's new

[m0s3m8n]

"The article goes on to analyze the amount of spin in each of the candidates running for president, and the results are that Obama spins the most." I am shocked.

Re:So what's new

[oodaloop]

I am shocked.

Yes, *yawn* I am too. Who would have guessed the candidate with no experience and a carefully-prepared thoughtful thousand yard stare would use more spin than a self-described straight shooter?

Re:So what's new

[Digital End]

Yeah, because McCain's still doing that 'straight shooter' nonsense.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080913/pl_politico/13412

Oh... wait... he found it wasn't working so now he's a cut-throat asshole just like the rest of them who will lie at the drop of a hat?

Of course you'll read this and say "Well he's keeping things even" and frankly I don't give a damn anymore, I'm tired of it all and no one changes anyone elses opinion, vote for whoever you want... just don't get your facts backwards

Re:So what's new

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting really tired of this stupid "no experience" mantra. It's disengenuous at best and downright deceitful at worst.

Obama has more experience in knowing what actual Americans are going through daily than McCain or republicans, libertarians, or conservatives will ever know in their lifetimes.

Afterall, all that conservative crap-talk from libertarians and thier imaginary "invisible hand of the market" crap is simple euphamism for "let's make sure capitalists make all the profits off their investment AND make sure they get also get a piece of the pie from the workers and laborers as well..."

Capitalism is not free enterprise. Capitalism is elitism economics...cronyism in the corporate setting.

Re:So what's new

[pitchpipe]

Obama has more experience in knowing what actual Americans are going through daily than McCain or republicans

Add to that the fact that he owns a globe and can actually "see" all of the world's nations from his study. That right there is major foreign policy experience.

Re:So what's new

[oodaloop]

Obama has more experience in knowing what actual Americans are going through daily

So Obama has as much experience as the average Joe American because he knows what we're going through. You haven't really convinced me. Sorry.

Re:So what's new

[Anonymous Coward]

MAYBE this is the time for a strong but scattered "3rd party"

Tired of being lied to? (Politician's mouth moves. Advertisement is presented.)

With the Diebold debacle across 38 states, what are the chances that upcoming election won't either be decided by Con-gress or the courts? Gee, what a thought. Da' server can't count.

And just stop using "neo-con" == it's PSEUDO-con

Re:So what's new

[Digital End]

I prefer the 3rd partys, HOWEVER, I also know this election is going to be very close. This country can not handle another Bush, as it is Obama (assuming he wins) is going to be a 1 term president because he's going to have to piss off a lot of people to fix this mess.

I'll vote for 3rd party when there's a sane person who's has a chance to win... not this year. Get me an election where one of the two main cantidates isn't deadly to our future and I'll include the partys that can't win in my choices. This election is too important to try to make a point.

That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[curmudgeon99]

I could write the logic myself

if( politician.isAlive() && mouth.isOpen() )
{
isSpinning = true;
return isSpinning;
}

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[jellomizer]

Never heard the term "Spinning in his Grave".
I bet we could harness the power of every dead idealist by hooking them up to generators and solve all the worlds problems... But once that happens the spinning stop and we loose the power and the world fall in chaos, thus it starts spinning again.... I guess we just cant have a perfect world.

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[Anonymous Coward]

I think mouth should be politician.mouth

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[pisto_grih]

No, you're thinking of spreading butter on a cat's back.

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF you doin'?

you can just return true and save 1 byte!

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[mfh]

If we look at this as a measurement of how much someone believes what they are saying, there is a missing element. McCain is much more experienced at politics than Obama -- 25 years more. Republicans all believe their dogma (fervently), and therefore the more that logic and truth is revealed to oppose their dogma, the greater they push back.

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[GreyWolf3000]

Ever heard of optimizing compilers?

int is_spinning(struct politician* politician)
{
    return (politician->is_alive() && politician->mouth == POLITICIAN_MOUTH_OPEN);
}

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[jellomizer]

Isn't the point of honesty. To beleve what they are saying... If the politions tell the truth we can decide for ourselfs if it is a good plan or not. But if they just say what we want to hear are judgment is distorted, thus cannot make an informed decision.

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[donkawechico]

I think you're missing a while(true) in there somewhere.

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[Anonymous Coward]

// Come, come - we're OO these days...

public class Politician : MinionofEvil, IHypocrisy, IAmorality, IHumanForm {
public bool isSpinning ()
{
return isAlive() && mouth.isOpen();
}
}

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate over-complicated code. And you forgot an else, making it not able to return false, when it should. The rewrite:

return politician.isAlive() && mouth.isOpen()

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that anything like meatspin?

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[Anonymous Coward]

The super amusing thing there is isSpinning is uninitialized.. so if the politician is dead or his mouth is closed theres a 50/50 chance he's still lying.

Re:That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[mfh]

If the politions tell the truth

No offense, but I stopped reading at this point. They will never be honest, and that is a fact, Jack. Assume every politician is lying. Figure out the lies they can't get out of, worst case scenario (and you'll realize they can get out of anything with proper strategic planning and enough money).

As for the point about making an informed decision -- that made me laugh louder. The day people can make an informed decision in politics is the day it's Jesus vs. Satan and they are in full costume. Even then, Satan wins!

Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[ShadowRangerRIT]

From reading the article, it appears that by spin, they mean "adhering to the rules your old English teacher laid down for rhetorical arguments." For example, don't qualify statements, since it waters down your argument needlessly. Don't use "I"; it makes it sound like you're the only one who holds your opinion, so use "we" when needed to help draw others in.

What this doesn't seem to do is provide any insight into how much the person in question shades the truth. Telling a bald-faced lie plainly won't set it off; wrapping up the truth in an eloquent package will.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[catfood]

I'm repeating something that also happens to be in some of the comments on TFA, but: Since when does use of "we" instead of "I" indicate spin or deception? If that's your standard, the guy who thinks in terms of a movement, who sees the country as a grand collaboration, is always going to come out as dishonest. And the guy who talks about rugged individualism is going to look like a straight shooter, even if his statements on policy are self-contradicting nonsense.

How is "Yes we can!" so much worse than "I won't raise your taxes"?

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[omar.sahal]

Having had Tony Blair as our prime minister for 10 years I feel that I am now an authority on spin. It is essentially another word for BULL SHIT. It involves an individual talking without semantically meaning anything*. Specially chosen words are used that have resonance with individuals, thus allowing the listener to feel they empathize with the speaker.

• * Please note this gives advantage to the bullshitter in that he or she is not held by anything that they have said

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[b96miata]

because the "movement" won't be in office. The politician will.

"Yes we can" is a crap soundbite that sways people who listen to crap soundbites, and it also has the advantage of allowing every (potential) voter to fill in their own definition of what "we" can do, while sticking the polit. with zero accountability.

"I won't raise your taxes", or "I won't attempt to further restrict the right to bear arms" would be widely regarded as a campaign promise, and would be damaging if broken.

If you say nothing of substance, it's harder to be accused of lying.

This doesn't necessarily mean any use of "we" is bad, but your chosen examples are vastly different statements.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. The politician will be in office, but the "movement" will be doing all the work. No president put us on the moon. The people at NASA did. No president built the Atomic Bomb (for better or worse, it did accomplish our most urgent national need at the time -- ending WWII), the people of the Manhattan project did. No president is going to solve our current economic crisis. Average, everday, ordinary people like you and me have to do that.
 
I'd rather have the guy who can inspire people to do great things in office than the guy who wants to bomb Iran and give tax cuts only to the wealthy. But maybe that's just me.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[Shotgun]

However, they do state:

It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin.

The statement is not supported, but it would have us believe that some previous studies indicated a correlation between spin and qualificating/clarifinating.

(put the emphasis on the second syllable, and those last two almost sound like real words)

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[Pichu0102]

If that's your standard, the guy who thinks in terms of a movement, who sees the country as a grand collaboration, is always going to come out as dishonest. And the guy who talks about rugged individualism is going to look like a straight shooter, even if his statements on policy are self-contradicting nonsense.

That's communist thinking there citizen.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[Comboman]

How is "Yes we can!" so much worse than "I won't raise your taxes"?

It really depends on the context. "Yes we can!" sounds like a correct usage of the first person plural, however, people who consistently speak of themselves in the first person plural (i.e. the royal "we" as in "We are not amused") come off sounding rather pompous. People who consistently speak of themselves in the third person (as in "Bob Dole won't raise your taxes"), just come off sounding crazy.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[PainKilleR-CE]

"I won't raise your taxes", or "I won't attempt to further restrict the right to bear arms" would be widely regarded as a campaign promise, and would be damaging if broken.

Of course, the only thing he could do to keep a promise like that, as the President, would be to veto any attempt to do either. The problem with that is that eventually something is going to come along that he really wants to pass, but it raises taxes to pay for it, or has some other thing tacked into it that contradicts his campaign promises. Then he's screwed either way, because they'll hold his feet to the fire no matter which way he goes when it comes time for re-election.

The problem with almost any promise McCain makes about what he'll do in office is compounded by the fact that he'd be walking into a situation where Congress is controlled by the opposing party. While that has its benefits (in that he could be a check and balance against the Democrats), it also means that he's unlikely to be able to get anything done unless he can convince the Democrats that they need to work with him.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[InsertCleverUsername]

> because the "movement" won't be in office. The politician will.
>
> "Yes we can" is a crap soundbite

The governments of several foreign countries thank you for your viral cynicism. It will be very helpful when all Americans believe their government can't fix anything and reject appeals for them to take any responsibility for their country. The best way to defeat an empire is to let it rot from within.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[omar.sahal]

ps. please note that this is just the communicational style of spin, spin is a uthamism for PR (Public relations). Public relations was a term coined by Bernard Hays, and was a rebranding of the word propaganda. It involves manipulative techniques aimed at misleading the general public. A fictitious example would be Tony Blair announcing a new initiative. This initiative was also announced a number of years ago, along with other initiatives. As no one is keeping a track of his ideas its seems he is full of ideas and busily working on many important objectives.
This is a fictitious example but I am sure Ian Duncan Smith (Conservative ex leader) caught Tony Blair doing this in the house of parliament during prime minister question time.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[Eli Gottlieb]

I'm repeating something that also happens to be in some of the comments on TFA, but: Since when does use of "we" instead of "I" indicate spin or deception? If that's your standard, the guy who thinks in terms of a movement, who sees the country as a grand collaboration, is always going to come out as dishonest. And the guy who talks about rugged individualism is going to look like a straight shooter, even if his statements on policy are self-contradicting nonsense.

I think you just explained American politics.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[jandersen]

"I won't raise your taxes", or "I won't attempt to further restrict the right to bear arms" would be widely regarded as a campaign promise, and would be damaging if broken.

Of course it is easy to explain away afterwards anyway. When you say "I", you are talking about yourself only - "I am not going to take your money - my mate here will do that". There are ways of lying that are not technically lies.

But back to the bit about promising not to raise taxes or any similar statements. Isn't that simply either idiotic or dishonest? What if it becomes necessary to increase taxes? Should he let the country go bankrupt so he doesn't break his promise? I mean, that would be idiotic; McCain knows that, or I sincerely hope that he does - the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. So he must know that he can't realistically promise that he will never raise taxes, which leaves him with a dishonest statement. What he probably meant and what he should have said is: "I will do what I can to avoid raising taxes"; only that doesn't sound quite as catchy.

Personally I would feel much more confident about somebody who would say "We are going to have to take some tough decisions because we are in trouble". At least that would show that he has a basic grasp on reality.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean promises like when Bush SR promised, "Read my lips. No new taxes." ?

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[dpilot]

> because the "movement" won't be in office. The politician will.

Not quite. The politician brings the "movement" into office with him.

Example:
John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzales, etc, etc. (I don't lump Dick Cheney in because he was on the ticket and was "elected", and I don't lump Colin Powell because I don't think he was really part of the "movement".)

No President does the job alone - (since Carter tried and failed) this is a team effort. Perhaps one of the most important things we don't do is look hard enough at the campaign organizations of the candidates, because that reflects how he selects and builds teams. As another for-instance, maybe bad mic selection at the mixing board helped the "Dean Scream" kill Howard Dean's candidacy, but there were also fundamental cash usage problems in his campaign that finished the job, and would have finished it later had the scream not happened.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[mengel]

Ahh.. so a promise to cooperate with others to achieve something is "nothing of substance", but a promise of unilateral action is?

With that kind of thinking, I begin to understand our current U.S. President...

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[joeboomer628]

Telling a bald-faced lie plainly won't set it off; wrapping up the truth in an eloquent package will.

It has been my experience that truth that needs embellishment becomes something else. Lies are what require facades.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[im_thatoneguy]

"I am not going to raise taxes--what I will do is spend billions on my groundbreaking educational reforms. I won't be satisfied until I see our children doing well. I am going to stop the decline in our school systems and I'm going to fix our curriculums"
[Aka... I intend to tax you or take money from another program and put it into an ambiguous undefined plan.]

"Our children's education is more important than anything else to the nation. It will steer our children to either great success or second place mediocricy. That is why we must increase taxes to ensure our future and why in my first 100 days in office I will increase taxes and give the money to our schools to invest in afterschool programs so that kids of all backgrounds and incomes have access to an environment of success and learning. We need to move away from test scores and give our kids the inspiration and resources to explore on their own when the teacher leaves the classroom. You can't build something without money and that is why taxes on the riches 1% of the nation need to be increased. So that another generation of children have access to the same opportunties the most successful and wealthy were given."
[Aka... I'm going to increase taxes and give it to the schools to do with as they see fit.]

I would say #1 is more baseless substanceless spin than #2 which uses I and My much less.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Did I say it needed embellishment? Are you saying that the mere act of speaking eloquently turns your statements into lies? Or that unadorned statements must be truthful? You must be the most credulous person ever born.

Not a surprising result...

[Anonymous Coward]

given all of the things Obama and his media allies have been trying to keep a lid on - chiefly his ties to William Ayers and Saul Alinsky, but also details like his wife getting a huge pay bump at the hospital where she worked after hubby was elected to the Illinois Senate and started funneling money to said hospital.

Re:Not a surprising result...

[larry bagina]

There you go again, using "code words" to subtly remind people that Barack Obama isn't white, that he has a funny name, that he's muslim, that he doesn't look like one of us. If he loses this election, it will be due to racists like you.

Re:perhaps

[larry bagina]

Or maybe Barack Obama has an incurable brain tumor causing facial ticks. His medical records aren't available either. Nor his academic records. Or his records while a state senator. But he can read off a teleprompter and makes white guilt liberals feel better, that's what really matters.

Obama spinning?

[tjstork]

Even though I'm a Republican, I have to concede that Obama is one of the most gifted speakers to come along for quite some time. He's an absolutely magnetic speaker and a great advocate for that which he believes, and when I watch him, I almost have to smack myself to snap out of it. I can't stand the guy's politics, but I am proud that he's an American.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Foolicious]

and when I watch him, I almost have to smack myself to snap out of it

I think this says more about you than Obama.

Re:Obama spinning?

[db32]

It was like a million conservatives cried out and then were suddenly silenced.

You do realize how many neocon types just had their heads implode due to your statement there right? I mean, I generally consider myself conservative (in the old sense, when it mean fiscal and political conservative and social liberal because a real conservative doesn't want the government mucking in the personal affairs of people.). I most certainly do not consider myself a Republican. The modern Republicans have fucked our nation up possibly beyond repair with their rhetoric and god aweful policy. They have the balls to claim Democrats will spend more when they currently hold the record for spending!

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't stand the guy's politics

There can't be much choice in the US. Either you are a republican and you like McCain or you like Obama.. What wouldmake you as a republican choose a president from the Democratic party? But I'm guessing the traditional view of the parties aren't as important in election time as getting the right kind of press and being cool enough to get voters.

FTA

"John McCain's voice analysis profile looks like that of someone who is clinically depressed"

Re:Obama spinning?

[torstenvl]

What policies do you disagree with?
- NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East?
- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?
- Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?
- Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be?
- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?
- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?
- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?
- Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?
- Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation?
- Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?

Exactly what policy do you object to?

I can't think of a single reason to support McCain's platform unless a) you make over $250,000/year; AND b) you're of the mind that you should keep all of it, no matter the cost to your community and country.

Re:Obama spinning?

[sheph]

I'm a conservative (I don't know if that's really the same thing as republican anymore). I'd say he's a good speaker as long as he's got a script to practice and go off of. I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there. Not to mention when he says things he'd like to take back (think pigs and lipstick). The best thing he's got going for him is that the media loves him and handles him with kidd gloves. If you take that away though I don't see a great deal of substance in him, and I really worry about the prospect of him changing the healthcare system. Universal healthcare while appealing on an emotional level is almost certainly going to result in all of us getting lower quality care and paying higher taxes to pay for it (IMHO anyway). I also worry about his simplistic view of raising taxes on the rich as though that would have no cascading effect on those of us who aren't. You think inflation is bad now. Better do your homework.

Re:Obama spinning?

[thedonger]

Have you heard him give a one-on-one interview? He uses more verbal pauses (uh, um, etc.) than anyone I have ever heard. Granted, he is excellent when working a crowd, and the tone of his voice is catchy.

Re:Obama spinning?

[tjstork]

They have the balls to claim Democrats will spend more when they currently hold the record for spending!

No argument there. Bush has just been a fiscal disaster. I think the lesson is, never elect a president from Texas again. Honestly, if Hillary had won the nomination, I might have crossed party lines to vote for her because of her husband's economics. I really, really like the way Clinton did the budget. He said he was going to balance the budget and -did-.

Now, I should point out that if Bush had voted the way McCain did over the last 8 years, there would be a budget surplus. Let's see, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, voted against the first farm bailout, I can't remember if he caved in on the post 9/11 airline bailout, but.. he voted against medicare prescription drugs and those sort of things have just been budget killers.

I agree with the old school conservative sentiment you share as well. Like, Bush sent me a fundraising card and I wrote a big black note on it: "Quit picking on gays and balance the goddamned budget... you get no money."

Re:Obama spinning?

[BCW2]

Clinton balanced the budget but gutting the military and cutting the intelligence budget by more than 30%. That is where all of his surplus came from.

Wonder who gets the blame for the intelligence failures of 2000 - 2004?

Re:Obama spinning?

[arotenbe]

I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there.

Here's a question for you: which is better, a candidate who thinks about what he says before speaking, or one who can answer every question immediately?

Think about that one for a moment.

Re:Obama spinning?

[rho]

If he's actually thinking, then great. Unfortunately it's a lot more likely that he's trying to come up with a way to straddle the fence.

Somebody who is well versed in all arguments against a position can produce a counter-argument instantly. That doesn't make him right or wrong, but it doesn't make him worse than the guy who has to invent a position in an instant.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

Well, since I want to reduce the role of government (especially the federal government) I would say that I'm opposed to most of the points you've listed.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of them.

Helathcare for children? fuck em.
Fireing the arab translartors? HELLO THEY"RE ISLAMIC!!!!

ending the way helps the terrorists.
ending affirmative action helps the terrorists
afforable healthcare helps the terrorists
making the death penalty fair helps the terrorists
better sex education helps the terrorists.

shall i continue? I'm just a poor american, I make $350,000 a year and barely can afford my 6800 sq foot small home and by 3 new escalades. I had to buy a USED hummer H2.. the neighbors look down upon me for driving anything used... oh my god I'm so poor.

help save america!

Re:Obama spinning?

[Aphoxema]

I love the verbal pauses, he's the one candidate I've seen who doesn't make me feel like a bumbling moron for doing it myself. He does it all the time, but he recovers for it so well.

He's more of a Joe Anybody than Kerry could have ever been, he makes mistakes and he doesn't look like an incompetent tit for making them.

Re:Obama spinning?

