Obama or McCain? [Archive] - Page 2

solvs

Jul 18, 2008, 01:09 AM

What I said, is that McCain has been clear on what he stands for.
But as has been point out time and time again, no, he hasn't. He's completely changed positions. Sometimes a couple of times. Just in the last week, he's changed his position on Afghanistan multiple times. You can call it clarifying, or try to defend it as changing with the times, but as any of the links show, that simply isn't the case.

Meanwhile, while Obama has changed a couple of positions (like FISA, and he's getting hit for it, and very well should be) most of the time it's more about people not knowing what he really feels or stands for and being surprised when they find out (see the faith based initiatives or gun rights).

and as history shows, often the promises are forgotten once they take their seat.
Because the current GOP, including McCain doesn't do that? You can criticize them for it, they can be guilty of it at times too. But you act as if the GOP doesn't. And in what capacity they have. "I'm a uniter" comes to mind. McCain wants to continue that.

If he can even remember (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/11/mccain-s-convenient-misremembering.aspx).

My point, was that Obama has done nothing to convince me that he has a plan. Further, that he has a good plan. Even further, that if he had one, that he'd have any idea how to pull it off.
Than you haven't been paying attention. Not that they're all great, they aren't, but he has them. Despite the media not covering them, let alone the details. This is a common meme, ignore his plans and say he doesn't have, while ignoring the vague non plans McCain doesn't share (like how he'll balance the budget, all we get is generalities about cutting pork, which at best will barely shave a few million off even if he's successful).

He's running on a slogan of change. But, change is only good if it is the right change.
We don't want what we have now, which is what McCain is now promising.

Tell me exactly what you're going to change, show me how you're going to get there, and convince me that you can really do it.
Why don't you go research what his plans are then, because it's out there and easy to find (besides his website and countless articles he's written, he has a bunch of free podcasts out there where he does just that).

But, I believe that McCain can actually take office and do something.

I'm just not sure I agree with what he will do.
Based on an actual knowledge of his plans, he's promising more of exactly the same as what we have now. Better to go with the devil you know? I don't know, I don't see how doing what he wants to do will make things worse. Maybe not much better, but certainly not worse. If you want things to stay on the same course they are now, no matter how bad things get, just because you know what they're doing, does that really make sense?

And, I believe he can make things happen.
Even if it's the wrong things? :confused:

I will admit it is easy to find weaknesses in the opposing candidate and hard to find flaws in a preferred candidate.
It's easy to find flaws with both candidates, but you should be prepared to back it up with something, or else we get more of what we seem to have which is people who don't like Obama, but don't really know why, and people who support McCain, even though they know he isn't very good anymore.

and open myself to attacks
Criticism and pushing for evidence isn't anywhere near "attacking".

The week that should have ended Obama's presidential hopes was back in March with the Rev. Wright issue.
The media and those on the right cared more about that most people did while real things were affecting us. Look at the boos during the debates when these questions came up. I'm not going to say it didn't hurt him, but it wasn't anything to do with policy or anything that would affect the rest of us, so why should anyone have cared? There are real reasons to disagree with him, even dislike him, but guilt by association, especially when McCain was doing the same thing, let alone what others on the right have said that were equally, some even more, disgusting, that got almost no coverage vs. the nonstop talking about it the MSM kept doing.

Say what you will about a misrepresentation of Wright's career into a few sound bites
How about I say this: Wright is not Obama. I didn't like what Wright said either, but I did like what Obama said in response. Would have been nice to deal with it and move on, but it's still brought up. We were saturated with it. Now we don't even want to hear about it. We're sick of it. There are real problems we need to deal with.

but I find it hard to believe that McCain (or any other politician for that matter) would be a viable candidate for any public office if he attended a church with a pastor that had said equally divisive things.
Have you met the religious right? The one McCain in '99 criticized and in '07 coddled to? They do say such things, and worse, and continue to unabated.

1. I am not by any means an expert regarding social security, but I have heard/read enough to know that the current system is not working and will be bankrupt in a few decades if nothing is fixed. The point where the video cuts off is how McCain would fix the system.
It won't be bankrupt anytime soon. Small changes will easily continue to make it solvent. McCain hasn't said how he'll fix it. Kinda the point. Just more vague generalities. For awhile, after being opposed to them, he started to come around to Bush's ideas on personal accounts and stocks. Which, had we done, looking at most of the market, would have bankrupted a lot of people and wiped out their savings had they done this. Not to mention the fact that this program would have added a trillion or so to the current program, not saved us any money.

McCain also doesn't seem to understand how the system works (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16149.html), or, at best, is misinterpreting it to push an agenda he once criticized.

2. Not much to say about this except... This week (or maybe last, not sure about the date) Barack Obama said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZprtPat1Vk) he was embarrassed by Americans. He also berates Americans for not learning Spanish. I find the assertion that immigrants will learn English funny. I have come into contact with plenty of Latinos that do not speak English.
You're misinterpreting what Obama meant, and missing the point of McCain flip flopping all over the place with the issue.

5. John McCain does not advocate keeping a strong presence in Iraq just for the sake of having troops there. Surely if things are going well, as the are, and continue to go well, it will make sense to remove troops. Withdrawing troops "doesn't sound that different than Obama's plan?" It's hard to know exactly what Obama's Iraq plan is now that he will listen to commanders on the ground. I hate to link to an RNC ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcIeoSHTyCI), but the video clips are quite telling.
Obama has been clear about his plan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

And so has McCain, which is what Bush has been pushing, which despite the MSM repeating that it is working isn't.

8. I would certainly think it would take a lot of skill and expertise to manage a 3 trillion dollar budget and economy. I think it is crazy to assert that Obama is an expert on the economy because McCain has said he is not an expert.
Obama's plans, while again not great, are at least better than McCain's, which as we've posted will increase the deficit far more. Obama will surround himself with people who know what they're doing, and like Clinton, will actually listen to them. McCain will surround himself with people like Phil Gramm, who if you're paying attention you will know what he said. Ironic considering it was legislation pushed by him and those like him that made things worse for us now. Those who do know what they're talking about, but go against the agenda, will be pushed out, as has happened already, and is exactly what Bush did with practically everything that got us into so many messes.

10. Obama has demonstrated that he does not know the number of states (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws) in our country. Which is the more basic factoid of information? Everybody makes mistakes.
True, but he later clarified and meant "contests". You're right, everyone makes mistakes. McCain once said "beer" when he meant something else, and everyone laughed and it was forgotten. Even when he said Czechoslovakia (repeatedly) it was but a blip. But he also continually mixed up Sunni and Shia, even after being corrected, among other things. Obama isn't running on his geography background. McCain is running on foreign policy. It isn't a small thing if he not only screws up, but keeps screwing up. It's a pattern. And lately, unfortunately, the norm for him.

Thanks for reading. I do try to avoid posting in the PRSI forum, so do not expect much of a defense. The bottom part of this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5715340&postcount=49) accurately explain the reluctance to post.
If you can back up what you say, even if we disagree, and follow the rules, you're more than welcome to post here.

Obama made the decision to attend a church and listen to a guy that is anti-white
Ok, first of all, do you think that somehow means Obama, who is himself partially white, is also anti-white? Because, even if true, that would be the only way it could be considered a legitimate reason to dislike the guy. But it's not true anyway. As we posted many times while this was all going on it would be news to Rev Wrights white friends and associates who said they were more than welcome at the church. I know this was repeated ad naseum over and over again, and the scary black man said some things that made us uncomfortable, but this is just such a ridiculous thing to have a problem with. Obama isn't Rev Wright. He was friends with him, the guy was his preacher, but he caved to political pressure, and after giving a great speech the people who needed to listen to it most didn't, he cut him loose. What more do you want? Or do you still actually think Obama feels exactly the same way?

Obama doesn't give me any confidence at all.

Or, at least looks like they could do it without huddling in a corner in the fetal position.
And you base this on...

That's what I thought.

It's not so much what he's said or done that makes me feel he can't do it. It's a personal feeling from what I've seen of him and how he's handled himself.
This is the crux of it all isn't it? You have a feeling. It's not based on actual evidence, most of which counters your belief, and you even admit you don't know much about the plans you say you don't like then say don't exist. But you have a feeling. And we wonder why we get the leaders we do.

I have a bad feeling about Obama
More of that "feeling" stuff.

but I do think that he'll turn the US into a socialist state.
At least you kind of gave a reason, even if it's not factually accurate in the least.

OK thank you for correcting me there, it's very rare that someone gets me to admit a mistake on by behalf.
Admitting a mistake or to being wrong is an admirable quality.

But I will say that the government shouldn't be paying for people's health insurance, or for anything.
We already pay more for our healthcare than most other places and get less for it. We were even recently scored very poorly with regards to our healthcare (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=5391383). Again. Regardless of what you feel about others' heathcare, our own system is greatly lacking, as you even admitted. That's pretty embarrassing. McCain's plan is practically nonexistent, and it's not just on this type of thing.

A 'universal' health care system doesn't have to be all or nothing. A mixture of public and private can be completely workable.
Most of the actual plans Obama and the Dems have are like that.

