Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by sososowhat, Feb 12, 2008.
McCain = UNIX Workstation
Romney = Palm Pilot
Huckabee = Gateway
Paul = Abacus
Kucinich = Nintendo Wii
McCain... more Winblows 95 or something, methinks. and isn't that comparison being a bit mean to Palm?
Isn't it rather disingenuous to Obama to imply that he has nothing behind hype and flash?
And isn't it rather unnecessarily complementary to Hillary to say she is far more flexible and capable in the end?
No way Kucinich would be the Wii. Kucinich was so unpopular that barely anyone even noticed that he was in the race in the first place (In fact, Saturday Night Live and some other parody shows poked fun at Kucinich's unnoticeable-ness. Not that I have anything agains Kucinich, but the Wii is too popular to be him. I would represent Kucinich with a Gameboy Micro. It was a mini version of the Gameboy advance that was noticed but never really took off.
damn straight obama's a mac.
Nice use of red/white/blue on Obama's site.
PSHHHH... Kucinich is more like... a Mac Pro.
Yes, he's the most advanced out of all the Democrats. The only one with a solid liberal track record. Not many people buy Mac Pros though because they feel they're too expensive even though every Mac user lusts after them. Kucinich is the candidate that every other candidate wants to be like but they feel like they can't get it because it would cost too much political credit. I've met Kucinich and his wife and have spent lots of time with them and I must say, if Obama is a Mac; Kucinich is OS X.
Haha wow, i love the comparison!
That, is why I love Obama.
In the end, all computers suck. There's not a really great choice in either of them, but you have to go with the lesser evil.
Kucinich = dreamcast
awesome drawing of obama mac and hillary pc here
McCain = ThinkPad/ThinkCentre, IMO
Built tough and durable, got "good bones" inside. Not flashy, but get's the job done well as advertised.
I don't understand why everyone flocks to the Obama = Mac comparisons; makes me cringe everytime I hear/see that. Are Macs really all about hollow hype?
I was going to say Game Cube
While I can't agree that McCain would get "the job done well" but I can agree that Obama's campaign is full of hype. I hear him talk and talk about changing the white house and how it wants a better tomorrow but I rarely see actual logical plans. With Dennis Kucinich I saw legislation that could work. Now I am hoping Ralph Nader decides to run, I am not going to waste my vote on a career politician, I believe that the two-party system is extremely flawed and I wish that Kucinich would run as an independent, since he will not I turn to Nader who I greatly respect.
Don't start with the "Nader doesn't have a chance". He would if the American people wanted him to.
It's an oversimplification!
I'm surprised no one has made an analogy between the cult of Mac and cult of Obama. Obama surely has a similar koolaid-drinking fanboi base, and his aura with the media (at least pre-SNL) was awfully similar to Job's RDF. I hope I haven't offended any Mac fanbois (I certainly consider myself one).
I absolutely disagree. I think it's ridiculous to believe you have to vote for the lesser of two evils - they're both evil.
Remember: "The only way to waste your vote is to use it!"
Why are they evil?
Comparing Obama to a Mac is insulting to Macs. Both are flashy and "cool" but Macs actually have real substance underneath.....
What would our current resident be? A broken pair of headphones?
Amen, you beat me to it.
Obama now reminds me of Tony Blair when he got in.
It didn't work out...
I'm using evil as a euphemism, to parallel my opinion on the concept of voting for the "lesser of two evils" (which is a cliche) in politics. If I do not agree with most of, or even a few of their stances, how can I justify voting for them? It's cynical to simply vote to cancel out the vote of someone else. If I were a pro-life person, for example (I'm not, but for the sake of argument) and I agree with most of a person's stances, but they are say, not pro-choice, pro-life, but simply pro-abortion, and believed we should kill all babies upon conception, how could I vote for that person? Just some food for thought. The majority of people disagree with me, and I don't think the way I think is necessarily bad. If people thought along the lines of what they agreed with, rather than just who's less disagreeable, we might actually have a good country. I wasn't calling the candidates evil as people, or their policies evil, simply using the wording of the popular cliche to make a point