[halivar]

I don't watch TV, but I read everything, so all my exposure to Obama was by reading transcripts his speeches. From what I said, I agreed that everyone was right, and he was a gifted speaker.

Then I saw him speak on a YouTube video and various other sources since then. He simply is not a public speaker. Period. His frequent verbal commas ("umm", "uhh") and nervous ticks would not be acceptable in a college Speech 101 class. I simply don't get where everyone thinks he's so charismatic.

Re:Obama spinning?

[halivar]

Self-identification is meaningless in this election. You've got swathes of people trolling the internet, pretending to be Republicans for Obama, Hillarycrats for Palin, aliens for Kucinich, etc. Everyone jumped into the same slimy, lying cesspool this time, so just ignore the (R) and (D) next to people's names and identify them by their policy stances.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Aphoxema]

It's something some people simply can not help, and it has nothing to do with intelligence. I know the public is prone to indiscretion but I can hope the average (registered) slashdotter would know better than that.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

- NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East?

-- When Obama would rather send Arabic speakers to Afghanistan, where they don't speak Arabic?

- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?

-- Who will be providing this? The government?

- Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?

-- By having the government get involved? That doesn't make things affordable, it raises prices.

- Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be?

-- Sure. So why is he making the tax code more complicated by adding stuff for all these other things?

- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?

-- Reduce those taxes and simplify the tax code so businesses can afford to do all that research.

- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?

-- Adding more government won't help. Just give people vouchers for who to pay for their child's education and let the schools compete.

- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?

-- How about removing forced grouping, instead of trying to judge people based upon their color, social, or economic groups?

- Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?

-- Freeing people from a dictator who violated international agreements is immoral? And concrete modification means you're planning to use the wrong material.

- Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation?

-- That's what juries are for, not national polls.

- Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?

-- Better than what's been done for 30 years? They still haven't gotten the birds and the bees right?

Re:Obama spinning?

[__aajxax2722]

I can certainly understand his eloquence. I do not agree with his politics because he is so one sided.

But keep in mind history. Throughout the ages, many people have been eloquent and had a very successful career on getting people to do things that they normally would not do. I'm sure that I can come up with more names, but Hitler comes immediately to mind. Very eloquent but was behind one of the biggest holocosts ever recorded (if not the biggest).

Re:Obama spinning?

[Aphoxema]

That may or may not be true since it can't be reasonably tested, but what I know is true are several people I know who are republican are "strongly considering" voting for Obama. While this isn't significant to anyone else here, it does give me further hope for Obama's survival in the game we're all playing with our own future.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

the media loves him and handles him with kidd gloves

Right, because they're obviously treating Palin unfairly: asking her politically irrelevant and offensive interview questions and spinning the children situation positively. Let's also ignore the fact that the media isn't bringing to the fore the fact that her foreign policy experience consists of "living near Russia" or her political corruption in what little time she actually _has_ spent in office.

No, sir; the media's "love" of Obama pales in comparison to the treachery and witchcraft they let and have let the Republicans get away with on a regular basis.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they parsed this board with their software your post would glow like the three-eyed fish in Springfield's reactor pond.

Re:Obama spinning?

[bemo56]

I'm not American, nor familiar with its political system. by why would you want a reduced government system?
I just can't see local councils or corporations solving these problems without the money or incentives from the government.
Will reducing the role of the government solve these problems?

Re:Obama spinning?

[Mr. Slippery]

Clinton balanced the budget but gutting the military

"Gutting" the military? During the Clinton years we still spent far and away more on "defense" than any other nation; the "defense" budget remained bloated. During the Clinton years, American military spending made up a larger percentage of the world's total military spending than it did in the Regan years.

Had we really trimmed it, we would probably have reduced the number of troops overseas. Including those in the Middle East. Like in Saudi Arabia. You know, the troops whose presence so provoked bin Laden.

If we'd really "gutted" the military, i.e. reduced it to its rightful role of defending the nation, and exerted forgein influence by economic and diplomatic means rather than by military bullying, odds are very good that no one would have been motived to hijack planes and fly them into American buildings.

This is not to say that terrorism against the U.S. was or is justified. But like any crime, it does have a motivation.

(Let me point out that if we followed the Founder's plan, we wouldn't even have a standing army. And yet, someone, serving in an institution whose very existence was opposed by the Founding Fathers, has someone come to be seen as "patriotic". Remarkable.)

Wonder who gets the blame for the intelligence failures of 2000 - 2004?

Rightfully, the guys who were at the top, who chose to ignore the completely adequate data and clear warnings they were given by the intelligence community, bear the blame.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing has been said about sending Arabic translators to Afghanistan, but since many of the people we're seeking there are Arabic-speakers, that would probably come in handy. Yes, the government should mandate child health insurance, and provide it where it doesn't exist. Government involvement almost never raises prices; what raises prices is private industry using intentional scarcity to drive up the market rate; taxpayers FUND medical research and should reap the rewards of that research, and it's the privatization of public knowledge that is the REAL fiscal irresponsibility. Appropriations aren't added to the tax code, so stop talkin out your ass. Businesses rarely do original research for research's sake, which has been the overwhelming source of real innovation and discovery. School vouchers only cover PART of the cost of private education, so they only help pay for private school for those who could already afford or almost afford it, while taking money out of the public system the poor are still forced to use. There's no such thing as "forced grouping" so I'm afraid you're gonna have to work on your communication issues. Attacking a country without provocation and without exit strategy is wrong; a just war requires assurance that there to be some evil being done and the intervention to cause less harm than the evil-doing does, and without an exit strategy you can't have established those costs in advance, which means there is no assurance of those things, which means it's not a just war. Juries are part of the criminal justice system, not an architect of it; systemic problems need systemic solutions, and anything else is a kludge; additionally, juries rarely decide sentencing, and we would appreciate it if you would keep your comments about the legal system to yourself until you make at least a modicum of effort at knowing what you're talking about. Lastly, sex has social implications (like, you know, pregnancy, abortion, birth control, the possible stigma of a sexually-transmitted infections) and social requirements (family support, women's resource centers, adoption agencies) that go far beyond "the birds and the bees," and your suggestion otherwise is plainly disingenuous. If you want your child to become an adult who only understands sex as a prurient thing and not as a responsible thing, then go for it. Personally, I would love my children enough to hope that they never experience an STI. It's too bad you don't.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

One who can answer the question immediately. He's already thought about the problem, and has a foundation and belief in his response.

Sorry, but Obama's constant umm, uhh is him spinning and answer that's politically beneficial rather than direct, core beliefs.

Re:Obama spinning?

[MobyDisk]

Most of the items in his list would not increase government. You sound like you just blindly used a a Republican talking point to discount someone.

(I am a registered Republican, and it annoys me to hear people use this line meaninglessly)

Specifically, one of the items in that list would reduce the government more than any of the others would add, if combined. Hint, it involves another country...

Re:Obama spinning?

[torstenvl]

Then you're just, quite simply, un-American. It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare." It is our duty as citizens to protect each other from outside threats, and our duty as humans not to let the poor among us die in the streets.

The Republican party likes to talk about the Bible and responsibility. What happened to "love thy neighbor," and how is monetary greed anything but the shirking of responsibility?

There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper. He seems like a pretty good metaphor for the Republican Party.

Re:Obama spinning?

[gstoddart]

I'm not American, nor familiar with its political system. by why would you want a reduced government system?

Because some people actually believe that "the market" will solve the issues that we rely on the government to do, or, even if the market doesn't solve it they still don't want to pay taxes to the government to pay for it. Those who can't afford it be damned.

I'll admit I'm probably making it sound more black and white than it really is.

Personally, I'm of the opinion we want these problems solved, and only government can do it. But, at root, it seems to be the belief that either these issues don't really need solving, or even if they did, it shouldn't be funded from the public purse.

Basically (if I understand it), "for profit" organizations, or, "privately funded non profits" should be the ones solving these issues. And government should mostly just protect personal and property rights.

Cheers

Re:Obama spinning?

[Mr. Slippery]

I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there.

Are you talking about McCain, or Obama? Have you seen the tape of McCain talking - or rather, not talking - about health insurance and birth control?

Not to mention when he says things he'd like to take back (think pigs and lipstick).

Are you talking about McCain, or Obama? You know McCain used the "lipstick on a pig" cliche about a Hillary Clinton proposal, right?

The best thing he's got going for him is that the media loves him and handles him with kidd gloves.

Are you talking about McCain, or Obama? The media's loved McCain since the 2000 campaign. Do you think that if any other candidate had used a racial slur ("I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.") it wouldn't have dominated the news cycle for weeks to the point where the candidate had to retire in shame? When McCain recently made a major gaffe by saying our economy is fundamentally strong, ABC news failed to mention it. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews put it, "The press loves McCain. We're his base."

The "the media loved Obama and gives him special treatment" meme is just another incarnation of the "liberal media" myth that has served the GOP so well since the Atwater days.

I also worry about his simplistic view of raising taxes on the rich as though that would have no cascading effect on those of us who aren't.

Raising taxes on the wealthy back to what they were during the Reagan years is not going to have some "cascading effect" that will ruin the rest of us. Rolling back the Bush II tax cuts doesn't take us into unexplored territory, it returns policy back to what it was in a sounder era. (Of course, generating fiscal policy by rolling polyhedral dice would result in more sound policy than what we have now...)

Re:Obama spinning?

[Terwin]

Even if I personally don't make over 250K/year, my employer does, and that means that I will be paying these higher taxes too.
Either I will need to do the work of people that they cannot afford to hire, or they will not be able to give me the wage that they otherwise could.

Think about it, how many companies that provide reasonable jobs can exist with revenue of less than 250K?

Also, can you name a single company (that is not in the process of going out of business) on any of the major stock exchanges that makes less than 250K? What happens to their stock prices when they suddenly need to pay more taxes? How about all those pensions and retirement accounts that are invested in the stock market?

Do you really think that the CEOs will pull that money out of their pockets?
It will come from all of us in the form of higher prices.

If you allow the government to mandate health care for any group, then they get to define what that health care entails. This will quickly be taken over by special interests, assuming they don't let the drug companies write the laws to begin with. Do you really want someone who is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies to write the health care plan for your children? Sounds like a way to mandate all children to take a bunch of high-margin pills that either don't do any good, or may even turn out to be harmful in the long run... (How about ground-breaking new medical advances, do you want to watch your child die while waiting for the bureaucracy to decide that it is an OK procedure for them to pay for?)

Considering that all of these programs will be either run or set up by politicians, I don't see anything in your list that I would want the government to do for me.

Re:Obama spinning?

[PainKilleR-CE]

It sounds like you either haven't watched his better-covered speeches or you fell victim to someone's choice of videos to post on YouTube.

It also helps that he only has to compete with the current President and the other candidate in terms of his ability to give a good speech.

Re:Obama spinning?

[TheLink]

"Wonder who gets the blame for the intelligence failures of 2000 - 2004?"

The US voters?

I saw huge numbers of intelligence failures in the past two elections.

Re:Obama spinning?

[db32]

It amuses me to no end to watch people like you go on about how christian fundamentalists are attacking (group they hate of the week) unprovoked, yet maintain that islamic fundamentalists were provoked. Not that I think or foreign policy in that part of the world has helped one bit, but seriously, that is some bullshit stink of an argument.

And let me point out that the Federalist papers covered the topic of having a standing army quite a bit. This was not a case of founding fathers were opposed to having a standing army at all as you try to make it out to be. There was a tremendous amount of debate over the risks of having a standing military weighed against the risk of not having one. Ultimately (and rightfully so) the decision was made that not having a standing army with proper training and organization was more of a threat to the Union than having a standing army. This is exactly the reason why the commander in chief of all military forces is an elected civilian. Yet ironically, it has been our combat veterans that have made some of the best leadership decisions involved in the use of military force (or rather not using it). General Eisenhower had lengthy speaches warning against the development of the military industrial complex. He also flat out said that anyone who tried to promote the idea of a preemptive war was a fool. In fact, this rolls right into your point about the people ignoring the intelligence at hand so they could use the military as a tool of foreign policy...they were civilians... Almost everyone who pushed that bullshit were draft dodging cowards, or used other methods to dodge the vietnam war (which was another catastrophic screwup driven by political bullshit).

Seriously...the idea that the founding fathers opposed the military, or that it shouldn't be considered patriotic are a gross misrepresentation of the history. "The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots."

Re:Obama spinning?

[RoccamOccam]

"They have the balls to claim Democrats will spend more when they currently hold the record for spending!" There was an author on Medved several months back who addressed this. He pointed out that, while yes, the Republicans did expand spending, if you look at the actual bills that were proposed during the 2000-2004, the average Democrat proposed spending that was nearly ten times what the average Republican proposed.

Take it for what you will, however, I'll never be able to find a citation for that.

Re:Obama spinning?

[zippthorne]

What speeches are you talking about? I seriously haven't heard anything I would describe as "eloquent" or "well spoken" yet. He mostly seems to go in fits and starts from one "gotcha" to the next, all neatly separated for soundbites by short pauses..after..every..phrase. Then he "mugs" the camera.

Does he want a cookie?

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://anarchists-for-mccain.us/

Re:Obama spinning?

[tbannist]

There's a strong argument to made that the countries that have had more government are better off than those with less.

So what do you hope to accomplish besides reducing your taxes?

Re:Obama spinning?

[digitalcowboy]

Self-identification is meaningless in this election. You've got swathes of people trolling the internet, pretending to be Republicans for Obama, Hillarycrats for Palin, aliens for Kucinich, etc. Everyone jumped into the same slimy, lying cesspool this time, so just ignore the (R) and (D) next to people's names and identify them by their policy stances.

I would be happy to do that. Thanks for the tip.

Ummm... Uhhh... errr... Can you point me to one example of where Obama has ever taken a stand on.... well... anything?

(His own greatness doesn't count.)

He's spent his life straddling fences and refusing to take a stand. Then he wrote TWO memoirs by the time he was 47... about stuff that happened to him and lied a lot in those.

What has he ever done besides lie for a living? Seriously. NOBODY has ever addressed this question.

Near as I can tell, the pinnacle achievement on his resume is editor of the Harvard Law Review, prized because it allows the office-holder to publish his views. Obama published nothing.

He has done absolutely nothing in every single position he's ever held because he's been running for president his entire life and is too much of a coward to defend a position on anything except how great Barack Obama is.

(Not a Republican, btw. Not voting for McCain either. Just sick of the Obamessiah and his ignorant sycophants.)

Re:Obama spinning?

[thedonger]

so all my exposure to Obama was by reading transcripts his speeches

That's like reading the lyrics to "Blue Suede Shoes" and saying Elvis was a gifted singer.

Re:Obama spinning?

[tbannist]

Universal healthcare while appealing on an emotional level is almost certainly going to result in all of us getting lower quality care and paying higher taxes to pay for it (IMHO anyway).

Just a note about this. The U.S. has the world's most expensive health care system, yet it ranks 37th on the list in quality. Most, if not all, of the countries that rank higher than the U.S. have universal health care, get better quality service and pay less.

Re:Obama spinning?

[tbannist]

Are you watching the best of or worst of?

That might be the difference.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Budget wasn't the reason for the 'intelligence failures of 2000 - 2004'. Departmental turf wars and lack of communications between government agencies were. :P

Re:Obama spinning?

[bendodge]

The government CAN'T solve them no matter what. These things would be great if they worked, but it doesn't matter how well-intentioned or clever a politician is: top-down welfare doesn't work. The end results will always be a huge bureaucracy and a stagnated economy. We (the USA) are $9,639,791,665,927.94 in debt at the time of this posting (more by the time you read it) and our financial economy is in meltdown (just turn on a money channel and watch for a while). No matter how much compassion we have, we cannot spend any more money we don't have.

Remember, there is no law of the universe saying you aren't allowed to starve. Yes, it sounds heartless, and yes, I know 2% of the poor people in the US really do want to work (Ok, I made that statistic up, but you get the idea), but if we enter a total depression, guess who gets hit worst? The people the government was trying to help when it spent itself into oblivion.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Allowing the federal government to lay framework for these plans do not make us more unitarian, having the government control it entirely does. And having the government control the nations banks also does.

I support these points I believe the federal governemnt can lay guide lines that the states will implement in order to achieve these objectives which willl equally distribute the roll of both state and federal power.

The only institute that should be nationalized is healthcare not banking, our taxes are bailing out our banks for giving us bum loans in which is allowing them to tax our homes. So who wins? I guess whoever gets the property and the bailouts...

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

When he said he's opposed to MOST of the points, did it ever occur to you that maybe that ONE point you mentioned was one he might agree with?

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mandatory healthcare for children.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Mr. Slippery]

It amuses me to no end to watch people like you go on about how christian fundamentalists are attacking (group they hate of the week) unprovoked, yet maintain that islamic fundamentalists were provoked. Not that I think or foreign policy in that part of the world has helped one bit, but seriously, that is some bullshit stink of an argument.

Well, I didn't say a damn thing about Christian fundamentalist, did I? It amuses me to no end to watch people like you use phrase like "people like you" about people they don't know at all..

If there was a foreign military force occupying the homeland of some group of Christian fundamentalists, I'd call that a provocation. However, such is not the case for Christian fundamentalists in the U.S.

And again, I point out that a provocation is not necessarily a justification.

There was a tremendous amount of debate over the risks of having a standing military weighed against the risk of not having one.

And it ended up with a Constitution that doesn't provide for one (" To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years"), and that relies on a "well regulated militia" as the primary line of defense for the nation.

Ultimately (and rightfully so) the decision was made that not having a standing army with proper training and organization was more of a threat to the Union than having a standing army.

The decision was made that a standing army was useful to steal land from the Natives, and later to conduct invasions of other nations.

"The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots."

Curious how you abridged that: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787 [emphasis added -tms]

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is really good. Mod Up

Re:Obama spinning?

[mordred99]

As an American - who has lived in several countries, the issues that are not as simple as you think. Think of America as the EU, and each of the 50 states as member countries, and each country has county governments which would be the equivalent of states for each country in Europe.

So what does this mean to everyone. The federal government was setup to regulate interstate commerce, print money, own the army, etc. Each state is required to care for the well being of its citizens, and to do what the federal government says.

The major breakdown has been that in the last 100+ years, the federal government has gotten into a lot of other areas that were not in their expressed purview. They have gotten into federal health care, social security, etc. Which is fine, however they have never really "taken it all over". So the states as well have social security systems, and in some cases, counties have their own systems. I am just picking social security and medicare as an example, there are others (education, roads, etc.).

The fundamental difference between parties (break down every argument) is simple, where does the control lie. With the federal government, or with state government, or with lower governments. I am not going to go into republican/democrat differences.

So to answer your question about reducing government solve the problems. It depends on where you are talking about in terms of government. If the federal government took over all health care, laid off 10 million US workers from running State and local health care systems, plus privately funded (ie. businesses), would it solve the problem (assuming they are not incompetent), yes. But you have to deal with the fall out of firing 10 million people by the stroke of a pen. Would it be cheaper if all 300 million US citizens got their health care the same way? Yes.

So what you get is compromises - which - help no one. It costs more to compromise than to make the appropriate stand. If you make a stand you maybe unpopular, but in the end it might be the best thing for you. We compromise a lot in this country - and thus end up costing us more money because for example, we pay for state and federal governments to provide health care, and we are taxed more than paying just one health care system, we are paying for the overhead of more than one.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with age-appropriate sex education for kindergarteners as "the right thing to do."

I disagree with bailing out the lower income households with government benefits that they take advantage of so that they can live off my taxes and not have to work.

I disagree with presidential candidates who have shady associations with slum lords and terrorists.