BTW:

Hearing-Gate Exposed! McCain Has Worse Afghanistan Hearing Record Than Obama (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/hearing-gate-ex.html)

And in a recent poll, he was even losing to Obama in his own state by 3 points (http://washingtonindependent.com/view/mccains-arizona-woes).

Though that could simply be endemic of the country's feelings overall (http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/695749.html).

solvs

Jul 18, 2008, 03:37 AM

That was a long post, but I missed something. A woman, and some other protestors, were ousted from a venue McCain was at. The woman had a sign that said McCain = Bush. Here's a post from her on the subject:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-kreck/mccainbush_b_112285.html

The problem was that McCain likes to act like he doesn't mind such things, and blamed the secret service. But it wasn't them. As her article notes, it was his own staff (http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_9844803). Maybe he really didn't know who it was and just said it was SS, though as she points out, doesn't really make sense. And, why did it take the SS so long to say it wasn't them? I get why they'd think they should have done it, and wonder how Obama's staff would react if they felt, I dunno, threatened or whatever, but it's still telling.

And even more telling, once again barely covered at all in the MSM.

Also: Road still bumpy for McCain's retooled bandwagon (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/wire/chi-ap-mccain-weekinreview,0,4298309.story). Though Obama's #'s are hurting too, especially in swing states (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Frasmussen%2F20080619%2Fpl_rasmussen%2Fohioprez20080619&ei=21SASLbrGYmmtQPIqv3TCQ&usg=AFQjCNF5VfKW2O9S9aV8bAEXrjUm6N7wEA&sig2=wBU16r7m5SSFpKiv491DAw), probably thanks to some of his recent votes that even "moderates" don't like. But he's still ahead overall in a lot of recent polls (http://www.topnews.in/usa/obama-leads-mccain-two-national-polls-2767). And neck and neck, or even gaining, in places he should be losing (http://www.statesville.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=SRL/MGArticle/SRL_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173355876374). Mostly attributed to McCain's (another) bad week (http://blogs.dw-world.de/acrossthepond/tim/1.6806.html).

flyinmac

Jul 18, 2008, 05:30 AM

I'll put my personal evaluation of him and my "feeling" of him before website discussions, promotional websites, and even what he himself says.

Elections are not presented in absolute honesty or full disclosure. They are trying to get a position, and will say whatever will get them there.

I will however consider the words of someone who specifically speaks against known popular belief. Not because I agree with him. But, because if he will say what he knows the people don't want to hear, then perhaps he has a bit more personal integrity and will be more likely to follow through and bow down less.

I'd rather have someone who will commit to an unpopular idea and stand against the mounting opposition, than the one who will say everything I want to hear and then deliver nothing.

It just shows something of personal integrity if they will stay with a belief despite risking the election because of that belief.

But, either way, more can be determined by evaluating an individual personally than by reading his publicity statements.

I've looked him over, I've watched his movements, I've seen how he interacts with people. He does not convey the strength that I would expect of a leader (at least not one I would vote for). And, I flat out don't trust him. I don't believe that he will be good for our country.

McCain may not be great either. But, despite not liking him, I think he's the better option of the two bad choices we've been given.

I'm not a republican. I would rather put a democrat in there. I agree with more of their ideas (though there are two common democratic ideas I disagree strongly with). But, I don't vote on party. I vote on the person. And, sadly, this time (like others in recent history), we have to choose between the bad choices with no great choice available.

But, back to personal evaluations... Like I say, those mean a lot more than promotional materials, press statements, websites, and such.

We've got a local state representative who has been in office now for 15 years. In that 15 years time, he has been the most popular local official in history. Everyone loved him. He went door to door to talk with everyone. He was very visible to the public. He was very accessible (unlike our other representatives who we can't even drive to - our capitol is off the road system).

He had a great public following. And, for the last 15 years, I've been the only person I knew who didn't like him.

I couldn't complain about anything I knew he had done. I just knew from the moments I had been around him, and the way he carried himself that he was not who he appeared to be publicly.

I knew that there was something wrong, and I didn't trust him. I didn't feel he had any serious ties to our local area (the area he was supposed to represent), I viewed him as being weak, and as lacking the backbone to stand up for what was right.

And, I never felt that he would represent us with our interests in mind.

But, in the paper, he was superman. To the public and everyone I spoke with, he was the greatest man who ever lived.

He won every election by a landslide. And, no one stood a chance against him in the elections.

The entire areas population voted based on words, promises, printed statements, favorable speeches, and a very lovable personality.

And, he was very nice to be around. I've met him. And, he was very friendly and very respectful.

But, guess what... The public now (after 15 years) has come around. I'm no longer the only one in the state who doesn't trust him.

You see, our super representative is now in Federal Prison.

For the last 2 elections, some things had started coming to light. But, based on experience and the belief that he was just being picked on, the people overwhelmingly put him back in office again.

Despite the discovery that his wife and family lived out of state (As in never came here). That he did not have a legal residence in the area he was to represent (and instead claimed a back bedroom of his aging parents home as his residence to qualify).

But, he was so popular that the public didn't believe any of it. They believed it was a smear campaign.

So, they put him back in.

So, then it turns out that the reason local oil companies can drill a well in your front yard (and were starting to) is because of legislation that he pushed through (without the public knowledge and arguably illegally).

Then, finally, after all that, he gets elected one more time. People trusted him and viewed him as just being smeared and that it was all lies.

So, just months after winning the last election, he comes under Federal investigation. And, it turns out that he was in the pockets of the major oil companies for years. He was there to do their tasks, and get good deals in laws for the oil producers.

So, finally, after all these years, he's now in prison. And, he's not the only one. His arrest has revealed many other politicians and representatives who are now in prison. And, there's several more on the way there.

And, the thing is, that for more than 10 years, there was nothing to introduce the slightest question of his character other than a personal evaluation. Stop reading other people's words, and personally evaluate the individual yourself.

Don't vote based just on what they say. Vote based on the person they are. Not whether you like what they say, dislike what they say, or like what anyone else has to say about them. Evaluate that person critically and personally before you stand behind them.

Put aside anything they've said. Judge their personal character traits. Look them over. See how they stand. See how they carry themselves. See how they hold their eyes. Listen to how they speak and interact more closely than the words they say.

We've got a new Governor who ran on a promise of change. And, she unseated an incumbent of the same party to win the election (quite a task). She made tons of promises in the campaign.

Not only did she unseat a sitting Governor of the same party, but she also beat an opponent who had previously been the most popular governor in history (and who had delivered great things to our state). Since we don't have a maximum number of terms served (just a maximum of two consecutive) he was eligible to run again.

So, she removed a sitting governor, beat another who was the most popular ever, and beat a 3rd competitor who was very promising and made a lot of sense.

People wanted change. That's all they wanted (just like the current presidential campaign). She promised openness. She promised to not do the same things as the sitting governor. She promised to make everything right. She promised to represent the people and to serve our interests. She promised to resolve a major local issue that the people were dissatisfied with (an issue from the previous governor). And, she promised to do the right thing for us.

She made a lot of promises. And, like I said, everyone wanted change.

Well, change is exactly what we got.

What did we get?

Well, we got the first female governor of our state.

We got a woman who will circumvent the law and bypass the checks and balances system of our government to get what she wants done.

We've gotten a woman who's staff is constantly revolving because they won't play her games.

We've gotten a woman who has not delivered on any of her promises.

We've gotten a woman who has yet to deliver a contract that was all but signed and ready to pass under the previous governor (she and her supporters obtained a legal ruling preventing him signing it before he left office), and her supposedly better deal has done nothing and has gone nowhere (there is no contract now - just a bill sitting on a desk).

We've gotten a woman who managed to (within months) kill the states dairy industry. When the dairy board didn't do things her way, she fired the staff of the overseeing board. Then, replaced that staff with her own hand-picked people. And, that board (now filled with her people) fired the entire dairy board and appointed themselves in their place (she didn't have direct authority over the dairy board, so she couldn't fire them, but could appoint people to the overseeing board - so it was an underhanded way of getting her people on the dairy board). They then bankrupted the local dairy system and farmers now have noone to sell milk to.

So now there is no longer any milk from within our state anymore - we have to buy milk from out of state and ship it in which means it's pretty much near expiring when it gets here (After being on the trucks so long).

And, we've gotten a woman who anytime she doesn't agree with someone appoints someone to a position which can affect the position of the person she disagrees with and has them removed without doing it herself (since she can't).

And, finally, we're seeing that she is letting personal family grudges interfere, and firing high ranking officials for unspecified reasons.

We've got change. We've had nothing but change since she took office. But, in the end, we haven't moved forward at all. Mostly, the needs of our state have remained unaddressed. The dairy industry has been killed. Major oil contracts have been blown.

And, again, she was a candidate who looked very promising on paper. She had great ideas. She promised everything. She was the super-candidate.

But, she stems from my local area, and I've watched her. She didn't have my vote. I knew she would go in and turn the state into a dictatorship (I outright said so any time her name came up). No one else believed it.