I disagree with candidates who say they won't disown their pastor of 20 years then be willing to turn his back on him once he received too much political heat. And he also claims he didn't hear Reverend Wright speak that nonsense while he was attending his services.

I disagree with socialist practices of redistribution of wealth.

And Obama says our energy problem will be solved in 10 years. Give me a break.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns. A lot of people vote Republican because of gun control. My father (sigh) is one.

Re:Obama spinning?

[blitzkrieg3]

Sorry, but Obama's constant umm, uhh is him spinning and answer that's politically beneficial rather than direct, core beliefs.

Obama's constant 'umm, uhh' comes from him actually thinking about the issue in relation to the question. The reason McCain doesn't have to think about the response is because he has a canned response that has nothing to do with the original question. He's programmed the same way a robot is.

Take McCain's answer to the question Jay Leno asked about how many houses he owned. McCain's programming knows if he gets a question he doesn't like, just talk about his military service. That's exactly what he did.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't his tax increases on businesses lead to more layoffs for the middle class workers, the class that he is looking to protect?

Re:Obama spinning?

[JesseMcDonald]

It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare."

Yes, in specific ways, all of which are enumerated in the Constitution. Many of the items on the GGP's list are not Constitutional.

The following are internal government affairs or enumerated powers, and perfectly Constitutional:

• not firing linguists
• ending an immoral war
• reforming the tax code

The following are not within the purview of the federal government:

• healthcare
• investing in science and research
• funding for charter schools
• affirmative action
• education (including sex education)

The last point, "reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty," is too broadly worded to properly categorize. For the most part specific criminal penalties, including the death penalty, fall under state jurisdiction.

It is our duty as citizens to protect each other from outside threats, and our duty as humans not to let the poor among us die in the streets.

I have no problem with that, but what does it have to do with the federal government? It seems to me that, rather than defining and carrying out your own duty, you only wish to coerce others into performing what you unilaterally declare to be their duty toward you, or in support of your goals. Government is not a legitimate tool with which to enforce your personal views onto others--no matter how popular those views might be.

There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper.

Yes, but Cain's sins were jealousy and murder, not indifference. There is nothing to suggest that Cain was ever expected to act as his brother's keeper; his non sequitur response was merely a futile attempt to avoid the question.

Re:Obama spinning?

[db32]

I apologize for the statement then, but it is typically the same braindead reasoning that goes along with "well they were provoked". No...they weren't, just like every fundamentalist wackjob they are just waiting for an event to use as justification, that isn't being provoked.

Actually, again you grossly misrepresent things, and while accusing me of abridging a quote. From the same section you attempt to quote from...
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; This means that the appropriations must be reviewed and reissued every two years, this does not mean that they only can pay for 2 years and then must stop. In fact, this happens every year, not two, so they are doing better than the minimum here. This explicitly allows for the formation of a standing army so long as congress can turn off the money flow within 2 years of any decision.
To provide and maintain a navy; This seems pretty straightforward.
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; Same here
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
If you bother to read that whole section it is very clear that a standing military is supported so long as Congress ultimatelty has the power to cut the funding and shut it down. So a civilian organization has the power to shut it down, and a civilian President has the command over it so long as it is there.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at by me forgetting the last two lines. Who do you think the patriots are? In fact, you adding the words I forgot strengthens my point. How do you expect to use the blood of a tyrant without a patriot soldier? Yell at him until he stabs himself?

I am so sick of people blaming the military for things going wrong. It is a bunch of assclown civilians that are calling the shots...those assclowns are elected by the populace. You want to fix what the military is doing, then get everyone to quit electing asshats to make the decisions. Second, do you really want a situation where the military tells those civilian asshats "no"? That is a military takeover...which is a patently bad thing. The military is a tool to be used by civilian leaders and is not meant to make its own decisions. Only a fool blames the hammer when he hits himself on the thumb.

Re:Obama spinning?

[bpd1069]

Abortion : Exclusive: Obama's lost law review article ...The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year's Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama's answer, like most courts': No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother's rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy...

Re:Obama spinning?

[mcpkaaos]

Let's see, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts

You mean the tax cuts he now wants to make permanent?

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single one of those items *sounds* nice. Have you ever actually USED a government agency to get anything done? If it is filling out a form? OH that they can do in spades.

Many presidents and other senators, governors, and other minor politicians have run on those exact same platforms for AGES. Bush did.

Those are the lies told to you. The truth is we do not know what either one will actually do or compromise on.

Also voodoo economics is not MEANT to punish the rich. It is a inflationary control. Why *SHOULDNT* the rich be able to keep their money? I am not one of them but I have to wonder how fair it is that they earned it (either easily or not does not matter) why cant they keep it? You are basically saying that *YOU* know better how to spend someone elses money. Or how about this. Take 90% of what you make and divide it up and give it to your neighbors. They know how to spend your money better than YOU do. I am not saying taxes are bad. I am saying that you are saying 'the rich' should pay for it all while you pay less. WE SHOULD ALL PAY EQUALLY as a percentage. Even 'the poor' you know the ones most likely to USE the services of the government? You do not go to mcdonalds and demand free food because you are poor. But someone might be willing to help you. But that is UP TO THEM.

Also every single one of the things on your list exist TODAY in our government. You can see how well they are managed (many are well over 40 years old). You seem to think the president is in charge. Well in some ways he is. But the REAL control is much lower in the system. A system built of entitlement, bordem, and greed. You seem to be under the impression that the president is personally involved in all phases of the government. Many times the same people who are building this junk system are left in place as they 'look good' on paper. However there is very little accountability going on. You can get away with quite a bit in the system if you know how, and many do.

In 4 years when we are going thru this again remember ME. I tell you this now. NOTHING WILL HAVE CHANGED OTHER THAN THE NAME. (and yes I am yelling). The last president to do real change was Roosevelt. The rest have just parroted his platform because it looks good then end up with status quo.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Redpill82]

- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice? Charter schools are generally supported by Republicans. Obama changed his position on charters. - Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground? I'd question Obama's definition of "concrete timelines" based on this statement. What a stance he's taking here. - Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion? He's on tape in front of Planned Parenthood saying this is a good idea for kindergarteners

Re:Obama spinning?

[digitalcowboy]

I'm sorry. I forgot completely that he fully supports anyone's right to kill a child at any time that child becomes inconvenient.

That's about the only issue on which he has ever voted as well.

When he actually shows up for his job - and that's rare - he usually votes "Present."

Unless the issue at hand is murdering children - in or out of the womb. On that's he's unusually consistent.

Re:Obama spinning?

[BCW2]

The ones that elected Clinton.
It might take another 6 -10 years to fix what he did to the intelligence community.

Re:Obama spinning?

[smoker2]

"Is that you Smithers ?"

Re:Obama spinning?

[torstenvl]

rather than defining and carrying out your own duty, you only wish to coerce others into performing

Son, my salary is within the top 2% of all incomes in the United States. Any increase in taxes proffered by Sen. Obama would land squarely at my doorstep, and I pay more than four figures per week in taxes as it is.

Don't you presume to tell me I'm not doing my part.

Re:Obama spinning?

[slashdotlurker]

I am an independent, who was leaning towards Obama until he decided to gut the Bill of Rights by voting for the FISA bill. Obama is a gifted speaker, an articulate advocate of many things that I think are sorely needed for our country to survive, and his election will help put the darkest part of our history behind us (a country that rejects that ambulance chaser Jesse Jackson, but elects a self-made man like Obama is a country with its ideas about race finally straight).
Further, I used to be a McCain diehard (in 2000, even voted for him in the primaries and sent money to his campaign, and thought for about 2-3 years after that America had missed an opportunity to put a man better than Bush or Gore in office).
However, the idea that Obama spins more than McCain of vintage 2008 is so absurd that I had to read the summary twice to make sure. With the world in turmoil and our economy on the bronk of total collapse, Sen. McCain talks about pigs with lipsticks and supporting a 25% share of world's oil consumption (today) with 3% of the world's reserves of oil (available 10 years from now). Further, he insistently lies about running mates who support bridges to nowhere before opposing them and cleaning up Wall Street greed when he and his economic soulmate, Phil Gramm, helped create this deregulation disaster that has wiped out 10% of our GDP in less than a week. Give me a break.
Lying a proven falsehood into truthful existence after all the evidence to the contrary is in your face is a skill that not even that detestable Hillary Clinton quite mastered. What does is it say about McCain of honorable memory that he is even less trustworthy to a former supporter today than a widely reviled say-anything politician on the other side of the aisle ?
Obama lost my vote and unless McCain exceeds his already impressive collection of unsuitable policies, lies, and calculated distractions and looks like winning (God knows how dumb some of our people are), he won't get it back. However, a claim that Obama spins more than McCain is proof positive that this software does not work.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Mr. Slippery]

In fact, you adding the words I forgot strengthens my point. How do you expect to use the blood of a tyrant without a patriot soldier?

How do you expect a tyrant to rule without a standing army?

Meanwhile, our "patriot" might be a civilian or a militia fighter.

The military is a tool to be used by civilian leaders and is not meant to make its own decisions.

No one has stated otherwise. I don't know why you're railing against people "blaming the military for things going wrong"; no one has done that here.

But when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And when all you have is a military-industrial complex, every problem looks like a call to bomb somebody or invade someone. This is part of the reason why standing armies are dangerous.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mdarksbane]

I've go with (B) and (C). Although what I'm actually concerned about is having the executive and legislative branches under control of the same party (just based on incumbency advantages and who is up for election this year, the democrats should pick up a few seats in both houses). As broken as healthcare is, I don't think government subsidized insurance is a step in the right direction.

Re:Obama spinning?

[db32]

I don't disagree that having a standing army is dangerous. That is why those safeguards were put into our constitution to try and mitigate that risk while defending against the much greater risk of another tyrant with a well trained and organized standing military coming to destroy us. In terms of modern warfare it doesn't make sense to not have a standing military. You can't teach someone to operate a tank, fly a jet, or deal with any of the communications technology in a fast enough timeframe to be able to respond to a threat. Eisenhower was an incredible President in that regard, completely and intimately aware of the horror of war and the danger of the military industrial complex, while also understanding quite clearly the necessary evil that it represents.

To say our founding fathers were against a standing army and then say that it shouldn't be considered patriotic is disingenuine at best and involves a gross misrepresentation of fact.

To say our founding fathers were concerned about the risks of a standing army while understanding the necessity of having one is the reality of it. This is why so many safeguards were built into our Constitution for dealing with the military. If they were against it it would have been written clearly "no you can't do this". The fact that there are so many rules describing how it must be handled shows they didn't like the idea, but understood its necessity, and did their best to put in as many safeguards against the problems of having a standing army while being able to leverage the benefits of having a standing army.

In fact, this is why I loathe the Bush Administrations takeover power of the National Guard units. This is a gross violation of the Constitution. The National Guard units are owned and operated by the state for a reason. The trouble is the National Guard has to be tied closely to the normal Federal troops due to the complexity of training for modern war. A single state simply cannot afford to maintain an entire compliment of military equipment, so certain states specialize in certain pieces.

Re:Obama spinning?

[NeutronCowboy]

You do realize that voting "present" in the Illinois legislature is tantamount to a "no", right? That's because for a bill to pass, people have to vote yes, and it has to be a majority of the people who were present at the time of voting.

As a result, voting "present" means something very specific. Furthermore, I'd like to see where you get your numbers from that he rarely shows up for his job. Got some sources?

I'll leave your comment regarding children alone, as that's just flamebait on a level that's normally reserved to O'Reilly.

Re:Obama spinning?

[JesseMcDonald]

Way to miss the point. I didn't mean to imply that you were being hypocritical, not performing your duty as you yourself defined it. The point was that you don't get to define what duty is for everyone else, which would be the only reason to involve the federal government. You don't need a law to do your own duty, and other people don't need laws to do what they believe to be their duties. You only need a law if you intend to hold others to your own personal view of duty, which is not what government is for.

Re:Obama spinning?

[TerranFury]

So, I'm a Democrat, but I'm actually not that impressed by Obama's speaking. It's full of verbal junk ("uh," "umm," etc). This is especially true when he has to ad-lib, but it even creeps into his canned speeches.

I saw the guy speak in public. I was expecting to be impressed, since everyone else was in awe of him. I left with the feeling that I'd just witnessed a song-and-dance and little else. This was at college, and whereas when other candidates gave speeches they'd also answer questions afterward, Obama was just whisked in by his security people, gave a speech, and was whisked out, as though he couldn't be trusted to do anything but recite a speech that his scriptwriter had prepared and that he had memorized. And it's the same thing that I see, now, when I watch him on TV.

I think the key advantage Obama has is that he knows how to use his voice. Hillary, for instance, I thought really did an overall better job delivering her speeches. But she did have a problem, and that was the sound of her voice: She was shrill.

And don't get me started about content: Obama's rhetoric sounds incredibly hollow to me. Tell me what you're going to try to do and how you think you might be able to do it, and use some goddamn specifics, because otherwise I don't know what I'm voting for. Don't just keep giving me pep talks!!

Obama may have won my support anyway by selecting Biden as his running-mate: Now there's a guy who knows what the hell he's doing. Listen to Biden's speeches from earlier in the campaign, when he was running; they actually have content and demonstrate expertise.

However, it's not without reservations. I refuse to vote for a Republican (their platform is all wrong.), but I also can't shake the feeling that Obama is an empty suit (does he even have a platform?*).

(* Now I know there will be people who say, "Look at Obama's website." But for me, it really doesn't inspire confidence. There's very little that's concrete in those PDFs.)

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

on, my salary is within the top 2% of all incomes in the United States.

I guess this makes you a very important person, or something. What's it like?

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

haha although you right on every aspect. I think it is funny every successive administration always outspends the previous. So are the Republicans wrong for saying that the Democrats will be spending freaks? Or are they leaving out that either party will spend their pants off. But with Palin's short record of spending cuts I can hope.

Obama sounds likes 3Bar Blues to me. Just an observation. Probably why people like how he talks. I thought it was funny that his wife spoke with the same cadence at the DNC.

Re:Obama spinning?

[REggert]

Take McCain's answer to the question Jay Leno asked about how many houses he owned. McCain's programming knows if he gets a question he doesn't like, just talk about his military service. That's exactly what he did.

The Daily Show actually pointed that out the other night. They showed clips of two separate interviews (neither of which was with Jay Leno) in which the interviewer asked McCain about his houses, and his response both times was along the lines of "Back when I was POW in Vietnam, I didn't even have a chair to sit in, let alone a house." He completely ducked the question with the same irrelevant response both times!

If you want an example of Obama thinking on his feet, check out his interview with Bill O'Reilly (just search for "Obama O'Reilly interview" on YouTube; the interview is divided into four parts, so there will be four separate videos). O'Reilly does a good job of grilling Obama, forcing him to give a substantive answer to each question, and even argues with him about his responses, but each discussion eventually concludes with either O'Reilly satisfied with Obama's response (which is not easy to accomplish), or reaching a philisophical difference of opinion not worth debating further.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

As an aside, I have to ask you. Given that the Republicans have increased the national debt at a rate of 5:1, and given that Republicans outspend Democrats at a rate of 2:1, given that they've created new government departments and tend to change their stance on certain issues such as woman's rights based entirely on the situation at hand, I have to ask you.

Why are you a Republican? I mean, I could understand being a conservative who believes in smaller government, lower spending, and lower taxes, but Republicans only lower taxes, and then only by spending our kids' money.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK buddy, a quick response to items 'not within the purview of the federal government.'

Excluding funding for charter schools, which is a much more specific topic than the other issues, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that in modern, industrialized economies operating in the 21st century, in order for those things to actually occur (and here I'm assuming that the above are things which promote the common good (affirmative action being up for debate depending on your views, but the broader goal of racial equality which affirmative action addresses does benefit the common good) and to be effective/meet standards of competence, they must be coordinated to some degree on a national level.

Regardless of what government should do, these things (with emphasis) need to be done. In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we gotta step up to the plate if our needs aren't being met - through government, companies or nonprofits.

I'm as concerned with privacy/tyranny issues as the next slashdotter, but in light of the current state of affairs I saw drop the dogmatism and be a little more pragmatic.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

US military funding is greater than the next 22 countries COMBINED.

Losing 30% of that shouldn't be a problem. What we need to do is get OUT of the 150 countries we're in, quit paying to establish bases in countries that have absolutely no need for bases(I'm looking at you, western Europe!), and bring our troops home. Get those troops to protect our cities so we can protect ourselves against a 9/11 event (There's no reason we shouldn't have shot down the second, third, and fourth planes), and to protect our borders so illegal mexicans don't become the largest demographic in the US like they already are in southern states.

I know it's painful, letting go of liberalism and Wilsonian "Making the world safe for democracy" bollocks, but it's a great way to save money, better protect ourselves, and make sure the US stays one of the most powerful nations on the earth.

Re:Obama spinning?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

And what does "promote the general welfare" mean? Well, if we look to the Federalist Papers, we'll see:

Federalist 23 (Hamilton):

Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.

Federalist 41 (Madison):

A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war

Re:Obama spinning?

[Mr. Slippery]

In terms of modern warfare it doesn't make sense to not have a standing military. You can't teach someone to operate a tank, fly a jet, or deal with any of the communications technology in a fast enough timeframe to be able to respond to a threat.

Switzerland.

A "well-regulated" militia is one capable of using these weapons and technologies. We have National Guardsmen who operate tanks and jets (though see below).

In fact, this is why I loathe the Bush Administrations takeover power of the National Guard units. This is a gross violation of the Constitution. The National Guard units are owned and operated by the state for a reason.

But that happened long before either Bush. The National Guard really became part of the reserves in a process starting with the National Defense Act of 1916 and ending with the "Total Force Policy" established in the 70's; it's not truly a militia, and shouldn't be confused with one. (IMHO, if you can send it overseas to invade other countries, it's a reserve, not a militia.)

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, affirmative action is one that does fall under the purview of the federal government.

The equal protection clause in the 14th ammendment to the US Constitution sometimes needed a little bit of enforcing regarding racial divisions in the past, now, it needs more of a push regarding the socioeconomic divides in our country.

Re:Obama spinning?

[dzfoo]

>> I just can't see local councils or corporations solving these problems without the money or incentives from the government.

That's an interesting fallacy. If you consider that the income of the Fedreal Government is actually the tax payers' money; then it follows that if you reduced the size of such government in any substancial manner, it's income greatly falls. Thus, the tax payers, including individual citizens, private corporations, and even local councils--in essence any entity that funds the Federeal Government, directly or indirectly--would then have substantially more resources which could be put to other greater uses.

In short, why does the local public school, say, depend so much on Federal funds? Most likely because there aren't enough local funds to sustain it. But if there were enough local funds locally, then there is no need for Federal funds.

Moreover, if the funds come in a more direct manner from the tax payers, instead of having to depend on the whims of a large and bureaucratic Federal Government; then the chance of such funds actually being applied to those thing which concern said tax payers increases.
        -dZ.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?
- Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?
- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?
- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?
- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?
- Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation?
- Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?

Everything I've listed above increases the role of the federal government. So no, this isn't a talking point. That's 70% I'm opposed to because I don't want to expand federal authority.

The only think I'd say I agree with is reforming the tax code. I would prefer to eliminate the itemized deduction system, include all benefits as income for tax purposes, and eliminate all taxes and fees that are not the income tax. I don't think this is in line with Obama's plan.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Valdrax]

The following are not within the purview of the federal government:

The interstate commerce clause and the 14th Amendment pretty much cover each and every one of those.

I know that a lot of conservative/libertartian thinkers like to believe that Supreme Court caselaw has absolutely no say on what is and isn't constitutional, but come on. You're just saying, "Constitutional is what I say it is," and ignoring legal authority on the matter.

There is nothing to suggest that Cain was ever expected to act as his brother's keeper; his non sequitur response was merely a futile attempt to avoid the question.

This is absolutely, unequivocally true. However, the New Testament has a lot more to say on our responsibilities to our neighbors, and it's often dismaying how often conservatives gloss over the implications of that towards the idea of rugged individualism and tough love.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Tyrus Perises]

I'm not voting for McCain OR Obama, but your comment here is nothing but the usual simplified political tripe which imo, underscores the real issues with our political system today, honesty, but hey I'll bite.

---- NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East?
That statement would lead you to believe that one day they were just like "hey! lets fire some linguists today!", sorry this issue was about *gay* linguists, that got wrapped up in the wider issue of gays in the military, don't ask don't tell, etc. Now I don't agree with that policy, but please frame it honestly.

---- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?
---- Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?
Oh so it's mandatory for children but optional for adults, and its going to be affordable because?.... Oh right because the government will just pay for it somehow, meaning everyone will. Both McCain and Obama have a very similar list of issues they want to fix with healthcare, and many of them are quite good. For example legalizing drug re-importation and the whole negotiated medicare drug prices, etc. However the fact is that public healthcare has only gotten better throughout the last century. The central cause of the proportionate increase in cost is actually related to our increased rate of scientific discovery, and the inability to provide those benefits to the public at large, cheaply. When someone gets sick they want everything thats available to be leveraged to fix them, but its just not practical, a line must be drawn somewhere. So the question becomes, who gets to draw that line, Obama's answer is the government, sorry I really don't see that as a role for the federal government.

---- Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be?
Everyone is for that, but it never happens, I should think Obama will be successful why?

---- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?
What does that even mean? Everyone has says they will "invest in science and research". Apparently it doesn't mean funding NASA, which according to him NASA is "no longer associated with inspiration". In fact NASA would likely face deep cuts out of its already pathetic in comparison to everything else budget. Attacking NASA is typical for Democrats however, strangely NASA is a primarily Republican interest.

---- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?
Oh right because apparently funding the public school system isn't enouph. How about this, we abolish the federal department of education completely. The constitution gave no authorization for such a department, and frankly I think if you ask any teacher which they would rather have, a federal agency telling them what to do, or just be given the money from the state that would have gone to the federal system, they would take the money every time. Personally I think empowered local communities are much more capable of educating youth than the federal government any day.

---- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?
Affirmative action doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be abolished. I am glad however that he is taking on the issue, and hes probably the only person that can currently.

---- Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?
Don't hold your breath, the democrats and the republicans both created this issue, and the differences between them are so small that I really wouldn't expect either candidate to do anything particularly different to solve it. He has said that "On my first day in office I will give the military a new mission, ending the war", you have to be amazingly naive to think that sign

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

Will you be able to find a citation for the fact that Republicans controlled the senate, congress, judiciary, and the executive during this time?

If the Republicans can't even take responsibility for running the country when they've got every branch of government, they should step the hell back and leave governing to adults.

Re:Obama spinning?

[JesseMcDonald]

nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

"[E]qual protection of the laws" means that states cannot make laws with irrelevant distinctions (especially race, age, class, wealth, etc.), and that enforcement of the laws cannot depend on who violated them or was harmed by such violations. It has nothing to do with closing "socioeconomic divides"; if anything, laws which give preferential treatment to any particular group, even in an attempt to make up for past injustice, run contrary to the 14th amendment by failing to hold all individuals equal under the law.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

The government is incompetent and corrupt, and I believe people could do a better job without it. And even if we can't I'd rather be free and poor than well off but have no freedom.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

That may be the case, but if you're for smaller government, then you should vote Democrat. The past 32 years show that the Republicans haven't ever seen a porkbarrel project they didn't like.

My data shows increases in debt and budget in 2007 dollars.

Carter:
Debt $-206.17 billion *(Note: This means the debt SHRANK, an alien concept I know!)
Budget $87.04 billion
Reagan:
Debt $2019.17 billion
Budget $315.87 billion
Bush 1:
Debt $1206.38 billion
Budget $128.06 billion
Clinton:
Debt $1430.63 billion
Budget $130.83 billion
Bush 2:
Debt $2712.64 billion
Budget $777.70 billion

Bush 2's numbers are pretty conservative, since they don't include the wars in Iraq or Afganistan. Pretty amazing what can get done when Republicans run all branches of government.

As you can see, Republicans are growing the government at a much higher rate than Democrats.

If you hate big government, it's sad but your only practical choice is the Democrats. Eventually, I'm positive there's going to be a revolt within the Republican party, because young conservatives like me aren't interested in paying for middle-aged losers' socialist paycheques.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

"Don't you presume to tell me I'm not doing my part."

If you require the government to pass laws to make you help the poor, you are not doing your part.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

In the US, the federal government was only originally meant as a binding entity keeping the 50 states together and providing an armed forces to defend the country.

This is an incredibly intelligent design, because the nation is practically the same size as Europe, and many US states have the same population as Europe. The idea is, the individual states should be able to make decisions on their own, so for example you don't have the entire country getting in stupid debates over abortion or gay marriage when individual states can just pass the laws they want, much like member states of the EU.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

Have you even looked at McCain's voting record? It's not big on pork. . .

Also, you left out entitlement programs from your figures, which is a HUGE omission. Social Security and Medicare were enacted by democrats, and they are the gift that keeps on giving, so to speak.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

Only if you ignore that tax cuts for 90% of the population will mean there's more money in the economy moving.

Rich people save their excess money. Even middle class people can't afford that. They spend their money right away on bills, or new things.

This would mean that rich people with investments in manufacturing and commerce will find that they're suddenly making a lot more money because people can afford to buy more things, and will result in those rich smart people investing more money there, and hiring more people in manufacturing and commerce, which would create a cycle where more people working means more wealth for companies, which means more jobs, which means more money for the regular people, who will spend it thus giving money to the rich, who will be taxed when the money trickles back up.

Ignoring fairness(Because nothing about taxation is fair), this is a good way to keep the money in the economy moving, to prevent it from stagnating, and ensuring that jobs stay here. Current tax policies support sending jobs to people in China.

Henry Ford supported this, and I think he knows a thing or two about how to run a company.

Re:Obama spinning?

[db32]

So in the 1940s the militia concept still worked. This is 2008. The "weekend warriors" of the National Guard are rarely trained to the same level as the full timers, and frequentley they do not operate with the same level of discipline. So sure, every man has a rifle at home. Given that I can fire missiles from hundreds of miles away and accurately hit those rifles mean precious little. The tanks and planes of the 1940s don't even begin to compare to the tanks and jets of the modern era. This also neglects to mention the massive trauma to the civilian sector that is caused when you have to remove a large section of your work force to go fight a war. Quite litterally you get more bang for your buck with full timers, and you don't traumatize the economy (as much) by removing the civilian work force at the same time.

I agree that it started before. I think the notion of sending the guard to fight a foreign war is pretty wrong. However, ironically enough, Bush and his ilk created that problem as well. All those rich kids and what not were able to join the guard to dodge the war. So it was filled with cowards and political shits and drastically diluted the real purpose.

Re:Obama spinning?

[AliasMarlowe]

Even though I'm a Republican, I have to concede that Obama is one of the most gifted speakers to come along for quite some time. He's an absolutely magnetic speaker and a great advocate for that which he believes, and when I watch him, I almost have to smack myself to snap out of it. I can't stand the guy's politics, but I am proud that he's an American.

I'm a libertarian conservative atheist. Obama disgusts me and Palin nauseates me. If there was a superficial-dysfunctional ticket, they could run together on it.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

You fail. Your skill is not enough.

Entitlements are part of the budget. This means they're included in my figures.

McCain has changed his political platform completely to become electable. He's going to do exactly what Reagan and Bush 1 & 2 did, and waste more of MY money. It's wonderful that you old men don't mind spending it, but my generation is going to have to pay for all that debt.

Re:Obama spinning?

[JesseMcDonald]

I know that a lot of conservative/libertartian thinkers like to believe that Supreme Court caselaw has absolutely no say on what is and isn't constitutional, but come on. You're just saying, "Constitutional is what I say it is," and ignoring legal authority on the matter.

The Constitution is (supposedly) an agreement between the people and the government, which includes the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. None of these aspects of the government have any power or authority beyond what the people give them, as mediated by the Constitution. In particular, the Supreme Court's powers are derived from the Constitution. It is perfectly reasonable for the Supreme Court to strike down a act of the legislature or the executive branch as un-Constitutional, since the government can always refuse to use a power it may or may not have been granted. However, to allow the Supreme Court to become the final arbiter of what is Constitutional is the height of irresponsibility. It would permit the government to determine the extent of its own authority, removing any trace of the founding principle that a just government derives its authority from the will of the people and not simply from its own power.

It is the people themselves who are in a position to judge the Constitutionality of the government's actions, as they are the sole source of the government's claim to authority. It is meaningless for the government to endorse its own behavior.

People around here react rather negatively to the idea that a voluntary but fixed contract can be altered at will by a large organization in a better bargaining position. The Constitution is involuntary, and is presented by an even larger organization, with its own enforcement arm, which arrogates to itself the right to interpret the meaning of the document in its own courts. Why can't people see that this is a far worse situation?

The interstate commerce clause and the 14th Amendment pretty much cover each and every one of those.

How do any of those items involve the act of interstate commerce, trade between people in different states? How does the 14th Amendment relate to any of this? I've already pointed out elsewhere that affirmative action is not "equal protection under the laws"; the rest don't even come close.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

the 2008 budget is in excess of $3 trillion, what are these numbers you've posted here? And how does that change the fact that entitlements were enacted and are supported by democrats? You can maybe hold Bush accountable for the discretionary spending, and part of the defense spending but certainly he has nothing to do with social security. He spent six years trying to reduce the benefits so that it would be solvent!

And no, McCain has pretty much always been anti-pork.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

Reagan was wrong. His increases in spending and debt haven't resulted in an increase in the size of the economy big enough to justify themselves.

I think of taxation theory in terms of thermodynamics. Money, like energy, will flow from an area of high need to an area of low need naturally. The people who need it least are the rich. Thus, if you set your tax system to punish the poor and support the rich (many rich people don't pay as much tax as the people who work in their factories), you're supporting taking money and keeping it in an area of low need.

This is fine if you want to take money out of circulation (Personally, I'd just increase interest rates, but that's just me), but if you want to see the economy increase in size, you want to increase the flow of money in the economy. You can do this by taking money from areas of low need and placing them into areas of high need (or, more acceptably, simply lowering taxes for the majority).

The high need people will manifest that need by spending the money. That spent money will flow through the economy to the rich, who will get to keep a portion of that profit while being taxed to support services they themselves tend to use government services more anyway -- Who uses the justice department more? You, sitting at your computer, or the RIAA, who have sent out tens of thousands of lawsuit requests this year? Who sues more, the guy making minimum wage, or the company who had a dozen patent lawsuits this year? Who recieved more welfare, the guy who lost his job from GM, or Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae?

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

The numbers there are from a federal government website which gives budget numbers. Where are your numbers from?

The Republicans controlled the senate, the congress, the executive, and the judiciary. If they wanted to cancel any sort of entitlements, they simply needed to pass legislation to do so.

Also, talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Democratic presidents since WWII have only added a net of 500 billion dollars to the debt, adjusting for inflation. Republican presidents have increased the debt by 6,046 billion, accounting for inflation. Democratic presidents have only increased the federal budget by 687 billion accounting for inflation, Republican presidents have increased the federal budget by 1450 billion, accounting for inflation.

McCain has been a lot of things that he stopped being when he wanted ot become president. Remember what George W. Bush ran on? Smaller government. Balanced budgets. Humble foreign policy.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

To answer your question, Here are my numbers.

The 2009 budget submitted is indeed 3.1 trillion, however, that's not what I'm looking at, I'm looking at the increases adjusted for inflation.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

Interesting. You invent what he's thinking about, then attack your own invention.

You were thinking about molesting boys just now, weren't you? You were thinking about their soft soft skin!

You're a sick monster, if that's what you were thinking. A sick monster.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

- NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East?

We are not at war, there is no declaration. So I would either declare war or fire/withdrawl.

- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?
- Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?

You do realize how big of a LIE you just told, don't you? Medicare, medicaid are not optional but programs we are all required to fund. YOU might be satisfied with just me paying for your kids' runny noses. The truth is that your bretheren won't be happy until everybody's healthcare, housing, food, education are to some minimum but ever-increasing standard regardless of how lazy and incompentent the people are.

- Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be?

You want your pipe dream to be easily afforded?

- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?

The problem is NOT with China and they aren't kicking our asses. The US is performing under its full potential but still outperforms.

- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?

Public funding for education is THE worst of all the socialist crap we pay for. It poisons the mind.

- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?

WTF? You think Obama's daughters are going to have a more difficult life than rural white boy?

- Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?

Good thing we fired the translators!

- Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation?

Huh? Because some lives are more valuable than others? Until the dealth penalty is cheaper than warehousing someone until they die, we ought to just scrap it. Period. It is a waste time adjudicating who lives and who dies. We don't just pay for the people we kill, but at least 20 grown-ups are stuck in court debating it EVERY fucking time it comes up. If we paid the full cost of being wrong (say $50 million per incident), this would have been shelved a long time ago. Shame on you pinko! SHAME!

- Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?

As long as you are giving out checks, free education, welfare, food stamps, all-you-can-eat healthcare, instant alimony, there is no reason NOT to have a baby or ten. Beats a real job.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

You know, people like you just prove his behaviour right. If you want to be president, don't tell people what you want to do, because they'll just disagree with you.

No wonder the one man who actually articulated a concrete plan for America, Ron Paul, is a pariah. He's an insane lunatic because he actually has a plan other than being a really cool guy.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Mr. Beatdown]

Let's see which policies I disagree with...

Don't ask, don't tell is horrible policy. Those who are openly gay should either be accepted into the military or kept out. If allowing gays to serve reduces overall effectiveness, they should not be allowed to serve. If it increases effectiveness, they should be allowed to serve. I don't know enough to say if the result of gays serving alongside and often living in close quarters with those they may be attracted to is a good idea, because it expands our pool of eligible volunteers for the armed services, or a bad idea, because the overall impact of a sexually integrated armed forces would be to reduce effectiveness and troop morale. I'd certainly be opposed to allowing women in the military if the order came down that they could no longer be segregated for training and living...

The socialization of health care is something I'm opposed to for a whole host of reasons.

Tax code simplification is not a major hallmark of either nominee's platforms. There's lots of changes both candidates would make, but I don't think simplification really describes them. The Fair Tax consumption tax on the other hand...

Science and research should NOT be funded primarily by the government.

Increased funding for charter schools and increased school choice are 2 planks of McCain's platform that I support. Also increased local control of the hiring and firing of teachers. I also support vouchers for the attendance of private school for ANY parent that chooses to send their child to private school, not just low income parents. I support merit pays based in large part on the improvement in standardized testing. Competition in our school system is necessary for it's reform, and Obama has kept in line with the teacher's unions on these issues, and opposes vouchers in all cases. John McCain supports the policies that will bring real reform to our nation's schools. More money won't.

I'm all for merit-based decisions making. Racial, gender, religious, and sexual preferences have no place in hiring for positions where these things are not BFOQs.

I support the end of our current occupation in Iraq. I understand the importance of leaving a stable, democratic government behind. No matter how we feel about the original occupation, the question is what should we do from here. McCain is right on the importance of winning in Iraq.

Certain heinous crimes like the rape of a child? I applaud Obama for saying that the Supreme court got that one wrong, but the truth is Obama has pledged to appoint justices who have "oneâ(TM)s deepest values, oneâ(TM)s core concerns, oneâ(TM)s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of oneâ(TM)s empathy.â Regardless of whether you agree with the Constitution, I think it is vital that we have judges who will rule on it, and not their own deepest values.

If the constitution hadn't been amended to give women the vote, or to repeal prohibition, or to forbid a poll tax, it would be wrong for the court to rule that any of these things were unconstitutional.

I support the repeal of Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade. These cases should have been decided on equal protection grounds, not the imaginary right to privacy rooted in the emanations and penumbras of a living constitution. Scalia is by far my favorite justice, and better by far than Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter, who have all at one point or another expressed favor for finding the death penalty constitutional, something which is so clearly outside the scope of their proper role as interpreters of the constitution that every American who believes America to be a constitutional representative democracy should be opposed to it.

Change in the laws of the country should come from the legislature, not the bench. If the legislature passes a law that can not be interpreted in such a way as to bring it in line with the constitution, it should be struck down. Of the major candidates, only McCain has this one right.

Re:Obama spinning?

[rho]

You don't know what "if" means, do you?

Way to not overreact. Let me guess--Obama fan?

Re:Obama spinning?

[bm_luethke]

I object to very litte of that (about the only quibble I have is the "Immoral" part in there describing the Iraq war).

But then that's what happens when you list things at a very high level - it is the details I highly disagree with. And then only sorta, since most of the people who are all gung ho over him do not care about how he is going to achieve those goals to look any deeper he hasn't really stated those details. In those cases I have to look to who he is pandering too and who is supplying him his money and I *greatly* dislike that.

Lets face it, a politician can get up there and say they are for improving the standard of living for the majority of Americans - that is all well and good and I doubt there are any American that says that is a Bad Thing. But then they can achieve that by killing a little less than 50% of the population and giving that wealth away - that absolutely 100% fulfills that campaign promise.

So, lets see :"Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation?". How? Dunno, he will not say. Does he take a significant amount of money from a specific group and attend/talk at their rallies and not others? Sure thing, so I have to assume that is who he prefers. If so then saying "I support quotas on Death Row and adjusting punishment based on race in order to equilize the demographics. Further People like Mumia ought to be set free" is fairly accurate and is - well, MUCH less liked than your sentance.

Then again, who knows - he hasn't actually said what he believes so one can argue that it is silly and he *obviously* doesn't mean that. That's the beauty of someone with little to no record and nearly every thing they say being mostly meaningless - you can project *any* belief system you want onto them and they become your perfect candidate. However at some point they have to make a decision and give some details, if Obama gets elected there are going to be some VERY surprised and unhappy people out there - too many of his supporters have diametrically opposed ideas of what he actually means by what he says.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

Not at all. I support the Democrats in the presidency over the Republicans because the latter are big nanny state loving liberals who have taken their policy cues for Woodrow Wilson and FDR (Which makes sense, because they don't believe in taxes, so they just run up the debt), where the former, historically, work harder to keep a balanced budget.

That said, I'm a pre-eisenhower Republican. Nixon had the right idea with respect to fiscal policy, even though he's an immoral asshole. Compared to Kennedy and Johnson, he raised spending far less, and he actually managed to pay down the debt. Unfortunately, that idiot Ford managed to squander Nixon's fiscal prudence, to raise spending at a rate that wouldn't be seen again until Reaganomics turned the budget into a living joke.

Frankly, we don't need the federal government determining personal economics, social policies, OR moral policies. It should be the responsibility of the states to do that, because this country is way too big to be forcing one way on everyone.

Re:Obama spinning?

[spazdor]

If allowing gays to serve reduces overall effectiveness, they should not be allowed to serve.

But...

I'm all for merit-based decisions making. Racial, gender, religious, and sexual preferences have no place in hiring for positions where these things are not BFOQs.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

right. and along with the constitutional arguments, there are certain powers guaranteed to the president, and certain powers that are not guaranteed, and cannot be implicitly assumed by the president, especially if it conflicts with a power expressly guaranteed to another branch of government, or makes the president 'unaccountable' to anyone. And yet we all see how popular that view is with the neocons. (i won't even call them republicans)

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

The national debt is the result of the republican strategy of reducing government spending through starvation. Basically, they believe that if the cut taxes (politically easy) they can then use it as an excuse to cut spending (politically hard).