I didn't know her personally. But, I've seen her. She's beautiful. She's strong. She's amazing. And, she's full of great ideas and suggestions (they just never pan out).

I've never supported her in any of her previous political offices.

She has definitely taken control of this state. She's definitely delivered change.

And, strangely, while changing everything, she's delivered nothing.

We have nothing to show for her time in office. All we've got is a bunch of failed contracts, a bunch of people out of work, a bunch of farms now bankrupt, all the dairy assets sitting vacant (with no potential buyers), and a seat that's filled with perhaps the most beautiful rear end that's ever been in it.

We got change. We made history. We got our first woman. The crowds cheered. It was a historic moment in history.

But, when her term is over, we'll have a new note to put in state history as well. We'll have the first governor of our state who accomplished nothing.

Even unpopular governors have gotten more done than she has.

The sad thing, is that people are still so wrapped up in this idea of change, that she is still probably the most popular governor in history. She has incredible support numbers.

People love change. Promise them change, and you'll have them hooked.

You don't have to deliver anything though. The promise of change is enough.

Instead, I suggest people start making personal evaluations of these people. Judge them personally. Judge them the same way you would someone you meet on the street and has no papers to show you. Evaluate them as if they are nobody. Bring them to your same level, and then see what you think of them.

I don't care what the papers say. I don't care what their website says. I don't care what they promise.

A persons personal traits and characteristics will say much more than all that. And, what those characteristics say is far more important than the words that come out of their mouth.

solvs

Jul 28, 2008, 07:04 AM

I'll put my personal evaluation of him and my "feeling" of him before website discussions, promotional websites, and even what he himself says.
So in other words, regardless of any facts to the contrary, you're going purely on what you "feel". This is why we get the people we do, including the people you're railing against that have absolutely nothing to do with Obama or McCain. I'm not saying you have to believe everything you read, or even what Obama says, but basing your opinion on "feeling" over facts and evidence? I guess I'm not too surprised you'd do that (many do) but I am that you'd not only admit it so openly, but actually seem to be proud of it. :confused: Really!?! Here are some links I hope you read, but worry you won't and will continue to have a preformed opinion, regardless of the evidence against it:

McCain's Utter Cluelessness on the Economy (http://www.theseminal.com/2008/07/20/mccains-utter-cluelessness-on-the-economy/)
McCain gaffes pile up; critics pile on (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11939.html)
Not a Gaffe: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Iraq (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/not-a-gaffe-a-fundaemtnal_b_114394.html)
Confident McCain can deal with Iraq? (http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/23/confident-mccain-can-deal-with-iraq/)
McCain expresses concern over Iraq-Pakistan border — which doesn’t exist (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16270.html#more-16270)
McCain Debunks His Own Anbar Gaffe (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/23/mccain-debunks-his-own-anbar-gaffe/)
Day Before McCain Touts Security, Pro-American Iraqi Leader Killed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/day-before-mccain-touts-s_n_115034.html)
Anbar Sheik Cited By McCain Was Assassinated Last Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/23/anbar-shiek-cited-by-mcca_n_114581.html)
Another John McCain Gaffe -- Iraq Was the First Major Conflict After 9/11 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/another-john-mccain-gaffe_b_114797.html)
McCain Forgets Canada In Obama Attack (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/mccain-forgets-canada-in_n_114820.html)
McCain's Got 99 Problems (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/mccains-got-99-problems_b_114341.html)
Jukebox John changes his tune every few minutes (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16124.html)
McCain Meltdown (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/mccain_meltdown.html)
McCain's Potential Problem on Gay Adoption (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/409790.aspx)

And my favorite:

Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html?nav=rss_politics)
Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

But you guys keep based your opinions on "feelings", because that's worked so well so far. :rolleyes:

flyinmac

Jul 28, 2008, 08:41 AM

So in other words, regardless of any facts to the contrary, you're going purely on what you "feel". This is why we get the people we do, including the people you're railing against that have absolutely nothing to do with Obama or McCain. I'm not saying you have to believe everything you read, or even what Obama says, but basing your opinion on "feeling" over facts and evidence? I guess I'm not too surprised you'd do that (many do) but I am that you'd not only admit it so openly, but actually seem to be proud of it. :confused: Really!?! Here are some links I hope you read, but worry you won't and will continue to have a preformed opinion, regardless of the evidence against it:

McCain's Utter Cluelessness on the Economy (http://www.theseminal.com/2008/07/20/mccains-utter-cluelessness-on-the-economy/)
McCain gaffes pile up; critics pile on (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11939.html)
Not a Gaffe: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Iraq (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/not-a-gaffe-a-fundaemtnal_b_114394.html)
Confident McCain can deal with Iraq? (http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/23/confident-mccain-can-deal-with-iraq/)
McCain expresses concern over Iraq-Pakistan border — which doesn’t exist (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16270.html#more-16270)
McCain Debunks His Own Anbar Gaffe (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/23/mccain-debunks-his-own-anbar-gaffe/)
Day Before McCain Touts Security, Pro-American Iraqi Leader Killed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/day-before-mccain-touts-s_n_115034.html)
Anbar Sheik Cited By McCain Was Assassinated Last Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/23/anbar-shiek-cited-by-mcca_n_114581.html)
Another John McCain Gaffe -- Iraq Was the First Major Conflict After 9/11 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/another-john-mccain-gaffe_b_114797.html)
McCain Forgets Canada In Obama Attack (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/mccain-forgets-canada-in_n_114820.html)
McCain's Got 99 Problems (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/mccains-got-99-problems_b_114341.html)
Jukebox John changes his tune every few minutes (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16124.html)
McCain Meltdown (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/mccain_meltdown.html)
McCain's Potential Problem on Gay Adoption (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/409790.aspx)

And my favorite:

Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html?nav=rss_politics)

But you guys keep based your opinions on "feelings", because that's worked so well so far. :rolleyes:

Well, going purely off facts and published statements is how you end up with people of questionable character.

That's how you get presidents who diddle their secretaries (or whatever she was) with a cigar.

That's how we came to have a dictator female governor in our state.

That's how we got a male dictator prior to her.

That's how we got a state representative who is now in Federal Prison.

That's how we got legislators, senators, and other such representatives who are at this very moment now under investigation in our state and facing Federal Prison terms.

Our people judged them based on paper facts. They judged them on previous track records. They judged them on stated stands and positions. They judged them on all the right things.

But, they failed to judge them in the way that matters most. Look them in the eye. Look at how they carry themselves. Personally assess your "Feelings" of them. And, weigh that feeling and their character more heavily than all the paper facts.

solvs

Jul 28, 2008, 10:05 AM

Well, going purely off facts and published statements is how you end up with people of questionable character.
What? Are you really going with this? :confused: So then tell me what is in their hearts. What does McCain make you feel? Because he disappoints me. I used to like him. I used to fall for his affable nature. Now I realize he's just like Bush. A guy I might want to have a beer with, but definitely wouldn't want in charge. Don't even get me started on how people like Cheney make me feel.

Obama on the other hand feels like he thinks he's smarter than I am, and you know what, he's probably right. He feels like he's deeply religious, which I'm hoping, unlike Bush, is real. He feels like he makes a lot of good speeches, but doesn't know much about some policies. But I also feel he'll surround himself with smart people instead of cronies. And that though he won't be great, he'll be better than what we've had, which will be continued under McCain. Which makes me feel scared.

And I feel like getting a bj by an intern used to be a big deal, but now realize there are so many other things that are more important that actually affect me that I should be worried about, and darn my opinion for being based on actual facts and reasoning, and not the "feelings" that you seem to think have given us better leadership when it clearly hasn't.

flyinmac

Jul 28, 2008, 02:09 PM

What? Are you really going with this? :confused: So then tell me what is in their hearts. What does McCain make you feel? Because he disappoints me. I used to like him. I used to fall for his affable nature. Now I realize he's just like Bush. A guy I might want to have a beer with, but definitely wouldn't want in charge. Don't even get me started on how people like Cheney make me feel.

Obama on the other hand feels like he thinks he's smarter than I am, and you know what, he's probably right. He feels like he's deeply religious, which I'm hoping, unlike Bush, is real. He feels like he makes a lot of good speeches, but doesn't know much about some policies. But I also feel he'll surround himself with smart people instead of cronies. And that though he won't be great, he'll be better than what we've had, which will be continued under McCain. Which makes me feel scared.

And I feel like getting a bj by an intern used to be a big deal, but now realize there are so many other things that are more important that actually affect me that I should be worried about, and darn my opinion for being based on actual facts and reasoning, and not the "feelings" that you seem to think have given us better leadership when it clearly hasn't.

As mentioned previously, I am not a republican. So, it is not my preference to vote for them.

But, as for what I see....

Well, McCain, I see a man that I disagree with on many issues. I see a man who is willing to take an unpopular stand and let people either agree or disagree with him. And, I see someone who will be ready to make the decisions that need to be made and make the one he feels is the best for the country (whether I agree with them or not).