McCain has never subscribed to this philosophy, that's why he voted against the tax cuts that Bush proposed and passed through congress. Of course, he is now in favor of keeping the tax cuts, and reducing spending because he does not want to raise taxes.

"Remember what George W. Bush ran on? Smaller government. Balanced budgets. Humble foreign policy."

That was what he ran on the first time, but I think he rethought his position after 9/11. The second time he ran on the war on terror. As I recall he did a lot better the second time too.

McCain has always advocated a strong military. He prefers to cut military spending by reforming the military's acquisition process and streamlining their bureaucracy.

McCain also want's to deal with social security and earmarks. None of these things are new positions for him. I don't know why people say that.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

The budget has grown primarily as a result of social security and defense spending. There's not a lot we can do about social security, and that will continue to grow. We can help with defense, though. It's important to understand that the war is not where the majority of the defense spending increase has come from, instead it is a result of army brass getting everything they ask for.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

I'm going to continue to call bullshit on that one. Republicans had the senate, the congress, the judiciary, the executive. They had Carte Blanche to do what they wanted. They COULD have legislated an end to every liberal entitlement program they wanted to. They COULD have destroyed every gun law they hated. They COULD have cut taxes responsibly.

Instead, they increased spending twice as much as Reagan, more than any administration in history. They argued for torture. They created an illegal prison in Cuba. They wasted their time legislating whether some woman in Florida could be taken off life support or not.

This is the Republican Party. All talk, no action. Certainly no action in the directions they say they'd like to see it.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

They did cut taxes.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

Without doing any of the rest, that's just giving welfare to middle-aged losers paid for by my generation and my kids.

It's bad enough that I've got to deal with the welfare mothers and other losers. Why the hell am I paying for a salary for every household in America now?

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

I gave numbers. Back yours up, or you're just another loser apologist.

Re:Obama spinning?

[CSMatt]

The following are not within the purview of the federal government:

        * healthcare
        * investing in science and research
        * funding for charter schools
        * affirmative action
        * education (including sex education)

Not that that has ever stopped the federal government from doing those things anyway.

Re:Obama spinning?

[CSMatt]

It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare."

Who is this "General Welfare," anyway? Was he some sort of Revolutionary War hero who reached demigod status so he was guaranteed a life of luxury and publicity from the government in the Preamble, but history managed to forget him anyway?

Re:Obama spinning?

[Mr. Beatdown]

That's right. If hiring someone helps the organization, hire them. If it hurts, hire someone else.

Re:Obama spinning?

[tjstork]

Well, last time I checked, raising taxes in the middle of a recession is about the dumbest thing you can possibly due. Let's tighten our money even more when money is scarce. Duh.

Since the time Bush did his tax cut, the rest of the world cut their taxes even more, particularly corporate taxes. As a result, capital is now leaving the USA to invest in companies overseas that have lower tax rates, and THAT is causing the stock market to stagger. The problem is not that Bush cut taxes, but that he did not cut them enough.

Re:Obama spinning?

[mosb1000]

Did I mention that it is more difficult politically to cut spending?

Re:Obama spinning?

[Valdrax]

The Constitution is (supposedly) an agreement between the people and the government, which includes the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. None of these aspects of the government have any power or authority beyond what the people give them, as mediated by the Constitution.

Agreed. Where I disagree with you, apparently, is that we've done exactly that in the current system.

It is perfectly reasonable for the Supreme Court to strike down a act of the legislature or the executive branch as un-Constitutional, since the government can always refuse to use a power it may or may not have been granted. However, to allow the Supreme Court to become the final arbiter of what is Constitutional is the height of irresponsibility.

Now, that's crazy talk. You can't rule what is unconstitutional without also opening up the possibility of ruling the other way.

It is the people themselves who are in a position to judge the Constitutionality of the government's actions, as they are the sole source of the government's claim to authority. It is meaningless for the government to endorse its own behavior.

The people have chosen to delegate that power to objective factfinders instead of letting majority whim determine what our laws actually mean. It's a counter-majoritarian system, but one that has provided stability and consistency of law as a result. Furthermore, it is one with a democratic check for if it gets out of line -- the amendment process.

People around here react rather negatively to the idea that a voluntary but fixed contract can be altered at will by a large organization in a better bargaining position. The Constitution is involuntary, and is presented by an even larger organization, with its own enforcement arm, which arrogates to itself the right to interpret the meaning of the document in its own courts. Why can't people see that this is a far worse situation?

You claim the Constitution is "involuntary?" Did you miss the whole adoption by popular will in 1789, or do you just think that democratic decisions shouldn't be binding on the people who come later? The alternative to the latter is chaos -- a nation with no social or legal precedents that turns on the will of the demagogue who can garner 51% of the vote. That's not a country I want to live in, because that's not a country that will guarantee my liberties.

I just don't get where you're coming from. You say that the government exists by the authority granted by the will of the people, yet you don't recognize that the *current* government is *also* granted authority by the will of the people, and you don't like it when the government does things that the people want (like provide healthcare and education) because that would be "unconstitutional," but you don't like when the government rules "constitutional" things that the majority wanted to do (or they wouldn't have passed in Congress).

Do you or do you not believe in the validity of a counter-majoritarian system of representative democracy?

If you do, then it should be okay for that government to rule that it can do things that the people don't all immediately like (like ruling on its own behavior).

If you don't, then there shouldn't be any problem with the majority passing healthcare legislation because "unconstitutional" doesn't matter anyway -- that's entirely a counter-majoritarian check.

How do any of those items involve the act of interstate commerce, trade between people in different states? How does the 14th Amendment relate to any of this? I've already pointed out elsewhere that affirmative action is not "equal protection under the laws"; the rest don't even come close.

Look, I'm not going to teach you a class on Con Law. Affirmative action is an area of law in flux, and frankly it may be ruled unconstitutional soon under the current court (if Parents v. Seattle is an

Re:Obama spinning?

[mcpkaaos]

The problem is not that Bush cut taxes, but that he did not cut them enough.

If by "enough" you mean across the board for all income brackets, I might agree.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Sj0]

If you've got full control, and you refuse to cut spending, especially while the dems DO cut spending, then why do they have any moral right to lead?

I say they don't. Until they grow a pair of balls and actually follow their platform, they're just left-wing spendaholics worse than the Democrats by every fiscal metric.

Re:Obama spinning?

[tjstork]

The Republican party likes to talk about the Bible and responsibility. What happened to "love thy neighbor," and how is monetary greed anything but the shirking of responsibility?

We are responsible for our neighbors, not your crackheads. We use our money that we earn for the streets we walk down, for the schools we send our children to, for the police in our neighborhoods.

I'm sorry, but just because Obama was the descendenat of a slave does not give him the right to make slaves of everyone else.

And quite honestly, all of this social fairness talk is crap from a man who hangs out with hollywood types that sue broke college students for the imagined crime of stealing a song. Let me see Obama come out against RIAA and tell that fat old dike barbara streisand to go f--- herself and then you might make a believer out of me.

I can't wait to run for office as a Republican in the next election, because I am going to make Hollywood howl with my anti-DRM, anti-copyright crusade. Let's see Madonna not get a dime from a CD, DVD or internet download sales and we'll see long before she's talking about her "right to earn a return for her work."

Re:Obama spinning?

[fm6]

When you state all your arguments as hypotheticals, any contradiction can be described as "overreacting". If you have actual opinions, why not state them?

I think I know why: You don't want to have an actual discussion or argument, you just want to score points against people who disagree with you. You're a sort of rhetorical Viet Cong: you don't try to hold any positions, you just make life unpleasant for your opponents until they get disgusted and go away.

That might be satisfying to your ego, but it shows a total unwillingness to listen to other peoples ideas or share your own. Kind of pointless, really.

Re:Obama spinning?

[spazdor]

Okay. But is "not gay" really a BFOQ?

Or is "ability to work alongside gays without getting weirded out" just a more important BFOQ that has gone untested-for in previous recruiting efforts?

If allowing gays to serve causes a loss of morale among straights, then I'd call that a failure of straights to do their jobs.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that sounds really good... too bad its all just spin.

Lets go thru it:
1 - huh ... thats a policy ... uhhmm ok
2 - Providing manditory healthcare for children sounds like a great idea ... too bad the dems passed a bill that had over 35 Bil in pork ad never even touched the kids who needed it. But let me tell ya... I have lived in countries that nationalize healthcare. You could die of minor cancer in most of them.
3 - see number 2 - you want affordable healthcare ... fine lets have tort reform ... OH WAIT ... we wouldn't want that cause the libs need their funding right?
4 - ARE YOU KIDDING ME ... hmmm ok lets go with a flat tax ... there DONE!!!
5 - I like your thinking there but if he REALLY didn't want china to kick our asses then he would have helped pass the 2001 bill that MIGHT have kept his buddies over a freddie Mac and Fannie from needing a bailout ... cause thats what really helped china the most. OH and I have BEEN to china and i don't think they have been kicking much in the last decade
6 - ARE YOU TRYING TO SPIN CHARTER SCHOOLS AS A LIBERAL IDEA ... you have got to be kidding me ... you like charter schoools ... vote rep
DONE!!!
7 - Himmm the end of affirmitive action .... yep thats a Rep concept ... i like it
8 - let me see setting a timeline but not really sticking to it because we need to end the war the right way ... sounds good ... and republican when ya pull all that spin out
9 - hmm lets see ... this sounds like a state issue... guess that puts this policy where is needs to go .... in the spin bucket
10 - just read - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/nov/21/health.sexeducation

Re:Obama spinning?

[notrandomly]

Wonder who gets the blame for the intelligence failures of 2000 - 2004?

Bush. Clinton had all this intelligence gathered up, but instead of following up on it, Bush fired the security advisor and ignored the warnings.

Re:Obama spinning?

[CaptPungent]

What the hell? The first thing Bush did when taking office was cut intelligence and ignore anything they tried to tell him. Clinton actually had the plans for invading Afghanistan drafted and placed on the desk for Bush to use, because they knew it needed to be done. It was Bush and his administration that gutted the intelligence agencies.

Re:Obama spinning?

[CaptPungent]

Agreed, the problem being neither party wants to do this, even if the left suggests anything like it the right calls them "weak" for it.

Re:Obama spinning?

[Mr. Beatdown]

So you'd support a sexually integrated military? Because you've either got to segregate gays for living/training, or allow that any discrimination does not further the goal of an effective military.

The world may change to a point where not wanting to share quarters with people who are sexually attracted to you is deemed a failure to to their job, but short of creating a gay only division, there's not a lot that can be done there. I see your point about justice, but I'm reasonably sure you also see my point about the most effective decision being the right one. I'm just pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree on which should be but 1st in the decision making.

Re:Obama spinning?

[spazdor]

Fair enough. My position is more or less as you characterized it; allow Teh Geys to serve, and any straights who can't deal with them may ask their COs for reassignment.

I do take issue with the "not wanting to share quarters with people who are sexually attracted to you" bit though. If they're adults, they can put sexual tension aside and do their jobs. And if their worst nightmares come true and they receive an unwelcome sexual advance (perish the thought!), then there are already channels to deal with sexual harassment.

Do any all-female divisions exist in the US Forces for this reason? The "OMG, a guy might be checking me out without my knowledge!" issue isn't just faced by men, after all. :)

Re:Obama spinning?

[jbeach]

So it's Clinton's fault, that Bush:

- completely ignored all warnings from the intelligence community for his first 8 months in office
- demoted bipartisan Richard Clarke from cabinet meetings and put no one in his place;
- refused Clarke's intelligence plan and put nothing in it's place,
- held **not one** meeting on terrorism **and**
- took a one-month vacation in August of 2001 - where he received a briefing specifically mentioning Bin Laden and did, you guessed it, nothing?

I'd think that Bush is responsible for what Bush did in office. Or in this case, didn't do. I'd think that was in line with the conservative principle of personal accounability, wouldn't you?

A bit strange.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that finds it a bit strange that the Presidential Candidates are on the opposing ends of that
"spin" graph?

It kinda gives a bit pseudoscience with political motivations feel to it.

Re:A bit strange.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if he took into account that McCain's face is partially paralyzed. It's hard to make inadvertent facial gestures when you you can't move your face, which would explain why he got such a low spin score.

I take it they trained the software on...

[AndyboyH]

...Tony Bliar (mis-spelling of his surname intentional), UK king of spin?

I feel horrible

[nawcom]

After reading the description of TFA, this idea of Obama responding to the article claiming he has the spin, old-school Fresh Prince style with an aged DJ Jazzy Jeff scratching in the background.

I'm all about change, yo, that's why I'm gonna win,

It ain't nothin' to do with no political speee-in!

*Scritch-scratch, scritch-scritch-scritch-scra-scatch scritchity-scratch, scritchity-scratch, scritchity-scratch, scritch-scritch, scritch-scra-atch*

Yes, I'm most likely voting Democrat.

Re:I feel horrible

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you think of Obama speaking in such a buffoonish manner?

He is articulate and bright and clean. I know this because his running mate Joe Biden said so.

Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[91degrees]

I've always been impressed by Obama's ability to give a speech, and not actually say anything.

It makes him very popular. It's all vaguely positive. There's very little for anyone to actually disagree with.

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[Eli Gottlieb]

Ever gone and read the policy papers from his website?

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[CaptSaltyJack]

I've always been impressed by Obama's ability to give a speech, and not actually say anything. It makes him very popular. It's all vaguely positive. There's very little for anyone to actually disagree with.

Yeah, McCain's speeches are so much better (I'm a war hero, I'm a family man, I'm behind our troops, our economy is fine, I can't wait to introduce Sarah Palin to Warshington!) Don't forget, McCain is totally full of crap when it comes to helping out our troops.

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[alvinrod]

What does that have to do with Obama's speeches? I don't recall any claim that McCain was somehow better, or for that matter worse, as he wasn't even mentioned. It's entirely possible that the OP thinks McCain is just as worthless or that even though his speeches have substance, it's a frightening kind of substance.

The worst part about the two party system and the people that go along with it is that instead of addressing any shortcomings or issues, they simply point to the other party and suggest that they're way worse or responsible for the blame. Nothing is ever really explained or examined in depth. No one ever bothers to counter the argument as it stands or point out why it's false. No one really cares about the truth of the matter and would just like to make the other party look worse while promoting their own goals and ideals regardless of whether it has any relation to the original point.

Thanks for being a classic example of how worthless our system is and how much it attempts to distract from actually weighing the merits of any given point and instead turn things into a circus for everyone's amusement.

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[91degrees]

I wasn't talking about McCain. I was talking about Obama.

A lack of content from his main rival doesn't actually increase the amount of content from him.

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[CaptSaltyJack]

Nothing is ever really explained or examined in depth.

I dunno, there's a fair amount of explanation and depth going on here. But you're generally right, no one goes into too much depth, especially on TV. Probably because it will fly over the heads of most of the viewers.

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[CaptSaltyJack]

Your original post got modded as funny. I have a sneaking suspicion something has flown way over my head here, so I think I'll just shuffle away...

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[NeutronCowboy]

As opposed to what - what every other politician does when they speak? Politicians are all either vaguely positive (we're gonna fix this!), or so specific that they can weasel out of it because the circumstances didn't all come together.

Finally, I'll also just say that you're not listening to his speeches. There are quite a few specifics in them.

I'm always surprised by how little people listen to what the candidates actually say. Whenever someone talks about anybody's speech, I can only marvel at how much they read into them what they want to hear.

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[TerranFury]

My thoughts precisely.

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[Sj0]

So let's say he actually articulated a policy.

Let's say he said we'll eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing, financing this by pulling our military out of 150 countries, and instead of using the military to bully the world, we use diplomacy and commerce. Let's say he wants to eliminate the department of homeland security, along with most of the other departments, to save more money.

Let's say he says that social security isn't going to work, we should phase it out, paying for the people who rely on it but letting the youth opt out.

Let's say he said we should eliminate the central bank and replace the currency based on debt with a currency backed by commodities.

Let's say he said that we shoudn't try to use the Federal Government to jam our social or moral agendas down people's throats, and that we should instead remove those powers from the Federal Government and let states decide these issues instead.

Well, by saying all that, you've got someone who will only get 7% of the vote. Congratulations, you've gained a following of people who think your policies are wise, and 90% of the population thinks you're crazy.

I bet you disagree with a lot of that.

That's why Ron P

Re:Obama doesn;t realyl say much

[CSMatt]

"It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."

blinking

[gEvil (beta)]

Blink and you would have missed it.

Which is why we can't blink in anything we do. Never blink!

Re:blinking

[Eli Gottlieb]

"Don't blink. Don't even blink. Blink and you're dead. They are fast, faster than you could believe, don't turn your back, don't look away, and don't blink. Good luck."

I never realized it, but that quote was actually about politicians.

O'Reilly 1.0

[Carl_Stawicki]

...software that can identify the amount of spin in a politician or candidate's speech.

The software is called O'Reilly 1.0, but it's full of bugs and hasn't been updated in years.

Re:O'Reilly 1.0

[Etrias]

It hasn't quite mastered telling it's critics to SHUT UP!

So

[unity100]

the software basically discerns who is a good liar, and who is not ? the fact that mccain and palin believes their own lies and delusions and doesnt twitch while spurting their shit, doesnt make them better people.

if, obama stutters the most, while talking about good qualities of mccain, and this is noticeable, that tells me that this person is not a good liar.

you need 2 things to be a good liar :

a) Be a totally filthy bastard who can totally negate the instinct of honesty
b) Be a mind numbed zealot or delusional kook to believe in your own lies

either case is equally ominous and dangerous. if obama doesnt fit well with the above criteria, its all fine by me.

Re:So

[theskunkmonkey]

This was my line of thinking as well. At best it can tell who is the better liar but it won't quantify a damn thing. It doesn't surprise me that the better liar comes out with the "least" spin indication. He's the professional liar in the bunch and therefore won't have as many tells.

Spin, spin, spin the black candidate

[0xdeadbeef]

I'm still not at all clear on what this "spin" is. Is it using large words, or fully enunciating each syllable, or speaking in complete sentences? Or some combination of all three?

Please, someone explain it to me. I do not wish to be perceived as elitist.

Re:Spin, spin, spin the black candidate

[Spatial]

Oh, you think you're better than us elitists eh?

Re:Spin, spin, spin the black candidate

[marcosdumay]

Man, I'd mod you up. So bad my mod points timed-out earlier this week.

At 72, McCain can't spin that quickly

[Anonymous Coward]

You just aren't very flexible when you're old!

[Unless you're Madonna]

Expression of disgust?

[fabs64]

So this blatantly partisan throw away line, has anyone got something to back it up?

Psychology is not an exact science

[Viol8]

Therefor saying that he expressed digust over Obama is pushing it a bit. Even if that was what his facial expression meant there could have been many other things on his (or anyone else in that situation) mind. Perhaps he just had wind, who knows. MOst of these "I know what someone is thinking from fleeting facial expression" types are just modern day snake oil sellers.

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[weber]

Therefor saying that he expressed digust over Obama is pushing it a bit. [...] Perhaps he just had wind, who knows.

If that really was the case he would have had a look of relief on his face (possibly followed by a look of disgust a few seconds later).

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[Tom]

You should read up on Ekman. The guy is one of the top authorities on the subject. He has written a few books. Read one or two and check what his claims really are and how much substance and research he can put behind them.

In short: He doesn't claim he can read thoughts, he claims that emotions show up on your face. He also claims to have identified a short list of universal (world-wide, culture-independent) expressions that belong to specific emotions. He's travelled pretty much everywhere on the globe, from western society to primitive jungle tribes and made many thousands of photographs showing those expressions. And yes, the books describe in detail how the emotions were roused so they could be reasonably sure they got the proper one.

Like all mainstream media, the article simplifies things quite a lot. That doesn't mean the science behind it isn't correct.

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[rxninja]

I've taken multiple classes in nonverbal communication and I can back up everything Tom just said about Ekman. He's pretty much one of the forerunners in facial communication and he made one of the first (and ongoing) catalogs of facial expressions. As a side note in response to your comment's title, physics isn't an exact science either, you know.

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[mishehu]

Call me a skeptic, but although there is some level in truth that you might be able to detect a person's emotions through fleeting facial expressions and how they relate to spin, you probably will have about the same level of accuracy as a polygraph test to prove somebody's guilt/innocence...

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[Viol8]

"As a side note in response to your comment's title, physics isn't an exact science either, you know."

Its a bit more exact than "oh , did that proton look unhappy for a nanosecond? It must have hit a neutrino"

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[Anonymous Coward]

Like all mainstream media, the article simplifies things quite a lot. That doesn't mean the science behind it isn't correct.

That doesn't mean it is either. The subject is insanely complex, sure - but to come up with anything 'universal' and always correct regarding the correlation of emotions, facial expression, and the thoughts behind them is almost as equally insane.

I'd invite anyone interested in pseudoscience to investigate his work further. The 'science' behind classic lie detectors is also another good read to detect BS.

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[Shimmer]

In that case, let's see the image of Clinton with disgust on his face as he says Obama's name.

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[rxninja]

Physics is part of the same discipline that once said that phlogiston existed. It's a work in progress the same way that psychology is. I agree that it's at the point where, for practical and engineering purposes, it's pretty darn accurate, of course, but don't forget where it came from. If you want to have a little more respect for psychology, try reading some of the peer-reviewed journals out there for the various social disciplines. You should try actually taking a look at some of the studies done with nonverbal communication and then reassess how accurate you think it might be. If you still think it's not accurate, at least you can say you gave it a shot.

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[Tom]

I strongly suggest you research the topic first before speaking up. Ekman has been doing this work for decades, and it has been intensely peer-reviewed. Call me a sceptic, but for some obscure reason I don't think a bunch of random slashdotters carry more credibility than the entire body of scientists in this specific field.

Re:Psychology is not an exact science

[Anonymous Coward]

It also shouldn't matter too much what emotions politicians have when they say something. Doing what you "feel to be the right thing" without thinking too much about it is a sign of stupidity.

Fortunately, most humans have the ability to act on the basis of halfway rational decisions and not just on the basis of momentary emotions, and any mature adult should be able to do something he doesn't like when he or she believes it needs to be done.

Re:No surprise

[larry bagina]

The American people need to hear the truth about high organic arugula prices at Fresh Market. Something must be done to stop the Big Arugula cartel from price gouging. Only Barack Obama has a plan to subsidize alternative vegetables, such as fiddleheads, radicchio, and endive.

Big surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, the empty suit with the socialist agenda, no real experience, and who is trying to hide his radical and corrupt past spins the most.

Well duh.

graph: wtf?

[Luke_22]

just look at the "spin graph"...
...
McCain lowest, Obama Highest?
To me, it seems more a political decision than "real" statistic.
i mean... come on... lowest/highest?? and Bush is almost in the middle?
note:I'm not american, so i'm out of the McCain vs. Obama war...

Re:graph: wtf?

[Shotgun]

The graph was only for one speech for each person. The ones given at the conventions. Bush is probably in the middle, because he basically didn't have anything to say or time to say it. Once you cut out the time spent on "We're feeling sorry for the people in the hurricane" (How can you spin THAT!), there wasn't much material left to analyze.

It is possible for a politician to talk straight today, and spin like top tomorrow.

Re:graph: wtf?

[zippthorne]

There seems to be some "diffrence of large numbers" type of errors in there. Not entirely unlike the "hockey stick graph"

Re:graph: wtf?

[Asic Eng]

According to their methodology "we're feeling sorry" would be spin, whereas "I personally solved all hurricane problems" wouldn't be.

The real question is

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the author give us a way to gauge how much HE is spinning?

Alan Keyes

[CustomDesigned]

At the other end of the political spectrum, I think Alan Keyes is at least in the same league at Obama as a gifted speaker.

Re:Alan Keyes

[tjstork]

At the other end of the political spectrum, I think Alan Keyes is at least in the same league at Obama as a gifted

See, I don't really like Keyes that much because he's too religious right for me. I'm more libertarian neo-con right wing. Republicans though, as a rule, are terrible public speakers and we really haven't had a good one since Reagan. I mean, look at the national buzz in our party over Palin. She gave a speech that didn't sound horrible and now she's a conservative rock star.

Re:Alan Keyes

[Reality Master 201]

I don't think Keyes is that great a public speaker, but I can't decide if it's cause he's objectively not that great, or if it's the fact that some of the shit he says comes of as totally insane/dishonest and it predisposes me against him.

Re:Alan Keyes

[Anonymous Meoward]

Actually, I always thought he was a terrible speaker. He's living proof that, in America, regardless of one's race, class, or upbringing, you too can aspire to sound like Elmer Fudd on national television.

And the man has no political sense whatsoever. When he opposed Obama in the last Illinois Senate race (he was drafted at the last minute) he called staunch GOP ally Mary Cheney a "shameless hedonist" for being lesbian. ( Good move, Alan: alienate both sides of the debate at the same time. Schmuck.)

Re:Alan Keyes

[Reality Master 201]

Yeah, also there's the fact that he was running for the Senate, despite advocating for appointment of senators by state legislatures (which presumably means he's advocating the repeal of the 17th amendment).

Re:Alan Keyes

[digitalcowboy]

That certainly doesn't make him look bad. The 17th amendment was a huge mistake and should be repealed.

The 17th amendment was an example of "modern" people thinking they were wiser than the Founders. They weren't and neither are you.

Many of the problems this country faces now began right after the 17th amendment wrecked the government our Founders gave us.

It was a heady time - take a look at the dates on the amendments some time and see how many came during that time period. Right after The Great Tyrant overthrew America in the 1860s, the winners of the war became very amendment-happy for a few decades.

Re:Alan Keyes

[Reality Master 201]

Making the claim that senators ought to be appointed by the state, then running for office by popular election (into a state where he'd just carpetbagged his way over to) is hypocritical. For a man who makes such a point of ethical and moral standards, that hypocrisy certainly does make him look bad, or at least to the non-ideologically distorted.

And who's the Great Tyrant you refer to? I can only think of a great man named Lincoln who righteously smashed the confederates. Would that he'd let Grant burn more of the cities and scorch more of the earth, perhaps we'd have fewer ignorant southerners today. ;)

Re:Alan Keyes

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, look at the national buzz in our party over Palin. She gave a speech that didn't sound horrible and now she's a conservative rock star.

Oh, is that it? I figured it had something to do with the conservative movement's collective Oedipus complex.

I kid, because I love.

Re:Alan Keyes

[Mr. Beatdown]

That was satire, right?

Re:Alan Keyes

[CustomDesigned]

I think it's the latter. Sometimes he says things *I* think are insane, and I always thought I was conservative. But he says them eloquently. In the 2000 election, I was glad he didn't get the nomination. He did a lot more good giving eloquent speeches against abortion than setting policy. I was amazed at the amount of Jim Crowe treatment he got in the south (kept out of debates he was officially invited to by security because he was black).

Re:Alan Keyes

[Raenex]

But he says them eloquently.

Too eloquent, bordering on effeminate. Mildly entertaining, anyways.

Re:perhaps

[torstenvl]

Right, because the President of the Harvard Law Review needs his academic records verified.

Spin defined

[Gazzonyx]

Well, there's up, down, top, bottom, charm, and strange.

Glad to be of assistance. No need to thank me.

For those who don't get it:Quark

Re:Spin defined

[Minwee]

Countdown until someone links last weeks xkcd, just in case someone here managed to miss it...

Three

Two

Re:Spin defined

[Underfoot]

You forgot the new and improved "double strange".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903172201.htm

The article is utterly stupid.

[ThinkTwicePostOnce]

Perhaps it was intended to mock the ignorance that so many other nations say
the American public suffers from in regards to political events in other countries.

For something intelligent and entertaining, find The Daily Show with Jon Stewart from
last Friday, where they were reporting on McCain's acceptance speech. They intercut
sentences from it with sentences from Bush's acceptance speech eight years earlier.

Again and again and again they were virtually identical! Anyone got that YouTube link?

You've got to see it to believe it; it was absolutely astounding to watch. (Excellent
work, Daily Show!)

I wish the idiot from New Scientist was a student of mine so I could flunk him. I recommend
against bothering to read the, uh, "fine" article.

Re:The article is utterly stupid.

[Shotgun]

They intercut sentences from it with sentences from Bush's acceptance speech eight years earlier.

Again and again and again they were virtually identical! Anyone got that YouTube link?

It wouldn't be hard to do the same with Obama speeches vs $candidateOfChoice speeches. I've always found political speeches to be full "yeah, us! Booh, them!", and the difficult part is finding the occasional clause where they do say anything significantly different.

Re:The article is utterly stupid.

[tbannist]

You haven't watched the video. It was quite haunting to note that all of McCain's virtues were claimed by Bush 8 years ago as well and people believed him then, too.

It's almost like McCain's speech writer just copied the speech from 8 years ago. Of course, this should come as no great surprise. McCain's campaign is now run by the same people that ran Bush's campaign. Even down to having Rove pick his vice presidential candidate.

Four more years of the change you deserve, indeed.

Re:The article is utterly stupid.

[DerekSTheRed]

This was actually a Daily Show bit on the Sept 5th episode IIRC. Both McCain and Bush stated that they would work with Democrats, create a culture of Life, cut spending, reduce taxes and then they each thanked the other one.

Re:The article is utterly stupid.

[notrandomly]

It wouldn't be hard to do the same with Obama speeches vs $candidateOfChoice speeches.

So do it, then.

The point here, I believe, is that McCain tries to distance himself from Bush, when the fact is that he's just more of the same.

Re:perhaps

[AoT]

The article says that the program counts certain words and uses the number of uses to determine the amount of spin.* One of those words is 'we', so inevitably Obama is going to come out as spinning more, one of his slogans includes the word 'we'. Really, language usage is to malleable to base anything on something as simple as word counts. Yeah, Obama says 'we' a lot, you figure they could look at the content of what they say for spin rather than simply how they say it.

*Which is really poorly defined.

Re:No surprise

[AoT]

And the fact you got modded down pretty much proves your point. That was why his speech on race was so great, it talked about the issue but also calmed down the white folks who were afraid he would get into the White House and suddenly start "acting black."

Re:perhaps

[larry bagina]

If he was admitted into harvard and given the law review position due to affirmative action, they do. But I guess the articles he wrote for the law review speak for themselves. What's that? He didn't write anything? Well, I'm sure he's written some important legislation in the Senate. Like a stamp honoring Rosa Parks. Well, maybe he's too busy writing autobiographies and running for president for stuff liek that.

Re:perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because the President of the Harvard Law Review needs his academic records verified.

Speaking of which, where the hell are all Obama's writings from when he was President of the Harvard Law Review, anyway?

So, along with his missing medical records, his missing Illinois state senate history, and all of his academic grades, we're also missing his Harvard Law Review writings.

And what about all his lectures as a Constitutional law professor? Where are those?

Obama's not only getting a free pass from the media, they're all but paying his way for him.

Next breakthrough...

[Shoten]

"Software spots water in ocean!"

I mean, COME ON...couldn't they have tried for detecting something that at least just might be absent in the content they're testing? How about spin in the news, for example? Oh, wait...uh...

Re:Next breakthrough...

[TubeSteak]

I mean, COME ON...couldn't they have tried for detecting something that at least just might be absent in the content they're testing? How about spin in the news, for example? Oh, wait...uh...

What would be the point of checking for spin in a place like the No-Spin Zone (TM)?
I mean, it says so right in the title: No Spin.

Call on me

[Rob T Firefly]

says Ekman, who has studied people's facial expressions and how they relate to what they are thinking for over 40 years

I wonder what he would make of this.

Re:Call on me

[ArcherB]

says Ekman, who has studied people's facial expressions and how they relate to what they are thinking for over 40 years

I wonder what he would make of this.

Regardless of the name of the site (lohanfacial), it is SFW, and well worth it!

Re:Call on me

[Anonymous Coward]

She looks kinda sexy, why change a winning team?

Re:Call on me

[eugene ts wong]

I'm in China right now, and it won't load up. Could you summarize what the link goes to?

Re:Call on me

[mpeskett]

It's a rapidly cycling series of photos of Lindsay Lohan, demonstrating that she has approximately one facial expression (you can see the hair/clothes blinking around, but the face stays the same).

Re:Call on me

[Lost Engineer]

Did anyone else notice that while her expression remains the same the generally immutable nose shape changes?

Re:Call on me

[Anonymous Coward]

The nose doesn't change shape. Lighting direction is different and there are slight angle changes though.

or it proves software can't read non-white faces

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many white faces and how many non-white people were used to train the software?

There are physical differences between sexes and races and since this software measures a physical item it would have to be trained on parallels.

Re:perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

You fundamentally misunderstand what being on Law Review is.

AnonymousCoward@law.harvard.edu

Easy technology...

[3.14159265]

I haven't RTFA, but I'm sure it's nothing but some image recognition algorithms that detect mouth-opening.

Re:perhaps

[torstenvl]

See below

You fundamentally misunderstand what being on Law Review is.

AnonymousCoward@law.harvard.edu

Also...
- Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
- Coburn-Obama Transparency Act
- Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 (cosponsored with none other than Sen. John McCain)
- Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act
- Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

And more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Legislation

"I" is more honest than "we"

[mosb1000]

Saying "we" instead of "I" is a way of distancing yourself from what you are saying. I was a part of a. . .uh. . support group where I was encouraged to try to use words such as "I" or "my" when speaking rather than "we" or "our". That meant talking openly and plainly about my personal toughs and experiences rather than speaking generally and vaguely about ideas and concepts.

Re:"I" is more honest than "we"

[catfood]

...unless your whole point is to talk about those ideas and concepts.

A political speech is not (supposed to be) a twelve-step meeting.

Re:"I" is more honest than "we"

[mosb1000]

Let me rephrase my post to illustrate my meaning:

We use the word "we" instead of "I" to distancing ourselves from what we are saying. Some support groups encourage people to use words such as "I" or "my" when speaking rather than "we" or "our". That causes them to talk openly and plainly about their toughs and experiences rather than speaking generally and vaguely about ideas and concepts.

What I just said has no accountability. I have practically nothing to do with it now. And yet I have *technically* staid the same thing. Obama could easily rewrite his speeches to give accountability to himself, just as I did in my original post. There is not a certain subject matter that this doesn't work for.

But making yourself accountable is a double edged sword. It increases your authenticity and it exposes you to criticism.

Re:"I" is more honest than "we"

[catfood]

Sure. That's not a crazy point of view, and I get your point. What you're saying is true.

I'm saying that if you're Obama, your whole point is that it's not just about yourself. He's trying to say (even if you disagree, even if you think he's full of crap) that people need to start thinking in terms of a national community that shares significant interests and goals. It's a concept better described if you say "we" a lot.

Even though, yeah, if you were to challenge Obama as to what he, personally is going to do, the "we" word isn't as helpful.

I just don't see anything wrong with a politician using a lot of "we" rhetoric when describing an overall vision. It doesn't have to be "spin" or misleading.

"We Shall Overcome!" works a lot better than "I shall plan a strategy for overcoming!"

Re:"I" is more honest than "we"

[mosb1000]

You're right when you say that this does not automatically mean there is spin, but people tend to talk this way when they are spinning something because it makes their claims harder to challenge. It also generates the perception of spin, which is not a good thing.

Re:perhaps

[mdwh2]

That's a good point.

And I'd say that claiming that Obama spins more, based on some automated analysis that uses a dubious definition of "spin", is itself spin!

How about they give some examples of quotes that were considered "spin"?

Please Sheeple

[LS]

Does anyone actually believe this to be anything other than poor science or even worse election year propaganda masking as science?

There may be some objective simple definition of "spin" that you could use to create a automated measuring system, but is this really spin?

Human language is virtually infinitely complex, and there are layers of meaning both conscious and unconscious expressed by body language, tone, cadence, content, etc. Then there's the intention of the speaker, and the context of the speech. But no, we get a elementary school level simple bar chart that clearly shows that obama is a complete spinster, and McCain is a "straight talker". Excuse me, but what a load of horse shit! Disclaimer: I'm not voting for Obama or McCain.

LS

More mind reading software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, everyone was up in arms about the software that convicted the woman in India. Now, the same software concept, reading truth, is OK.

Social Security and the Federal Budget

[mosb1000]

"they currently hold the record for spending!"

I have news for you. The next administration will hold the new record on spending, and the next after that, and the next after that and so on and so fourth for the next forty years or so. The problem is Social Security, which pushed our budget over $3 trillion this year and continue to push it up as more people retire. You can blame Bush for not cutting other programs, but we would've probably still passed the $3 trillion mark no matter what he did.

In all fairness to him, he was pushing for Social Security reform the whole time he had a republican congress. It is so stupid how everyone just laughed him off and said there is no Social Security crises, but now they are complaining that he failed to reduce the budget. What was he supposed to do, cut defense spending?

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[db32]

Well...we have the terribly well thought out War on Terror... We have the continuation of the War on Drugs... We have the constant bailouts for big business... We have all manner of subsidies... Then the specific record I was refering to was actually the pork spending. No...his plans of SS reform were a disaster and largely fueled by the fact that he was taking money out of the SS bucket to fund his other bad policy.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality, the two main reasons why the 2009 budget will be so much worse than CBO had predicted are tax cuts and increases in military and other security-related spending.

Tax cuts alone account for 42 percent of the budgetary deterioration for 2009 that stems from policymakers' actions since 2001. Increases in military and other security programs account for another 39 percent. Combined, these two factors account for 82 percent of the budget decline that is due to policy actions.

That's from this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-greenstein/rising-deficits-dont-blam_b_126986.html

seems like it might shed a little more light on facts of what causes the budget to blow up.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[Sj0]

Actually, if history is a demonstrator, it's highly unlikely the next government will hold the new record if Democrats get into power.

My data shows increases in debt and budget in 2007 dollars.

Reagan:
Debt $2019.17 billion
Budget $315.87 billion
Bush 1:
Debt $1206.38 billion
Budget $128.06 billion
Clinton:
Debt $1430.63 billion
Budget $130.83 billion
Bush 2:
Debt $2712.64 billion
Budget $777.70 billion

So what we're seeing here is that Clinton managed to keep his 8 years of spending to George H. W. Bushs 4 years of spending. We can also see that George W. Bush has increased spending and debt at a rate that even surpasses Reagan. So much for this myth that Democrats spend spend spend.

It's the irresponsible Republicans, with their liberal Wilsonian "Keeping the world safe for democracy" principles, and their liberal "Never saw a big government they didn't like" that is destroying the budget, not the world around us.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[mosb1000]

The increase in budget may not be bigger, but the total budget will. Or course, the biggest increases in terms of GDP happened during the great depression. We also had the most debt compared to GDP at that time.

All this goes out the window if we get a universal health care plan too. That would definitely be a sizable increase.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[Sj0]

The budget is almost ALWAYS bigger. If you have the budget the same size, inflation will mean you've lowered the size of the budget.

You're nuts if you think that having the 3 largest budget increases since WWII makes the Republicans more fiscally responsible.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[CaptPungent]

Funny how Clinton managed to lower it then?