With Obama, I see a man who sounds really nice. But, believe his character to be a bit shallow. He strikes me as arrogant. He does not seem to the character to arrive at a decision on his own and stand by said decision and do what he feels is ultimately best for the country. Rather, I believe he will be lead by other people's suggestions and therefore their agendas (either knowingly or unknowingly). Basically, I see him being a pawn played by those with things that they want to get done. I see his term in office being used by many of the special interest to further their own causes.

And, I always feel like I'm watching Maury Povich in a "Who's the father" episode of his show anytime I see Obama on stage. His delivery is the same. His personality and behavior on stage is of the same type. When Obama speaks, I feel like I'm watching a stage show.

A more recent one was particularly amusing. He got the crowd going. Delivered a rather "Maury" presentation. And, argued that we should not support McCain because some other nut did. He didn't have anything to say about McCain himself. His entire argument was that we should not vote for McCain because this other guy supported McCain. That's a pretty weak stance.

By the same argument, I guess I shouldn't vote for Obama either. I found a nut that likes him to.

I was surprised that he never offered a reason to vote for him (Obama). And, he spent the whole time on stage talking about why we shouldn't vote for McCain. Unfortunately, he didn't offer a single (not a single) reason that was based on McCain. His entire argument was based on other people. He couldn't come up with one thing about McCain (actually about McCain) that justified not voting for him.

He just put on a stage show talking about other people. Never said anything about the actual John McCain. Just that this other person likes him, and that person has a few weird ideas.

Well, Obama, I know a bunch of people with weird ideas that support you as well. So, I guess you just told us why we shouldn't put you in office.

I guess he just didn't want us thinking about the actual candidates. He wants us to make decisions based on people that aren't even in the election. Perhaps then we won't examine Obama (as in the Man that Obama is).

When it comes to a leader, character and the make-up of the individual mean more than the facts on the papers. All that means nothing when it comes to what a person will do when confronted. Promises mean less than your character. What you've accomplished in the past is not as important as your character now.

I can list a ton of government officials currently in (or now heading for) Federal Prison who had excellent track records (and still do). They just got caught with some stuff going on that people didn't know about (and yes that stuff did affect the population significantly). While delivering on promises, and maintaining excellent track records, they also had stuff they were doing out of the spotlight that cost our people much more than we had gained through them.

These were men and women who were extremely impressive on paper. They got stuff done. They had decades of established service. They consistently appeared to serve the people. And, no one could ever find anything bad to say about them.

But, turns out that facts and papers don't mean anything.

Well, at least the facts you know.

You're stuck on facts. But, you only have access to the facts that are made public. You don't have access to the unknown facts.

So, in absence of full disclosure, you have to judge their character. You have to objectively look at the candidates without consideration of what you have heard or what you "know". Look at them as you would a person you met in passing on the street. Look at them as you would if they both came to you seeking a job without a resume. Look them over, listen to how they speak, look at how they move, watch how they hold their eyes, examine them. See what you think of them as people (without looking at the published "facts").

And, then weight that more heavily than all the published stuff that is tailored and presented in a way to get you to vote for them.

The "facts" you know mean nothing. It is the stuff you don't know that will come back and bite you.

Perhaps you just need to come from a place that doesn't give a damn about pedigree to understand this.

I've been around a lot of politicians. I played with their kids growing up. I did work for them. I've talked to them as friends. I'm not more impressed with them or think no higher of them than I do anyone else.

When around them, I don't consider what they do for a living. I've never looked at them as powerful men or women. I just see them as people.

In some of the businesses I've had, I've been approached by some of the politicians who thought they were something special. And, found to their surprise that they didn't rank as high on my priority list as they thought they should. They'd ask me "don't you know who I am", and my answer would be "yes, that's very nice - but the time slot I have open is..."

I've been in a lot of their houses. I've sat around and talked with a lot of them. I've done a lot of work for them. As a kid, I even did yard work for them (didn't matter to me who they were).

What their office or ranking is, has never really mattered. To me, they've always been the guy up the road, or the person I bumped into in church, or the person I stopped and talked with at the store, or the person I sat around with once the job was done, or whatever.

I've been around our governor a fair bit. I was just behind her at the local restaurant the other day. Doesn't mean much to me. Just another person. She was there to eat, no reason to get all excited and disturb her time with her husband (I think they were discussing new houses or something like that).

All these people are just people. They have the same weaknesses as any other person.

What they do for a living is no more of a status thing than the local burger flipper. They are just doing a job.

And, when choosing who I want to perform that job, I'll fall back on the thing that matters most (character). All the "facts" mean nothing. They are only what you have been told. You won't find anything important there, because the stuff that really matters is not in the "facts" you have been provided.

Perhaps you need to spend some time in a place that doesn't care about pedigree. Perhaps you need to spend some time around some country folk, and learn what really matters. Learn what really makes up a person. Learn what characteristics in a person matter most when things go wrong.

flyinmac

Jul 28, 2008, 03:02 PM

And I feel like getting a bj by an intern used to be a big deal, but now realize there are so many other things that are more important that actually affect me that I should be worried about, and darn my opinion for being based on actual facts and reasoning, and not the "feelings" that you seem to think have given us better leadership when it clearly hasn't.

Well, you know, it might not be a big deal if he weren't married. And, it might not be a big deal if he were not essentially her employer.

But, lets consider what it did mean.

It meant that a man who we elected President could not honor a promise made to a single person.

It meant that a man who we elected President could not look past his own desires and consider the impact on someone he claimed to love.

It showed that a man we elected President could not tell the truth (until it was too late for telling the truth to count anymore).

And, if you can't see how his behavior in this one area could indicate he was unsuitable to be put in charge of obligations to our country....

His character in just this one incident tells us a lot about the man and whether he would put the country before his own desires. After all, he couldn't even put his wife before his own desires.

And, lets not forget that he also vetoed the bill that would have increased our own oil production which has lead us to where we are now.

So, in the end, he screwed us too.

.Andy

Jul 28, 2008, 03:34 PM

It's a beautiful thing watching someone argue themselves into the most illogical corner.

cloudnine

Jul 28, 2008, 03:41 PM

flyinmac

Jul 28, 2008, 04:04 PM

I really don't want to get in the middle of a politics debate, but...

As far as "Obama not knowing the number of states", it was a joke... he was on the road so much that it felt like he was in 52, 53 states... har, har... funny.

I can't believe people would actually think that Obama didn't know how many states there are in the U.S. Come on, people... use your common sense!

Or, perhaps he's just a product of our excellent educational system :D

Let's see, I seem to remember one of the more recent ones saying "You don't need to know all this stuff, all you need to know is where to look it up".

Of course, with today's Internet and such, it's easy to see how that idea would seem to be rational. Of course, it won't really do us any good until we have computers on our wrists. Oh, yeah, I guess we have smart phones now....

mashoutposse

Jul 28, 2008, 04:40 PM

flyinmac, you're just pigeonholing Obama into some odd set of preconceived notions that you have of him. I haven't seen or heard him do half of the things you say he does. When has Obama EVER argued that we shouldn't vote for McCain because "this other guy supported McCain?" :confused: On the contrary, Obama has openly shied away from 'guilt by association' attacks for obvious reasons. Obama takes on John McCain and his positions directly all of the time.

BTW, McCain is very much guilty of taking up popular positions to earn cheap votes. Think 'gas tax holiday.' Think 'massive tax cuts across the board.' Think 'off shore drilling.' Think of the dozens of positions McCain has flipped on in just the last 60 days in order to mobilize his conservative base.

I don't know what you're expecting readers of your last couple of posts to take away from them. That all inspiring and well-liked politicians are destined to end up in federal prison? That "change" candidates can't get things done?

mashoutposse

Jul 28, 2008, 04:47 PM

Well, going purely off facts and published statements is how you end up with people of questionable character.

That's how you get presidents who diddle their secretaries (or whatever she was) with a cigar.

Actually, people did get FACTS and PUBLISHED STATEMENTS well before November 1992 (Gennifer Flowers, anyone?). The consensus: Not a dealbreaker. Judging by the generally positive review he gets for his 8 years (especially in light of the last 8), the people made the right choice.

flyinmac

Jul 28, 2008, 04:48 PM

flyinmac, you're just pigeonholing Obama into some odd set of preconceived notions that you have of him. I haven't seen or heard him do half of the things you say he does. When has Obama EVER argued that we shouldn't vote for McCain because "this other guy supported McCain?" :confused: On the contrary, Obama has openly shied away from 'guilt by association' attacks for obvious reasons. Obama takes on John McCain and his positions directly all of the time.

Well, then I guess you missed it.

It was a long segment of him on stage recently talking about how we should not vote for McCain because a certain senator liked McCain, and that Senator had some ideas that Obama didn't like.

The entire argument (over 20 minutes long) was that we should not vote for McCain because this Senator and a couple other people liked him.

He offered no reason other than that these individuals liked McCain and that these individuals had some ideas Obama didn't like.

Guess you missed that one.