Had the GOP been in any way an actual conservative party, they would have managed to push through a ton of reform bills, controlling both lawmaking branches for 6 years. Why don't we have private school vouchers? Or privatized SS? Or anything on the agenda that they sold to the voters? Instead, all we got was huge spending increases, a pointless and costly war, economic crisis, a torture camp, and a massive erosion of our personal rights. Seriously, name one thing Bush actually did that he promised to do that falls in line with a conservative ideal, other than cutting taxes on rich people.

Shit, had I actually gotten a tax cut I wouldn't be so pissed off, but I didn't. I had the same taxes under Bush as I did under Clinton, but the rich folks got their cut and fucked around in the bond market, creating the chaos we are seeing now. How about give some of that damn money to those that will actually use it to stimulate the economy instead of giving the rich fuckers more money to gamble with?

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[mosb1000]

Clinton did not reduce the federal budget. He reduced the deficit.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[CaptPungent]

Fair point, in terms of pure spending. What Clinton did was slow the rate of spending growth, then did the responsible thing and raised taxes to a point to cover what we were using.

At the same time, when I look at the charts of debt from the last century, no President, GOP or Dem, actually cut spending. You'd think with that as their tactic to win votes the GOP would at least cut some spending right? Yet they haven't done any of it.

Now honestly, I'm in the camp of wanting less federal spending and I'd also like to see public education switch to vouchers to put the money into competing private schools, and privatizing SS. But since neither party will actually do it, I'm more inclined to vote for the party that has at least tried to stop digging in the debt-hole we are in.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[mosb1000]

It is doubtful that any future president for the next several decades will be able to reduce spending, because of social security.

Anyone can balance the budget by raising taxes, but that doesn't solve the real problem - which is spending.

The debt doesn't bother me as much as federal spending in general does, but McCain did vote against the Bush tax cuts because he is opposed to deficit spending. McCain wants to eliminate earmarks and reform defense spending. He can accomplish this by vetoing bills, and he has a history of legislative success. If you want less federal spending, you want McCain. Obama will definitely increase spending because of his desire for universal health care.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[CaptPungent]

I disagree. McCain might have voted against that, but the McCain running is not the old McCain. He's being controlled entirely by the party to do whatever they want right now, and I refuse to vote for that. Remember, Bill Clinton also pushed for universal health care yet under him we had the best debt ratio we'd had in decades. Obama is still getting my vote, the GOP has not been the party of less spending in the past 50 years.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[mosb1000]

The McCain running now is the same McCain. Few of his positions have changed significantly, and you can't expect all of someone's positions to stay the same over time. You also can't expect a politician not to play politics.

Clinton pushed universal healthcare, he did not get it. Just the same as Bush pushed social security reform and comprehensive immigration reform and did not get those. The fact is that if we do get universal health care it will massively and (almost) irreversibly increase government spending now and in the future the same way social security did. A president that is opposed to universal health care can block it, one who is not will not.

Just because the republican party is not the party of less spending doesn't mean that the democrat party is not the party of more spending. If you want smaller government, you're screwed, but if you don't want larger government don't vote for Obama.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[CaptPungent]

Hardly. The McCain running now has changed his position on a huge number of issues and if you don't already realize that then I'm not going to bother. It's obvious that you haven't done your research on your candidate.

What I do know is the only Presidents to reduce the federal debt every time have been Democrats. Lower fed debt == dollar worth more == more money in my pocket. No Pub has ever reduced my taxes either, so they have never done anything for me except run us further into the ground. You're not convincing me.

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[mosb1000]

His views on balancing the budget have not changed, nor have his views on federal spending or taxes. It seems like these are the most important to you. Which views do you feel have changed, and why do you feel the change was inappropriate or unjustified?

Re:Social Security and the Federal Budget

[CaptPungent]

Are you serious? He opposed the Bush tax cuts before, and now he's demanding they be permanent. Tax cuts that must be undone if we are to have any hope of balancing things in the short term. He opposed government regulation of financial institutions and now he's screaming for it. He was opposed to corporate welfare then in June he was proposing billions in relief to corporations, prior to the massive collapse now. He opposed government bailouts for the institutions a few weeks ago and this week he's embracing it.

The man is nothing like the McCain that ran against Bush in '00 and '04. Period. He's so desperate to be President before he dies that he's willing to do anything the GOP tells him to do, and he's clearly little more than a GOP puppet now. NO VOTE FROM ME.

Re:perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, which one of those is the "reform" that allows lobbyists to buy Senators meals if the Senator is standing up, but not if he's sitting down?

And how many of those were controversial enough that they required real leadership to get done and that passed on a roll-call vote?

Good algorithm?

[sorak]

FROM TFA

Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin.

So every time a politician says "I'm going to do something" he's lying...

Badarticle

[pcgabe]

I initially thought that the Obama-smear was just a poorly written summary (and was going to tag "badsummary") but the actual article itself is slanted. I propose we start tagging these kinds of things "badarticle", since they seem to be cropping up more and more on Slashdot.

Anyway.

There are so many things that bug me about this "article", let's just go through it together.

The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second.

First off, associating disgust with Obama. Paul Ekman says he saw it on Clinton's face. Did any of the other millions of people watching see it?

So how are we to know when they are lying?

Got it, spin = lying. OK. That's the definition we'll be using as we read.

Software programs that analyse a person's speech, voice or facial expressions are building upon the work of researchers like Ekman to help us discover when the truth is being stretched, and even by how much.

Again, spin = lying. I'm with you so far.

The algorithm counts usage of first person nouns - "I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example. It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin. Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin.

I... what? "I" vs "we"? What does that have to do with lying? I thought spin = lying, since that's stated twice at the beginning of the article. Suddenly spin = rhetoric.

In general though, Obama's speeches contain considerably higher spin than either McCain or Clinton.

First, spin = lying, and then spin = rhetoric, but we don't call it that, and then Obama's speeches have the most spin. Which by the new definition means that he is the most effective speaker, but by the original definition means that he is the biggest liar.

McCain is the purported to have the least spin, implying that he is the most truthful (except by their definition of spin, it really means he is the least effective speaker). Hands up, who thinks McCain is the most truthful candidate?

And hey, let's talk about Jeremiah Wright some more, because it's not like that story is history or anything. But hey, any chance there is to remind people that he's associated with Obama...

"When you see these crises come along, the spin goes up," Skillicorn says. "Obama is very good at using stirring rhetoric to deal with the issues."

Ah! Now they even call it rhetoric! Perhaps hoping that the intended audience doesn't know the meaning of the word? (Many people mistakenly think the word rhetoric has negative connotations.)

Indeed, Bill Clinton's fleeting facial slip was the only clear example that Ekman could recount of a politician saying something that they did not mean during both the Republican and Democratic national conventions.

Seriously, did anyone else besides Ekman see it? Did this facial slip actually exist? Where's the screencap?

This entire article is ridiculous. Decrying "spin", they use it themselves as an anti-Obama device. Absurd.

Re:Badarticle

[Anonymous Coward]

Merely demonstrating yet again that the most effective way of portraying the enemy as a liar in the eyes of the public is, in fact, to lie about them.

Re:Badarticle

[unfasten]

Indeed, Bill Clinton's fleeting facial slip was the only clear example that Ekman could recount of a politician saying something that they did not mean during both the Republican and Democratic national conventions.

Over the course of the entire Democratic (4 days long) and Republican (also 4 days) conventions, he could only spot one microexpression? And having spotted only one microexpression after analyzing hours and hours of speeches made by over 40 people over the course of 8 days he doesn't even consider that this could be a fluke?

I have a hard time believing he could only spot one microexpression. I'm guessing either his method for spotting them was flawed (perhaps the best way to spot them is with a high-speed camera and he only used TV footage?), or he missed a lot. I would have thought this would be the best way to figure out the "spin" but apparently it was the worst method he used.

Re:Badarticle

[digitalcowboy]

It gets ugly when science pisses in your Cheerios, doesn't it?

What was that you were saying about "faith" and "science?"

Newsflash: Everything about Obama's a fraud. Science just proved it. Don't let that confuse your faith.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Republican and I'm not voting for either of the clowns the bi-factional ruling party has given us this year. I don't give my consent to be governed to bad liars.

Re:Badarticle

[daliman]

I would have thought that rhetoric does have negative connotations, although not negative denotations, but that's just me being a pedant ;)

I do agree with everything else though.

Re:Badarticle

[theodicey]

Thanks for reading TFA, but it's the New Scientist, so you can't actually expect much in the way of accuracy or repeatability.

I'm just grateful they didn't compose some bogus algebraic equation for spin. Something pseudo-incomprehensible like

b^z/(s^2+e^2*0.84+q)

That's what the British pop sci press would normally do.

Re:Badarticle

[xant]

Hands up, who thinks McCain is the most truthful candidate?

Why McCain is the only candidate so dedicated to the truth that he is willing to debate himself to examine the truth more in depth!

Re:Badarticle

[pcgabe]

What was that you were saying about "faith" and "science?"

Nothing? Did you mean to reply to someone else?

Newsflash: Everything about Obama's a fraud. Science just proved it. Don't let that confuse your faith.

Science really had little (or nothing) to do with the article or my post. What faith am I confused about?

Disclaimer: I'm not a Republican and I'm not voting for either of the clowns the bi-factional ruling party has given us this year. I don't give my consent to be governed to bad liars.

Only good liars, right?

Disclaimer: I AM a Republican. OH SHI-

Re:Badarticle

[pcgabe]

I would have thought that rhetoric does have negative connotations, although not negative denotations, but that's just me being a pedant ;)

Yes. Wow. Absolutely correct. ^_^ I keep forgetting that Slashdot is not my normal audience. I'll restate it:

"Rhetoric" has (undeservedly, in my opinion) negative connotations, meaning that some people associate the word with a negative emotion. It does not have a negative denotation, meaning that its actual meaning has no negative slant.

Please don't report me to the Former English Teacher's Union, or I might have to turn in my Former English Teacher's badge and quit being a Former English Teacher. :-/

Re:Badarticle

[notrandomly]

Newsflash: Everything about Obama's a fraud. Science just proved it.

In what way?

The same way conservatives believe even more strongly in lies they have been told when faced with facts to the contrary?

Re:perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

You fundamentally misunderstand what being on Law Review is.

AnonymousCoward@law.harvard.edu

What? Is it a puff position that requires those holding it to produce no record of their "accomplishments"?

Re:perhaps

[torstenvl]

There's no such legislation.

You know, I don't know about you, but I actually love my country. Running it is serious business to me. You may want to mock it and distort facts, but to me and to all truly patriotic people, this is not a chance to reenact kindergarten.

So you might want to take it a little more seriously, get informed, and stop spreading FUD.

Yes, there were lobbying reforms. Yes, they had to draw the line somewhere. Yes, Congress had to negotiate on that line. No, it's not perfect. But you know what? We're all better-off for it. And if you don't like it, if you wish Obama and similarly-minded people in BOTH parties could do more, then why on EARTH would you vote against those people, and vote for the people who obstruct that kind of legislation?

It does nothing

[bbleeker]

According to Language Log, this program does nothing at all: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=575

Re:It does nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

And here is a post from the company's CEO admitting that Language Log is essentially correct; the program does nothing but process user-submitted judgments.

Skillicorn's blog

[semiotec]

http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/

check out this entry:
http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/comparing-the-democratic-and-republican-convention-spin/

As usual, high spin is indicated by the red end of the line. Here are the spin scores for all of the speeches analyzed (positive numbers are high spin):

1. Bush 0.40
2. Thompson 1.71
3. Lieberman -0.73
4. Romney 4.36
5. Huckabee -1.8
6. Giuliani 2.97
7. Palin -0.62
8. McCain -7.38
9. M. Obama -1.24
10. Hillary Clinton 2.43
11. Bill Clinton 0.99
12. Biden -1.35
13. Obama 0.31

seems like a bit of discrepancy with what's reported in the article.

Re:Skillicorn's blog

[semiotec]

I would assume to reduce speeches to a scalar quantity in order to label someone as liar is a complex process.

However, this guy doesn't even seem to try that hard. There are just too many questions in his method that are not addressed at all.

Even just looking at what he has presented so far, all it means is that McCain is always talking about himself, on stuff that happened to him (e.g. PoW experience and "finding" Palin), but comparatively little on policies.

Re:Skillicorn's blog

[semiotec]

more technical details:

http://research.cs.queensu.ca/~skill/uselection/index.html

Re:Skillicorn's blog

[Anonymous Coward]

I would assume to reduce speeches to a scalar quantity in order to label someone as liar is a complex process.

That's just it; it can't claim to detect lies. McCain and Palin are now infamous for plainly stating things that are demonstrably false, but that doesn't mean that put spin on anything. It just means that they are liars.

Re:Skillicorn's blog

[notrandomly]

John McCain has the lowest level of spin (justifying the straight talk reputation he claims)

Wow, that's rich. The biggest liar this election is a straight talker? Has this guy ever actually checked the facts?

Don Obamaote

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to make sense of what he says when he's not delivering a scripted speech. His trying to weave around the truth is painful to hear, particularly because he jabs on the brakes and screeches off in another direction without having a planned flow of thought. All while throwing hateful slashing attacks in all directions... more like Don Quixote in full cavalry battle than purposefully swooping around a NASCAR oval.

Re:Don Obamaote

[spazdor]

You are accusing Obama of going on unrelated tangents in order to dodge the issue, by comparing him to NASCAR?

Good thing us /.ers are so well-grounded and good at metaphor, huh?

wow, what an article

[poetmatt]

So clearly, we have no bias yet again? Is new scientist going republican? It sure sounds it, since they put Obama at the absolute highest on spin, Bush at "average spin", and Mccain as "no spin at all".

Yeahhhh, right.

Re:wow, what an article

[Sj0]

I'd like to see Ron Paul's speeches.

40 years of following the same voting policies, he's not spinning. How does he score?

Re:perhaps

[PainKilleR-CE]

It should also be noted that writers are generally trained not to use the word "I" and "you", the latter of which they seem to account as meaning there is less spin. The reality is that someone using the word "I" frequently in a speech in place of "we" is more likely to either be on the defensive or not very good at sticking to the speech (as they stated, substituting one pronoun for another is commonly subconscious, but they didn't mention that a well-trained speaker will suppress the urge).

All this really seems to show is that Obama and Palin are better speakers than McCain and Clinton, and that McCain is by far the worst of them. On the other hand, at least McCain usually has the sense to pause when he's speaking to collect his thoughts (and actually manages to do so), as opposed to Bush, who just stumbles and ends up with gibberish. Or maybe McCain just has better people running the teleprompters or tries to keep his speech-writers closer to his internalized message so he can go off-script without going off-message.

I thought the analysis from the speech and facial recognition people was a little more credible than the analysis based on the words being used. People subconsciously track this stuff much more closely than the actual words, and are very adept at it (those most adept at it end up being very good con-artists or can do quite a bit to help people).

Unfortunately, when looking at speeches to determine whether people are saying things they actually believe, you depend highly on what they look like the rest of the time they're giving speeches. Bill Clinton has been giving speeches in the national public eye for over 16 years, so many people can pick up on simple things that aren't quite right when he's giving a speech. There are also a handful of things that people are trained not to do when giving a speech that work well when people actually follow them well, such as the use of words and not pointing your finger at the audience (see Clinton's denial of the affair with Lewinsky; politicians that have a hard time with this one often will point with their whole hand or two fingers, see many of George H. W. Bush's speeches).

In some ways this makes people like George W. Bush and McCain harder to read, because they give speeches as if they have never really been trained or managed to learn to give speeches in the first place. One has to wonder if these are patterns that they have groomed in themselves.

Entanglement?

[Javarrito]

If politicians have spin, can we assume that entanglement applies to them as well? I mean, think of all the time we could save watching speeches if observing one politician allowed us to determine, say, 3 others' spins!

A scary day...

[brigges]

We can establish a parallel here to the introduction of TV debates, when "appearance" became the single most important characteristic for a candidate to win.

For lack of a better reference, I will mention wikipedia:

"The first general election presidential debate was held on September 26, 1960, between U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy, the Democratic nominee, and Vice President Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee. Televised on all networks, Kennedy is generally considered to have won the debate. Nixon appeared worse than Kennedy on television, with poor makeup, a haggard appearance (due to a knee injury and hospitalization earlier in the month), and a gray suit which blended into the backdrop of the set). According to many accounts radio listeners thought that Nixon had won the debate, while television viewers favored Kennedy. The televised debates were thought to be the difference in what was an extremely close election."

Soon the parties recognized the importance of TV experience, and guess what? This finally lead to the nomination of a professional actor to run for president... Again from wikipedia:

"Debates were a major factor again in 1980. Going into the debate, Ronald Reagan had a narrow lead over Jimmy Carter in a race considered "too close to call." Reagan, with years of experience in front of a camera as an actor, came across much better than Carter and was judged by voters to have won the debate by a wide margin. This translated into Reagan turning a close election into a landslide victory."

Now let's get back to present day. From TFA:

"Someday soon, computers may be able read us better than any psychologist. I imagine that will be a pretty scary day for politicians."

If using software to "spin" (whatever that means) in candidates becomes popular enough, a candidate that can keep always a "straigh face" may become the single most important characteristic for a candidate to win. Now guess what? Following the same logic, this will eventually lead to a party nominating a sociopath... which will most likely win.

I imagine that will be a pretty scary day for US.

Re:A scary day...

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Following the same logic, this will eventually lead to a party nominating a sociopath... which will most likely win.

I imagine that will be a pretty scary day for US.

You say that like it hasn't happened. I suspect sociopathic tendencies occur *far* more frequently in politicians than they do in the populace at large. Politicians always lie, the difference is generally in the degree of the lie. Anyone able to lie convincingly (that is, shamelessly) would always have an advantage in that sort of environment.

Spin?

[hey!]

What about when two politicians, who formerly wouldn't agree even on the time of day, attempt to occupy the same position?

I think we could call that the Palin Exclusion Principle, with apologies to Joe Biden because "Biden Exclusion Principle" isn't as funny.

Buy It

[PMuse]

To summarize TFA:
I have a magical truth detector that can determine if a statement is true by the way a person looks when he says it. With my marvelous machine, you will no longer need to check facts. Instead, you can simply believe whomever my machine tells you to believe.
QED.

A bit thin on the science

[jandersen]

The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second.

This sounds like a rather thin story, scientifically; it is of course thick on propaganda. One thing is the question of what it actually is that is being detected - is it perhaps just that when the face changes from one expression to another, there will be moments when it looks happy, angry, tired or something? Another thing is the fact that nobody doesn't ever thinks and feels only one thing at a time - you can at the same time be happy at having just got a salary increase, angry because somebody has scratched your car, disgusted at something you've stepped in and so on. So if he was disgusted, does it necessarily have anything to do with Obama?

But apart from all that, in real life we often have to accept compromises and disappointments. Bill Clinton would probably have preferred to have his wife nominated rather than Obama; but he has decided that the greater cause is more important than his personal feelings. There is no reason to think that his support is not genuine and wholehearted; at least not in a fleeting facial expression. At the end of the day it is your actions that matter.

I wonder if the software can..

[timias1]

identify people who will either praise the results, or condemn them based on perceived political bias in the report, and their own personal political choices. Personally after reading the article, I didn't find favoritism towards McCain or Obama. Political spin levels don't directly suggest honesty, or dishonesty in my opinion. There is a great statement: "If you want to learn someones true character, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do"

Voting record, more than written and declared policies should be the litmus test voters should use.

Re:I wonder if the software can..

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be easier if Obama had a voting record. I mean, one besides voting "Present" hundreds of times.

Re:I wonder if the software can..

[Sj0]

It's braver to say "I don't know or care" at times, than to toe the party line and vote confidently for or against something you really don't know or care about.

Bush fans will disagree.

Godwin's Law

[Kupfernigk]

At last! Someone has invoked Godwin's Law: The first person to invoke the Nazis as a counter-example on the Internet has lost the argument.

How about:

• Winston Churchill
• Julius Caesar
• Mahatma Gandhi
• Burke
• Lincoln

I'd add Martin Luther King, but I guess from your post that you probably think he was a one sided evil despot too. Believe me, if you think Barack Obama is one-sided, your knowledge of politics and history is zero. By European standards, he is a moderate right-winger.

Re:Godwin's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Invoking "Godwin's Law" is a cop-out.

Re:Godwin's Law

[spazdor]

http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html

However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

"He claims" is not the same as "there are"

[Viol8]

"He also claims to have identified a short list of universal (world-wide, culture-independent) expressions that belong to specific emotions."

That doesn't mean everyone does it. Just the people he's examined. I'd like to know his sample size - are we talking thousands? Or dozens? If its the latter then its statistically irrelevant.

Re:"He claims" is not the same as "there are"

[Tom]

Read his books, really. We are talking thousands. And we are talking about a scientist. You know, someone who - among other things - knows about statistics and sample sizes.

My spin

[blamanj]

Gee, if you go by the text, it seems to me you could have headlined the article "McCain clinically depressed." That seems to be much more newsworthy than "politicians only tell the part of the story they want you to hear." I guess that's true of these so-called "scientists" as well.

Re:perhaps

[LynnwoodRooster]

Coburn-Obama Transparency Act

.
Oh, you mean Senate Bill 2590, the Coburn-Carper-McCain-Obama bill that had one primary sponsor (Coburn) and 47 cosponsors?

You do know that traditionally the first Senator or Senators (if multiple within the first day any additional Senator joins) becomes the co-sponsor and they are listed alphabetically...

And for the record, it's not the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" (for the name, if you want to use that type of convention would be the aforementioned Coburn-Carper-McCain-Obama Transparency Act) but the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.

No experience

[wurp]

If you're concerned about the relationship between the experience of a president and how history sees him, plug what Obama's numbers will be at the time he's sworn in into this convenient chart: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

Those numbers would be about 3 years in the US Senate and 6 years in the state Senate. In particular, pay attention to Abraham Lincoln's numbers on that chart.

By the way, look at the details of your straight shooter's plan to fix the market crash. Oh, wait, there isn't one, unless you count his longstanding position of not regulating the market.

Well, then, let's look at the details of his plan to provide tax relief. Oh, wait, it provides about half as much relief to the middle class worker as Obama's plan. And, by the way, trickle-down economics clearly don't work.

OK, let's look at his plan to solve America's energy problems. Every expert I've heard on the topic says offshore drilling will have insignificant effects on the price of oil. Of course, I'm sure it will be great for American oil companies...

Re:No experience

[Sj0]

As an aside, trickle-UP is more likely to help the economy.

Rich people simply hang onto their money, or put it into a useless investment like the stock market(Protip: High stock prices don't mean dick unless you're a stockholder).

Poor and middle class people use that money to pay their bills, or to buy things. This incentivizes real investment by upper-class and the rich because there is lots of money out there to be made.

So where is this software?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is supposed to be scientific, I want to see all of the theory and most especially the software behind this. Hell, even the software would be enough.

If anything - it would provide great entertainment value by adding a new site for teenagers around the world to perfect their 'no spin' score by lying, being insincere, and spinning their asses off.

Chances are, if anything, it'll never see the light of day because of precisely that reason.

Yet another great pseudoscience...

Re:perhaps

[gentimjs]

Yes, his "terrorist fist jab" got WAY too much of a free pass from the liberal media!

Duh?

[BCW2]

If a politicians lips are moving, he is telling a lie!
Why is everyone acting so surprised?

Pseudoscientific truthiness meter

[Anonymous Coward]

All speech is performative, and the amount of lying cannot be determined by the kind of rhetoric you use. Rhetoric is just method, any rhetoric can be used for good and bad. Politicians choose their methods according to their respective performative skills and audience. McCain is a military man, so he may be better at matter-of-factish, straight-faced lies. (Also his age may hinder any expressive mimic that would trigger the spinometer...) Obama's role is to evoke "hope", he gives his audience the fluffy feel-good stuff they want, but that doesn't make him any more of a liar.

If you (USians) want more factual debate and less rhetoric, get rid of those extremely personalized presidential elections.

Not poppycock

[Anonymous Coward]

Ekman is not Gladwell. He is a real researcher and has been writing about facial expressions for a long time now. He has a number of books on the subject that you may want to check out.

Re:perhaps

[PopeRatzo]

His medical records aren't available either. Nor his academic records. Or his records while a state senator.

You're not only wrong, you've got it exactly backwards. All of that information is publicly available, including doctors' reports on Obama's health.

By comparison, John McCain's medical records, his military service records and his and Cindy's tax returns have been kept completely hidden. Why do you think?

Has anyone else been noticing that there's been an effort by Republicans to take any legitimate criticism of John McCain and they to try to fling it at Obama in the hope that nobody will notice? I keep waiting for them to say that Barack is "too old to be President".

Only site you need when it comes to spin...

[amaupin]

Everyone probably already knows about this resource, but I've only recently discovered it:

factcheck.org

It's a non-partisan site that checks the facts of the candidates' statements.

Neither are 100% honest (shock! gasp!) but McCain is clearly the bigger liar of the two - especially when talking about Obama. Definitely opened my eyes a bit.

Question:

[hey!]

Is "bullshitting" the same as lying?

From what I can see, although lying is pretty common, most of the deceptiveness on display is bullshitting.

Let me draw the distinction between "bullshitting" and ordinary lying. Political bullshitting is making statements whose truthfulness, by unspoken common consent, is measured by artistic effect rather than accuracy. Political bullshitting is about defining a common narrative, not holding that narrative up to the cold light of fact.

The effect is rather mind bending. It goes without saying that what was said is factually wrong, so nobody wants to talk about it. Yeah, yeah, everybody knows the emperor has no clothes, but how about that ermine cape?

The most recent example of this is John McCain recasting himself as a champion of the working man. I don't think he has anything against the working man, and as a working man myself it's a pleasing narrative. It's just not true.

Obama is also not above bullshitting, although he's considerably more subtle. Take his attack on McCain over the latter's remarks on the economy's "fundamental soundness". I think there is a legitimate criticism of McCain trying to have it both ways, but Obama instead recasts what is clearly a botched (or misbegotten) attempt at nuance into the classic political accusation of "flip flopping". Obama's bullshit tends to be a lot more refined, perhaps because he consumes regular doses of rhetorical fiber.

Is it a lie when anybody who uses his head expects a lie, knows its a lie when it comes out, and implicitly assumes that its a lie? Isn't it more like -- a charade?

In any case, I see BS as much greater problem than plain old lying. We complain about governments we elect, or that there aren't enough real alternatives to vote for, but the real problem is that we are completely tolerant of BS. We're like the audience member who is hypnotized by the stage hypnotist into "thinking" he is a chicken. He struts around flapping his arms and clucking, but he knows he's not a chicken, and he knows he doesn't think he's a chicken. He also thinks he can stop if he wants to, but somehow he never seems to want to.

What would happen if...

[ripler]

I'd like to see them run the 2003 State of the Union Address through this software. It would probably catch on fire when Bush got to the points justifying the invasion of Iraq.

You're not a conservative

[DesScorp]

"I mean, I generally consider myself conservative (in the old sense, when it mean fiscal and political conservative and social liberal because a real conservative doesn't want the government mucking in the personal affairs of people.)"

Then you are not, and have never been, a conservative. American conservatism from its very beginning has placed a high value on cultural conservatism; the notion that settled cultural order is a good thing, a stabilizing force, and must be defended. Tradition is so highly valued, Brooks Adams (grandson of John Adams) was a critic of early industrial capitalism because he feared it would destroy the cultural underpinnings of the country. Conservatism isn't opposed to cultural change, but demands that its eyed suspiciously when judging it. It also makes judgement on personal behavior, and mandates that some of those behaviors be restricted for the public good. I'd be willing to bet that your "don't muck with personal affairs" stuff is standard libertarian boilerplate, which isn't conservative.

You're almost certainly a libertarian in belief. That is different from a conservative. Libertarians, frankly, don't give a damn about the culture or morality based on religious tradition and belief. The only thing they have in common with conservatives is antipathy towards government power and how government spends tax dollars.

Some libertarians call themselves conservatives because of Barry Goldwater, but Goldwater was a brief blip in the conservative movement, not a redefining event. He was preceded by real conservatives, and after getting his ass handed to him by Lyndon Johnson, succeeded by real conservatives. The only true change in bedrock conservative ideology has been the move from isolationsim to aggressive protection of national interests abroad. This is something you can truly credit Democrats for, as Reagan was influenced by FDR in this respect. Otherwise, Reagan was a successful return to pre-Goldwater conservative traditions.

Advocate for whatever positions you like, but you're not a conservative, and likely never have been. You can consider yourself a conservative all you like, but that matters not one whit. You can consider yourself Martian as well, and that doesn't make it so.

McCain was both wrong and right

[DesScorp]

Let's see, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts

You mean the tax cuts he now wants to make permanent?

McCain was wrong the first time. He's right at this time.

Despite what Joe Biden says, there's nothing patriotic about having a larger chunk of your income taken by the government simply because you make more than others. That's punishment, not patriotism.

Re:McCain was both wrong and right

[mcpkaaos]

McCain was wrong the first time.

Unfortunately, McCain himself disagrees with you. You might want to read the transcript of the interview linked in my original post.

Despite what Joe Biden says, there's nothing patriotic about having a larger chunk of your income taken by the government simply because you make more than others. That's punishment, not patriotism.

Are you making an argument for a flat tax rate or just taking a swipe at Biden?

Re:McCain was both wrong and right

[DesScorp]

"Are you making an argument for a flat tax rate or just taking a swipe at Biden?"

Both, actually.

I do not support the so-called "fair tax"... I think it's simply an act of shifting IRS accountants from personal income tax forms to sales tax forms. It won't shrink the IRS much. A flat tax with few or no deductions actually would.

But I'm getting ahead of myself here. At this point, I'd just settle for a realization in Washington DC that the money we make is our property, and not a resource on loan to us from our masters in the capital.

Re:Are You spinning?

[DustCollector]

Umm.. it's not 250k corporate revenue; it's the individual with an adjusted gross income over $250k that will be have his/her taxes increased to about Clinton era levels.

To paraphrase SlashDot:

        Corporate Revenue - expenses = profit!

Objecting to Obama's policies

[DesScorp]

"- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?"

Why is this the government's job? Where does the Constitution say this is the responsibility of the government?

"- Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be?

Republicans have been doing this for years. The simple 1040A form was a Reagan initiative. Both the flat tax and fair tax plans have come from conservative thinkers. It's Democrats that like a large tax code, because it allows them to use tax policy to obtain their various social engineering goals. It allows them to use tax funds as a carrot and stick in trying to change or influence various behaviors. Republicans are the party that believes the money you make is your property. Liberals don't see money as personal property, they see it as a resource shared for the public good. That's an important difference.

"- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?"

China's rise doesn't have a farking thing to do with science or research. China's rise has everything to do with the world's consumers loving cheap goods, and Chinese willingness to work for less in making those goods. Name one scientific or technical breakthrough Chinese research has made that eclipses American research... don't hold your breath, because you aren't likely to find any. The only place where the US is truly lacking in research is big physics, but you can thank Democrats for that too. They killed the Supercollider in 1993, a project strongly supported by the GOP, and killed by Democrats in their war on, and I quote, "Big Science". So when the Europeans make huge breakthroughs at their new supercollider at CERN, be sure and write Bill Clinton and Jim Wright and thank them for "Better, Faster, and Cheaper" in science, which lost us a slew of NASA probes because the government cheaped out on quality control.

"- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?"

Something the Democratic Party and their NEA allies adamantly oppose. His own party isn't going to let him move one whit on this.

"- Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?"

Then they're not concrete, are they?

"- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?"

Now you're just trolling. Obama is a strong believer in race-based affirmative action programs.

"- Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?"

Of all of your points, this one is the most disingenuous. Do you honestly think that adoption wouldn't occur to anyone outside a public classroom? Do you honestly think that teenagers don't know about condoms outside of a classroom?

Un-American?

[DesScorp]

"Then you're just, quite simply, un-American. It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare." It is our duty as citizens to protect each other from outside threats, and our duty as humans not to let the poor among us die in the streets."

And you are, quite simply, a fucking troll. The purpose of the government, stated clearly in the Constitution, is to provide limited authority, shared and divided between the central government, states, and cities. You're taking one generic clause, and redefining the whole scope of American government.
You're using the "general welfare" clause the same way the Democrats used the Commerce Clause for years... as a justification for the government to do anything and everything.

Hah, I don't need no stinkin software

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need software to know Obama puts more spin on his product. It's obvious just listening to his loony platform with all its buried within obfuscation and well reserched glowing generalities aimed at his demographics clueless consumers. Yack spit!

Sooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to see someone find one of Obama's old class lectures and try the same analysis on it. If he still gets a high spin score, I'd suggest this isn't actually picking up on spin.

Rove

[shmlco]

So true. Even republican political strategist Karl Rove says that the McCain campaign may be going over the top.

Re:Rove

[letxa2000]

Even republican political strategist Karl Rove says that the McCain campaign may be going over the top.

He said the same about the Obama campaign. Not that you'll see that as part of most headlines in the mainstream media; if you're lucky you'll find it mentioned in passing in the second-to-last paragraph of the article.

Wrong

[mosb1000]

Christians believe you should help the poor VOLUNTARILY, they don't believe you should compel others to do it through threat of force. Forcing someone to help the poor is a very unchristian thing to do.

"There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper." Yes, and he had just killed his brother. Last I checked I hadn't murdered anyone in the streets. And FYI I give generously to charity.

Very subjective and speculative...

[houbou]

I feel that this is a very subjective piece of software. Communication and the way people communicate to others, I'm not so sure any software can really tell if what a person is saying is drafted or comes from the mind and/or the heart. Having read the article, this I feel is highly speculative.

Bull excrement

[analogkid76]

I don't believe this for a second. You know what, skip the "spin" detection. Let's look at outright lie detection. If factcheck.org can be trusted, which I believe it can, I believe McCain has been caught spreading more outright falsehoods than Obama in this election. And you know what? Facts and fact checking matters more to me than how "spinny" a politician sounds.

Fact checking doesn't support his conclusion

[pugugly]

Given the number of lies McCain has been caught in, and that fact-checking has typically supported Obama, I would say a system that determines 'spin' by whether someone is a 'dynamic speaker', just *might* not be calibrated correctly.

It's just possible to be both
a) A good speaker and
b) Honest.

Obama is verifiably both. McCain is verifiably neither.

Pug

Re:Fact checking doesn't support his conclusion

[MadAhab]

Oh you and your facts.

Might as well sell buggy-whips in the USA these days.

Spin?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought SPIN is taking a statement that is untrue or leaving information off so that statement appears to be true or appealing so long as no one does any fact checking; assuming of course, correct or factual information can be obtain to compare with the spin statement.

In which case, creating a program to obtain factual information and comparing it to the released statement by someone should be a good measure of the amount of spin they do.

So does the articles program spin the results of its program.

Bad Science

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know that Science has a Liberal bias. It is not solid science if the results are not progressive. This scientist is obviously counterrevolutionary, thus only the opposite of his conclusion is factually correct.

This program is WORTHLESS! Here's proof.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's sad? I submitted this a week ago, with the article debunking it. Here are two articles that expose this software as bogus:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=574
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=575

Basically, it relies on human-supplied ratings and THOSE rely on exact URLs! So you can add a #whatever to the end of the URL and goof the "scanner" up.

Finally, there's no reason to talk about "spin" when you can talk about whether they're telling lies or not. Don't get me wrong, part of what's wrong with the news is that they present two politicians spinning in opposite directions and tell the viewers to make up their minds. But this is only because they can't focus on objective facts.

If a politician says "the moon is made of green cheese," they shouldn't be repeating that nonsensical allegation at all. They should be telling us that that politician is crazy and supplying the facts that show they're wrong.

But too many focus on "bias" and leave people unable to see the forest for the trees.

Re:perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an editorial and scholarship-grunt-work position. Being on Law Review means you are editing, fact-checking, rewriting, cite-checking, and rearranging works of scholarship. It's an editor/publisher position.

There's a symbiosis (I prefer to think of it as mutual parasitism) between lazy professors and recommendation-needing law students. Law professors do shit work and get the brightest (measured by grades and a competition) students fix it, or even write the work themselves (google "law student professor plagiarism OR ghostwriting" for egregious examples of this). In return, the students get academic and sometimes even social access to professors, who are also more than happy to write effusive recommendations to prestigious judges with whom they are acquainted.

Main point is that none of Obama's work on the Law Review would carry his name, but his membership indicates exceeding academic success at (one of) the most intense graduate study program(s) in the world.

All of them.

[tjstork]

- NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East?

Instead of "best", you mean "gay".

- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?

Why don't we rephrase this for what it is... taxing responsible parents who already pay for health care for their kids to pay for health care for some kids in inner cities so their parents can sit around and smoke crack. If healthcare for children is so important, then parents should pay for it.

Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?

You can do that by getting rid of lawsuits against doctors and by shifting the ownership of health care plans from corporations to individuals, as John McCain proposes.

- Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be?

From a democrat? That's a joke.

- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?

China is kicking our ass because they are doing well in all the things that don't really require research. Democrats ruined manufacturing in the USA by corrupting the cities, by environmental legislation, excessive safety legislation that, all taken together, suggest that the party's members want to get paid but not work.

- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?

So, to put this another way, after Democrats screwed up all of America's cities through 40 years of misrule, now raise taxes on everyone else, to pay for their mistakes. But oh, by the way, fork over the money to the administrations that ruined those cities to begin with. No way. If you want to have any sort of redistribution of wealth and school choice, then vouchers and privatization absolutely must be on the table.

- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?

Sorry, but it is too important to define excellence by real success rather than by poetic sense of social preferences. While private universities have the right to discriminate and assemble whatever community they like, any public university should accept students based on academic criteria alone.

Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?

There is no "ending" of a war. You either win them or lose them. Obama isn't choosing to win, so therefor, what is he choosing? In any case, I'm sure that the world will think very highly of the Barrack Hussein Obama when he prematurely withdraws the USA from a mess that it created, and in doing so, touches off a genocidal civil war.

- Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation?

The death penalty is not being applied enough. There has not been a single documented case of the death penalty in the last decade, where in fact, the person executed did not deserve it. I for one, though, bitterly anticipate a Barrack Obama pardon of Mumia Abdul Jabar, or, whatever that cop killing chump calls himself these days.

Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?

Again, if sex education is so important, then parents should teach it. Why should we continue to have our successful culture polluted by the failures of this social wreckage? You know, if 10% of these so-called social advocates on the left wing actually applied themselves as engineers and inventors and created factories, rather than enviro-protests, there wouldn't be any poverty in the USA.

I can't think of a single person to support Obama's platform unless you are a lazy soc

we're doomed

[MadAhab]

having read about 20% of the comments, i feel rather certain that America is on the decline. 49.5% of the country seem to have an allegiance to bullshit first, party second, and the well-being of America a distant third.

as a patriot, i have to say fuck you.

spin is finding a partisan angle to every fact.

TFA and half the commenters seem to regard this as mandatory.

pseudoscientific truthiness meter. look up.

Where's the download link?

[wolverine1999]

Where's the download link for the software?
I'd love to try the software on Maltese politicians speeches :)

People need this ?

[RockDoctor]

My spin detector :
If (politician's lips are moving, or keyboard is typing)
Then (lying, thieving bullshitting spin is being produced)
else (politician is a fake)