It was on one of the cable political discussion shows. And, they clearly ran the Obama segment unedited. It wasn't an interpretation of what Obama said. It was Obama clearly stating these things himself. And, delivering it all just like a good rating seeking talk show host.

fivepoint

Jul 28, 2008, 05:00 PM

flyinmac

Jul 28, 2008, 05:03 PM

I won't vote for anybody morally corrupt enough to support abortion.
I won't vote for anybody socially confused enough to think that taxation and spending is the solution to America's problems.
I won't vote for anybody who supports the destruction of basic American freedoms and liberties... whether it's as simple as the choice to wear a seatbelt, or as complicated as unauthorized government wiretaps.
I won't vote for anybody ironic enough to support legalized discrimination and/or affirmative action.
I won't vote for anybody who thinks the second amendment is "open for interpretation."
I won't vote for anybody who thinks teachers shouldn't get paid based on how well or how poorly they do their job.
I won't vote for anybody who doesn't see the value in Nuclear energy as a MAJOR game player in America's energy future.

I guess I have to choose "other".

P.S. Here is a good question to ask... why are these the only two options for president? Democrats and Republicans have a MONOPOLY on the system... they should be broken up just like Standard Oil and AT&T. Anyone else agree?

Sure, I'll go for that

The independents and green parties never really and have never really been contenders.

I'd prefer to just open it all up and let people run regardless of affiliations. Then, we just choose the best one rather than the best one of two options.

mashoutposse

Jul 28, 2008, 05:03 PM

Well, then I guess you missed it.

It was a long segment of him on stage recently talking about how we should not vote for McCain because a certain senator liked McCain, and that Senator had some ideas that Obama didn't like.

The entire argument (over 20 minutes long) was that we should not vote for McCain because this Senator and a couple other people liked him.

He offered no reason other than that these individuals liked McCain and that these individuals had some ideas Obama didn't like.

Guess you missed that one.

It was on one of the cable political discussion shows. And, they clearly ran the Obama segment unedited. It wasn't an interpretation of what Obama said. It was Obama clearly stating these things himself. And, delivering it all just like a good rating seeking talk show host.

Please be more specific. What was the charge, the topic? Which Senator was he talking about? I'm honestly curious.

mashoutposse

Jul 28, 2008, 05:16 PM

Sure, I'll go for that

The independents and green parties never really and have never really been contenders.

I'd prefer to just open it all up and let people run regardless of affiliations. Then, we just choose the best one rather than the best one of two options.

That's what primaries are for. A list of potential nominees dozens of candidates long get whittled down to two for the final leg of the race. We are given lots of choices if you take into account the entire process. The remaining two candidates are still in the running because none of the others could conjure up the support necessary to displace them. It's that simple.

flyinmac

Jul 28, 2008, 05:19 PM

That's what primaries are for. A list of potential nominees dozens of candidates long get whittled down to two for the final leg of the race. We are given lots of choices if you take into account the entire process. The remaining two candidates are still in the running because none of the others could conjure up the support necessary to displace them. It's that simple.

True.

Unfortunately, when we only have two parties doing the picking, we usually end up with some variation of the same old story every time.

flyinmac

Jul 28, 2008, 05:42 PM

Please be more specific. What was the charge, the topic? Which Senator was he talking about? I'm honestly curious.

I honestly don't know which show it was on. I happened to catch it as I was going between rooms working on stuff around the house. Stopped when I saw Obama giving his speech, and went on after he was done.

Quite honestly, the senator he mentioned and used as reason not to vote for McCain was one I had never heard of before. And, since I am not great with names, I can't seem to recall it at the moment. Obviously, I didn't run over and write it down.

I did a quick search on YouTube to see if I could locate that speech, but couldn't. And, Obviously, YouTube isn't the best source since they don't necessarily capture the entire speech.

Since I don't live and die by political discussions, it wasn't something I felt compelled to document and make note of the time, day, show, and speech.

He was surrounded by people as he normally is (as in a stage centered in the crowd).

My wife was listening as well, and we both arrived pretty much at the same conclusion. It was a weak stance and weak justification as to why McCain should not be considered.

But, as it was broadcast on television, and I didn't write down all the details, finding a web source of that would be more difficult.

If I had been just sitting around the house watching television, then I'd probably have caught the opening of the show and be able to provide that to you.

But, I was working on projects. And, stopped what I was doing to listen to what Obama was saying. And, when the segment was over, went on to do other stuff. I didn't bother to sit and listen to the political interpretation that is always there to follow any speech.

But, what I can tell you, is that the Senator in question, had made a few recent political moves and a few missteps and Obama was using those as reasons to cast doubt on McCain. The statement was that if this is the kind of person supporting McCain, then we should not vote for him.

I do wish that I could recall the name of the senator from the discussion. But, names are not my strong point. I know names of those I bother to watch. But, the senator used in Obama's illustration was not one I had heard of prior to his speech, or one that I have heard of since.

And, a web search of senators that Obama has criticized turns up a list so ridiculously large that it isn't helpful in isolating the specific speech.

Cleverboy

Jul 28, 2008, 07:06 PM

I won't vote for anybody morally corrupt enough to support abortion.
I won't vote for anybody socially confused enough to think that taxation and spending is the solution to America's problems.
I won't vote for anybody who supports the destruction of basic American freedoms and liberties... whether it's as simple as the choice to wear a seatbelt, or as complicated as unauthorized government wiretaps.
I won't vote for anybody ironic enough to support legalized discrimination and/or affirmative action.
I won't vote for anybody who thinks the second amendment is "open for interpretation."
I won't vote for anybody who thinks teachers shouldn't get paid based on how well or how poorly they do their job.
I won't vote for anybody who doesn't see the value in Nuclear energy as a MAJOR game player in America's energy future.

[B]I guess I have to choose "other".

I won't vote for ideologues who think their ideals comprise a beacon of righteousness that will illuminate the world. I won't vote for demagogues that make everything they don't agree with sound like passages straight from the lips of satan. I live in the real world, where often times getting things done, so that our world is a better, if imperfect, place for the next generation, means sometimes dealing with compromises as painful as they are progressive. To that end, I'll argue with both liberal and conservatives, and the only objective in my mind is making sure none of us fall for the pathetic notion that our assignment while sharing our short time on this Earth, is to construct a paradise where we all live in virtuous harmony and rainbows shine from every closet.

~ CB

mashoutposse

Jul 28, 2008, 07:21 PM

flyinmac:

Thanks for putting in the effort.

As I stated previously, the Obama campaign have been very clear about their desired tone of the debate going forward. No ad hominem and guilt by association attacks from their side.

Recently, Obama hit McCain for the comments of his top economic advisor, former Senator Phil Gramm. Here's some background: In an interview, Gramm labeled the US "a nation of whiners" and called the nation's current economic woes a "mental recession." McCain has said on multiple occasions that he is not proficient when it comes to the economy and that he will rely on his advisors to craft his policies and positions. McCain has also said (repeatedly) that our financial problems are "psychological," which is in agreement with Gramm's statements. Obama (correctly, IMO) painted them both as out-of-touch and called into question an economic policy drawn up by people who think as they apparently do. That's a valid argument to make and a valid one for voters to take into account. What do you think?

Cleverboy:

Perfect response.

fivepoint

Jul 29, 2008, 08:29 AM

I won't vote for ideologues who think their ideals comprise a beacon of righteousness that will illuminate the world. I won't vote for demagogues that make everything they don't agree with sound like passages straight from the lips of satan. I live in the real world, where often times getting things done, so that our world is a better, if imperfect, place for the next generation, means sometimes dealing with compromises as painful as they are progressive. To that end, I'll argue with both liberal and conservatives, and the only objective in my mind is making sure none of us fall for the pathetic notion that our assignment while sharing our short time on this Earth, is to construct a paradise where we all live in virtuous harmony and rainbows shine from every closet.

~ CB

Ok... so let me get this straight... by me HAVING AN OPINION on certain issues, automatically makes me a "demagogue" who makes everything they don't agree with sound like it coming straight from the lips of Satan?
It makes me not in the real world? It makes me unwilling to compromise?

What this world has to much of, CB, is people who don't give a damn. Too many people that go through life not caring about the issues and people around them. People, like me, who take a stance, stand for solid principles and fundamental core beliefs are not the problem.

I agree that people take it too far and get rabid vs. their opponents, but I find it interesting that you only point this out when a conservative such as myself posts his views here. If I was posting liberal points of view, you'd likely look the other way.

The bottom line, is that at least I care. At least I stand for something, something that I believe in to my core. I'm proud of each and every statement I made in my original post. It has nothing to do with disliking other people or making their views out to be satanic :rolleyes:, it has to do with what I perceive to be right and wrong, and nothing more. I've studied these topics a lot, I've had many conversations with people on the other side of the spectrum, and these are the beliefs I've taken away from all of my life experiences. I didn't just pull them out of a hat ignorantly and then proclaim them to be the world's only truth.

At any rate, I find it amusing how you've attacked my character and motives without even knowing who I am or what life experiences led me to these beliefs. I hope that the next time you post ANY opinion online or in-person that someone criticizes your character in the same way. Maybe then you'll see how silly and demeaning it is.

Cleverboy

Jul 29, 2008, 08:48 AM

Ok... so let me get this straight... by me HAVING AN OPINION on certain issues, automatically makes me a "demagogue" who makes everything they don't agree with sound like it coming straight from the lips of Satan? It makes me not in the real world? It makes me unwilling to compromise?Interesting. Newsflash: my post was very similar to yours, in fact, it was inspired by it. Unless you're saying I don't have the right to post something similar to what you posted, don't get so touchy. And don't be so vane. You clearly thought my post was about you.

--But, seriously, unless you want me to write you in on my ballot, I don't see what the point would be of saying I wouldn't vote for you would be. :rolleyes:
At any rate, I find it amusing how you've attacked my character and motives without even knowing who I am or what life experiences led me to these beliefs. I hope that the next time you post ANY opinion online or in-person that someone criticizes your character in the same way. Maybe then you'll see how silly and demeaning it is.Don't make me start singing the song. I'll change the words... I will!What this world has to much of, CB, is people who don't give a damn. Too many people that go through life not caring about the issues and people around them. People, like me, who take a stance, stand for solid principles and fundamental core beliefs are not the problem.It's certainly a tough balance. I was talking to my co-worker yesterday about the ABORTION issue. He thinks its wrong, and I agree. Show me a woman that uses publically funded clinics and abortion as contraception... and I'll show you a serious problem that needs to end immediately.

But, then I ask him... what about the "Morning After" pill? And, he thinks it should be available for women to use up to 3-4 days after they know they had sex without protection. Then I ask about accidental pregnancies and when is it a life, and at what point people who can't handle a baby should have the option to terminate an unaffordable and unwanted pregnancy... essentially, WHEN is it still their decision?

He waffles, before saying 30 days after a possible conception. Then I tell him how contraception isn't fool proof, and it takes a woman time to know she's missed her period. He then says, maybe 2 months. He doesn't want anything to do with the 2nd trimester, and its clear that when it comes to the dirty details, he'd love to have clean hands. I'm telling him... you have to make a choice, not JUST for yourself... but for EVERYONE. And then society has to deal with the consequences. Especially the women.

At the end of the day, I value principles VERY VERY much... but I've seen enough unwed teenage mothers shunned by their churches, babies in dumpsters, black babies piling up in orphanages, and more... to think that some people's idea of what is "MORAL" starts by having them step into a glass house high on a hill dreaming up new entries in a gigantic tome I call the "Great Book of Should Be". It's that wonderful guide some people consult when they want to get away from the details of living in an imperfect world. This isn't a liberal or conservative thing. LOTS of people do it. I'd LOVE to believe terrorists can't take advantage of our freedoms to harm massive amounts of the population too... but they CAN and they WILL. We just have to find a balance we can live with.

~ CB

fivepoint

Jul 29, 2008, 08:59 AM

Interesting. Newsflash: my post was very similar to yours, in fact, it was inspired by it. Unless you're saying I don't have the right to post something similar to what you posted, don't get so touchy. And don't be so vane. You clearly thought my post was about you.

--But, seriously, unless you want me to write you in on my ballot, I don't see what the point would be of saying I wouldn't vote for you would be. :rolleyes:
Don't make me start singing the song. I'll change the words... I will!

~ CB

Well then, I sincerely apologize. It seemed as if you were criticizing me as someone who has opinions and was apparently presenting them as 'being the only way.'

Now I can sort of see that you were just adding to my list of people who you wouldn't vote for. Maybe I'm just a bit jumpy since usually when I post anything remotely conservative on this forum I get attacked from every angle. With my original post, I figured I would get it from the pro-choice crowd, the pro teachers-union crowd, the pro-legalized discrimination crowd, and the anti-gun crowd.

I apologize for any misunderstanding.

I do not want to hijack this thread and talk about life vs choice, but I wanted to tell you that I found it particularly refreshing to hear a pro-choicer say things like this: "...Show me a woman that uses publically funded clinics and abortion as contraception... and I'll show you a serious problem that needs to end immediately...At the end of the day, I value principles VERY VERY much..." You obviously have a good head on your shoulders, and a good heart to boot.

I agree that there are some situations which are more difficult than others. That being said, I think that it is VERY VERY rare, if ever, that eliminating a life is better than whatever circumstances come from that life entering the world. Monetary issues are certainly NEVER an excuse. I tend to believe that in the end, it comes down to two things. 1) LIFE. I believe life to be precious and even holy if you will. I believe that no man has the knowledge to determine who else should live and die. This is the same reason I don't support the death penalty. 2) Personal Responsibility. As a culture, we're losing it. Between abortions, lawsuits, government subsidized paychecks, etc. people are starting to think that they can do whatever they want. If they dont' want to work... no big deal, just don't. The government will give you free money. Don't want to deal with a kid... no big deal, just kill it. Spilled hot coffee on yourself... sew the company! The coffee was too hot! I think it leads to things which are much worse for the entire culture in the end.

We need to start with the assumptions of life and personal responsibility... and go from there.

That's all. Now, back to McCain vs. Obama. I'll shut up.

zioxide

Jul 29, 2008, 02:18 PM

I won't vote for anybody socially confused enough to think that taxation and spending is the solution to America's problems.

So would you rather have the republican "borrow money from china (therefore increasing the national debt) and spend" method?

fivepoint

Jul 29, 2008, 03:25 PM

So would you rather have the republican "borrow money from china (therefore increasing the national debt) and spend" method?

No. The traditional Republican (or more accurately... conservative) approach would be to SPEND less. Government is entirely too large as it is. Borrowing is only a good thing in times of significant economic growth. Now is certainly not one of them.

In general, the best approach is: Borrow little, tax little, spend little.

flyinmac

Jul 29, 2008, 06:46 PM

ipodtouchy333

Jul 29, 2008, 07:14 PM

atszyman

Jul 30, 2008, 08:22 AM

I do not want to hijack this thread and talk about life vs choice, but I wanted to tell you that I found it particularly refreshing to hear a pro-choicer say things like this: "...Show me a woman that uses publically funded clinics and abortion as contraception... and I'll show you a serious problem that needs to end immediately...At the end of the day, I value principles VERY VERY much..." You obviously have a good head on your shoulders, and a good heart to boot.

I think you'll find that most of us who are pro-choice have this type of view.

It's not like we want abortions to happen, we just also realize that while the practice can be abused, if it is eliminated completely some who seek them will seek alternate methods to terminate their pregnancies that will put their own lives at risk. John Kerry even said that it should be "safe, legal, and rare."

Just because we believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not her body is going to be an incubator for an unwanted pregnancy does not mean that we have a desire for women to use abortion as a method of birth control. I would also place a large sum of money on the bet that almost all woman would prefer making contraceptives readily available along with real sex education so that unwanted/unplanned pregnancies can be prevented rather than use abortion as a method of birth control.

The fact that you included the issue on your list is due to the demonization of the pro-choice movement and somehow paints a picture of us that somehow has us encouraging abortions rather than just making sure that an option that we would like to see used only in extreme circumstances is not eliminated or made illegal.

Now back on topic.

I don't necessarily like Obama's stance on faith based programs, or his FISA compromise, but I still think he's a better choice than McCain.

I would characterize myself as a fiscally conservative social progressive. That being said I'd prefer a small government that provides essential services of national defense, emergency/disaster recovery, healthcare, education, and a safety net for those who hit rock bottom through no fault of their own (although with healthcare provided for everyone a major source of bankruptcies would be eliminated).

While I'd like to see lower taxes all around as well, at the moment we need to get ourselves back on track and unfortunately given the current administration and his rubber stamp congress for the first six years, spending cuts will not be enough to get us back on track so while it may hurt us for a little while I'm not against raising taxes to get things back on track.

Currently Obama is the closest thing we have to what I'm looking for so I'll cast my ballot in November and hope for the best although living in TX it's unlikely that my vote will do much other than pad the popular vote.

solvs

Aug 4, 2008, 06:18 AM

As mentioned previously, I am not a republican. So, it is not my preference to vote for them.
Nor am I a Democrat, as I supported McCain in '99.

I see a man who is willing to take an unpopular stand and let people either agree or disagree with him. And, I see someone who will be ready to make the decisions that need to be made and make the one he feels is the best for the country (whether I agree with them or not).
Which positions? Lately he's made so many flip flops it's hard to keep track of what he believes anymore. Mostly towards position that aren't that good for anybody. I'd say that says something about his character doesn't it?

Rather, I believe he will be lead by other people's suggestions and therefore their agendas (either knowingly or unknowingly). Basically, I see him being a pawn played by those with things that they want to get done. I see his term in office being used by many of the special interest to further their own causes.
You mean like Bush (http://progressiveaccountability.org/2008/07/30/britney/)? And now McCain who wants to do the same types of things? Like how he switched so many positions, some noted above, regarding oil then it was discovered he was suddenly getting financial support and large donations from oil companies (not that the press reported much on it)? Name a special interest that would negatively impact us that Obama supports. Here's another about McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/us/politics/28IRI.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin).

As I said, while you're criticizing me for my facts, you're basing you entire argument on "feelings" that have little to no basis in reality.

And, argued that we should not support McCain because some other nut did. He didn't have anything to say about McCain himself. His entire argument was that we should not vote for McCain because this other guy supported McCain. That's a pretty weak stance.
Then you haven't been paying attention to McCain's ads lately. Because they are nothing but attacks against Obama, based on little if anything. Sometimes even complete inaccuracies (like saying he didn't visit with the troops while showing a picture of him visiting with the troops (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/snubbing_wounded_troops.html), taken by someone in the military). I can also remind you of one of the main arguments used against Obama, that he's linked to people like Rev. Wright, Ayers, and even a bunch of people he has nothing to do with, some he never really had.

It's already been suggested this person Obama was speaking of could be Phil Graham. Since you weren't paying attention enough to remember, even though you use it as a basis for your argument, maybe you missed why Obama mentioned him. Besides the above, McCain's entire economic policy is based on Graham's, who was an adviser to McCain, ideas. It's a better connection than any of those they're trying to use against Obama. Like Paris and Britney. :rolleyes:

By the same argument, I guess I shouldn't vote for Obama either. I found a nut that likes him to.
You weren't paying attention enough to know who he was talking about, but you can still argue this? Guilt by association is stupid. But is that really what Obama was doing, or is this what you took from it? That says more about you than him.

I was surprised that he never offered a reason to vote for him (Obama).
Than you haven't been paying attention. He's done nothing but. Even praising McCain on occasion. What has McCain done? Not much:

McCain's camp suffers from a paper gap (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12215.html)

Lots of rhetoric, not a whole lot of specifics. The same thing you're accusing Obama of, but giving a pass to for McCain. Doesn't make any sense if you're as impartial as you seem to be trying to pretend to be.

Perhaps then we won't examine Obama (as in the Man that Obama is).
So now you're arguing Obama is trying to hide something? :confused: That doesn't make any sense either. What have we not examined? The man's entire life has been gone over and over on TV, ad naseum. Unless you're trying to say he's hiding some secret about himself, which seems to be what you're implying. Or that there's nothing there. Again, then you obviously don't know much about him, nor what he's done, nor what he wants to try and do.

Maybe you should look up some of those "facts" you like to ignore so you'll have a more informed opinion than you don't like the way he makes you feel, because I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument to be trying to defend, especially if all you have are more vague points, like those about your unnamed local politicians you seem to think everyone voted for based on those pesky facts.

When it comes to a leader, character and the make-up of the individual mean more than the facts on the papers. All that means nothing when it comes to what a person will do when confronted. Promises mean less than your character. What you've accomplished in the past is not as important as your character now.
Again, how is McCain any different than Obama in this way than, other than what you "feel"?

I can list a ton of government officials currently in (or now heading for) Federal Prison who had excellent track records (and still do).
And what does this, like your unnamed local gov, have to do with Obama? And how is this different from McCain? You really have nothing don't you...

You're stuck on facts. But, you only have access to the facts that are made public. You don't have access to the unknown facts.
I know what someone plans to do. Whether they do it or not, no, we don't know. But McCain's plans, what he has of them, are not good. Obama's aren't great either, but they're better. There is no way to know, but it's the best we have to go on. On the flip side, your whole argument is about character. But how do you determine this? McCain came back from Vietnam a decorated war hero... only to leave his Wife after she had had a car accident to marry a younger, richer, woman. That's character? How about the Keating 5? Or completely switching his positions to pander to the right and his donors? Obama meanwhile switched positions away from his party. Some things I'm not happy with, and some things he never switched that they said he did, but the point is those things you're saying you like about McCain are actually things Obama is doing. While in some cases, McCain is doing the opposite.

So, in absence of full disclosure, you have to judge their character. You have to objectively look at the candidates without consideration of what you have heard or what you "know". Look at them as you would a person you met in passing on the street. Look at them as you would if they both came to you seeking a job without a resume. Look them over, listen to how they speak, look at how they move, watch how they hold their eyes, examine them. See what you think of them as people (without looking at the published "facts").
How? :confused: This doesn't make any sense. You don't get a job without a resume, and if you don't do a good job as you said you would, you get fired. And I don't want to vote for some stranger on the street. I want to know who I'm voting for, like a well informed citizen should. People like you vote people like Bush in. I don't want that again, and if Obama turns into him, I'll be complaining just as loudly as I do about Bush. Maybe even more since I kinda support him (more just against the other guy, or more accurately, the other party). You're voting on perception and preconceived notions, which is far worse since you don't know what you're getting, even if someone who knows "facts" doesn't know everything. Better than knowing nothing, as you seem to want to revel in.

The "facts" you know mean nothing. It is the stuff you don't know that will come back and bite you.
I'm sure there's a lot I don't know. But it's hardly nothing. It at least gives you a basis to go from. Character could be second, but again, knowing the facts gives you an idea of character. Back story, what they're planning, what they're saying. How else do you get a sense of the person? Feelings based on nothing? How is that a good idea?

Perhaps you just need to come from a place that doesn't give a damn about pedigree to understand this.
I don't know what you mean by this, but it seems you're trying to call me elitist or something. :rolleyes: I grew up in a small town. One that's hurting right now thanks to the policies of someone a lot of them supported and some still do. Not saying the other side would be much better, but it would have been better, and certainly couldn't have been much worse. Perhaps you need to come from a place that doesn't focus on "feelings" and much as knowing what you're talking about.

You obviously got my character wrong, so there goes your argument.

I've been around a lot of politicians.
Then maybe you need to be around somewhere that doesn't care about pedigree, because you're obviously the biased one, or at the very least have some sort of grudge against politicians in general, though apparently that doesn't apply against McCain, evidence to the contrary.

What their office or ranking is, has never really mattered.
What does any of what you've said here have to do with anything? Are you just trying to bring up your past to prove you somehow have more knowledge of politicians in general, or somehow trying to say Obama is one of those who care more about their positions of power, or money, or stature, or whatever. Again, like McCain isn't. Wondering why McCain didn't get hit with that media kerfuffle about $400 haircuts with his $520 loafers (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/31/400-haircuts-vs-520-italian-leather-loafers), and Wife's private jet, and why you seem to think he's above all of that while Obama is the elitist, but you seem to prefer talking about your past and your feelings and local gov that has nothing to do with the topic than facts and logic, so I'm guessing I won't get any reasoning behind why you "feel" this way.

All these people are just people. They have the same weaknesses as any other person.
Did anyone ever say Obama wasn't if that's what you're implying?

And, when choosing who I want to perform that job, I'll fall back on the thing that matters most (character). All the "facts" mean nothing. They are only what you have been told. You won't find anything important there, because the stuff that really matters is not in the "facts" you have been provided.
Facts are all we have. How else do we find out what their character is, or more important, what their plans are? By guessing?

Perhaps you need to spend some time in a place that doesn't care about pedigree. Perhaps you need to spend some time around some country folk, and learn what really matters. Learn what really makes up a person. Learn what characteristics in a person matter most when things go wrong.
Again you make that comment, and coming from someone who basis their argument on practically nothing, it's pretty insulting. I'm quite familiar with "country folk" thank you. The good, and the bad, and the fact that they're not all the same. I also know the type that would vote for people like Bush. Based on things like "belief", and "feelings" about "character". That's how McCain will win, and do the same things Bush has done. Because he's making it about character, even if his is tarnished and Obama has done little to actually dissuade from his.

Perhaps you've spent too much time around politicians to realize that policy does make a difference to real people. That people are hurting right now, and we need someone with real solutions, not to continue those failed policies. That even if they aren't perfect and won't fix everything, to ignore those ideas and propositions based on your perception of someone, especially if completely inaccurate, is such a slap in the fact to democracy, and exactly why we get the people we do. Because it becomes all about personality over ideas. Again, something you're slamming Obama for while ignoring, or even defending, McCain for doing the same thing.

I am fully aware of actual character thank you, not perceived as you do based on preconceived bias or whatever it is you're doing but actual based on current and past action, maybe you can use a few more of those pesky facts so you can give a more informed opinion than "this is how I feel because of something that has nothing to do with anything".

Well, you know, it might not be a big deal if he weren't married. And, it might not be a big deal if he were not essentially her employer.
It seemed like a bad thing at the time, but it didn't affect anyone really in any way, awful as it was. And now that you mention it, maybe you should look more into McCain's past, as I touched upon above. Obama meanwhile has been happily married to the same woman for years now.

It meant that a man who we elected President could not honor a promise made to a single person.

It showed that a man we elected President could not tell the truth (until it was too late for telling the truth to count anymore).

And, if you can't see how his behavior in this one area could indicate he was unsuitable to be put in charge of obligations to our country....
And on that same vein, Bush has been happily married to the same woman for years now, but look at how much he lied and screwed us over.

I didn't say I was happy with it, actually the exact opposite, but looking back, it was hardly as big a deal as what our current gov has been doing.

And, lets not forget that he also vetoed the bill that would have increased our own oil production which has lead us to where we are now.
That's not why our gas is as high as it is. Until a few years ago, remember how low oil prices were? You can't honestly be blaming our current problems on that. While it would have been nice to see more investments in alternatives than they did, what little they tried mostly vetoed by the GOP (which was still happening as of 2006 when Obama and a bipartisan group tried to do things like raise CAFE standards), the oil companies already have plenty of places to drill. They don't need the extra they're now requesting that would take years to even get a few cents difference. Had they done that then, by now we'd have less in those regions to fall back on if we need to, and our gas would be about 6 cents cheaper.

I honestly can't believe you'd repeat something like that when it's been debunked so many times, especially lately. :eek:

So, in the end, he screwed us too.
He did, but not in the ways you seem to think, and nowhere near as bad as our current administration is screwing us right now, and will continue to do so under a McCain Presidency.

And, delivering it all just like a good rating seeking talk show host.
He's just trying to talk to people like you who care more about personality and presentation than substance. McCain is trying to do the same thing. Even though failing. While showing ad after ad that does nothing but criticize Obama, talking little if any about his own lacking policies and ideas, that you seem to be ok with for some reason. At least Obama has something to back up some of his rhetoric, which you also want to ignore for some reason.

I won't vote for anybody morally corrupt enough to support abortion.
What has Bush done about abortion other than talk? And barely even that. No one likes it. No one. Under Clinton the abortion rate went down. Under Bush, teen pregnancies and STDs went up. What does that tell you?

I won't vote for anybody socially confused enough to think that taxation and spending is the solution to America's problems.
We're going to need to raise taxes to pay for the borrow and spend Bush has been doing that McCain wants to continue. And unless you're making over $250,000 a year, why are you worried? Your taxes might go down under Obama. So will some spending. McCain's only going to cut a few hundred million. He talks about more, but hasn't said what or how. Especially if he's facing a Dem congress.

I won't vote for anybody who supports the destruction of basic American freedoms and liberties... whether it's as simple as the choice to wear a seatbelt, or as complicated as unauthorized government wiretaps.
Obama's FISA vote disappointed me, but I doubt he'll continue with things as they are. McCain has admitted he will. No one is going to do anything about seatbelts. They save kids lives, so they stay. Who will give us more freedom, well, I didn't used to think "freedom" meant different things to different people, but apparently it does. Here are the freedoms lost under Bush (http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/020105ChuckBaldwin.shtml) and it's gotten worse since then. McCain will continue most of that, and has promised more. Obama will do what exactly to take away your "freedoms"?

Seriously, I'd love to see your list because I have a feeling we can dispute most of it.

I won't vote for anybody ironic enough to support legalized discrimination and/or affirmative action.
Obama has been taking heat for not exactly throwing his support behind affirmative action, but you can't ignore the fact that there's still racism in this country.

McCain opposed a holiday for MLK.

I won't vote for anybody who thinks the second amendment is "open for interpretation."
It is. All of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are. But neither of them are going to take away your guns. There are more important things to worry about that you should actually worry about.

I won't vote for anybody who thinks teachers shouldn't get paid based on how well or how poorly they do their job.
While our education system needs fixing, this is not the way to fix it.

I won't vote for anybody who doesn't see the value in Nuclear energy as a MAJOR game player in America's energy future.
Only one candidate is really looking at any alternative energies, even if that type isn't on the top of the list, and it isn't McCain.

I guess I have to choose "other".
Bob Barr of the libertarian party seems to be your best bet, though he isn't going to be perfect for you. I can tell you McCain isn't either. I don't expect you to vote for Obama, but at least know why you aren't.

Though this is what libertarianism can get you:

Downsizing government to death (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-lotke20-2008jul20,0,3102211.story)

And what modern neoconservatism is:

Misgoverning (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryan-d-jones-and-walter-williams/misgoverning_b_116312.html)

solvs

Aug 4, 2008, 06:20 AM

(continued...)

Maybe I'm just a bit jumpy since usually when I post anything remotely conservative on this forum I get attacked from every angle.
As I said in another thread, blame the neocons who have ruined your party's brand. Some conservative ideas are pretty good. Like cutting spending and trying to keep the deficit down. The current crop isn't doing that. The only ones who are even talking about it are the Dems. It's part of what Obama is proposing as one of the main things he wants to do. McCain has mentioned it, but according to what little we know about his plans, he won't. He'll be Bush. Or worse in some ways.

It's funny, back when this forum was filled with conservatives, even when they were posting rhetoric based on what we now know to be false, I don't remember the liberals and moderates complaining about being in the minority.

but I wanted to tell you that I found it particularly refreshing to hear a pro-choicer say things like this: "...Show me a woman that uses publically funded clinics and abortion as contraception... and I'll show you a serious problem that needs to end immediately..."
I don't know any that wouldn't agree with that. I don't know what you think pro-choice or pro-choicers really stand for, but it's not like anyone likes abortion. As said above, even those who are for it want to reduce it having to be done. They just disagree with how to reduce it. As far as I can see, all the GOP does is talk about it, then do things like "abstinence only" that actually makes things worse.

1) LIFE. I believe life to be precious and even holy if you will. I believe that no man has the knowledge to determine who else should live and die. This is the same reason I don't support the death penalty.
Then you must hate mishandled wars, like the ones McCain wants to continue in the same failed fashions.

If they dont' want to work... no big deal, just don't. The government will give you free money.
I could go on about personal responsibility with our current "blame everyone else"/"the buck stops over there" gov we currently have, but I'm just going to touch on this because it's a common misconception. It's actually fairly hard to qualify for welfare, especially these days. And even then, it's welfare to work, so you don't just sit around collecting money. And it's only for a limited time. Most of it is for childcare and healthcare. Otherwise, you don't get much of anything if you can even get it.

Corporate welfare costs us far more, but I don't see anyone complaining about that for some reason.

Spilled hot coffee on yourself... sew the company! The coffee was too hot!
In that particular case, the coffee was beyond a safe limit. It was so hot it scalded her. In a container that easily leaked. And it wasn't the first time. She asked to have her medical bills taken care of, and they said no, so she hired a bunch of lawyers, and that's where most of the money went. But I know it makes a good anecdote about how sue happy we are, which is actually kinda true because the system is taken advantage of. But sometimes people feel they have no other recourse, so sometimes it is a perfectly valid tactic.

I could go on, but I think that's more than enough. :o

solvs

Aug 7, 2008, 02:07 AM

Why Voters Say they Don't Really Know Barack Obama (and Why They Don't Really Know Much about John McCain, Either) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/why-voters-say-they-dont_b_117238.html)
A New York Times report this week described the frustration and perplexity of the Obama team as to why they are having trouble "getting their message out" in the face of GOP "distractions."

Sound familiar?

The economy is tanking, and McCain's chief economic adviser, Phil Gramm, made one of the most disastrous gaffes a high-ranking campaign official could have made when a nation is facing bank closings, record foreclosures, skyrocketing prices, spiraling unemployment, and an angry electorate: belittling the public for their distress and telling them to stop whining. It would have fit right into a story about a presidential candidate who has as many homes as most people have fingers, and whose first response to the mortgage crisis was to blame the lack of "personal responsibility" of young families buying their first one. It would have fit right into a story of a presidential candidate whose wife complained that the only way to get around Arizona is on a personal jet.

But the Obama campaign chose not to tell that story--or any of its supporting details.
It goes on, pointing out many of the issues with the Obama campaign and that they've basically made some of the same mistakes Kerry and Gore have.

pachyderm

Aug 7, 2008, 05:51 AM

Now that Paris Hilton is running I'm voting for her. I hope it is a Hilton/Lohan or Hilton/Spears ticket... ;)

fivepoint

Aug 7, 2008, 09:25 AM

You brought up Obama... I was just laying out my top concerns/issues. But I'll relate them to Obama for you.

What has Bush done about abortion other than talk? And barely even that. No one likes it. No one. Under Clinton the abortion rate went down. Under Bush, teen pregnancies and STDs went up. What does that tell you?

A. I'm not talking about Bush. Neither was I suggesting one candidate over the other... I'm talking about issues. The fact that teen pregnancies and STDs went up under Bush doesn't "tell me" anything. There are far more variables at play here... not that I care about defending W, but you make it sound like it's a simple matter, and it is not. Basic statistical fundamentals would tell you how useful your argument is. Take your focus off of Bush for a minute, and think about the issue here. We're talking about life/death, not your hatred for neocons. If you're asking me whether or not I think Obama would do a good job reducing/eliminating abortion... then, no, I don't. Anyone without blinders on can tell you that.

I still will not vote for anyone pro-abortion.

We're going to need to raise taxes to pay for the borrow and spend Bush has been doing that McCain wants to continue. And unless you're making over $250,000 a year, why are you worried? Your taxes might go down under Obama. So will some spending. McCain's only going to cut a few hundred million. He talks about more, but hasn't said what or how. Especially if he's facing a Dem congress.

You are operating under the false assumption that higher taxes = more money. If you want to help our government's financial security, you promote business, you lower taxes, you make the United States the trading capital of the world. Trade and business is what creates rich nations... not taxes, hand-outs, and more government burden. If you're asking me whether I think Obama would do a good job of reducing taxes and promoting trade/business and strong economic growth... then, no, I don't. Anyone without blinders on can tell you that.

I still will not vote for anyone who doesn't put the economy first. It's the best way to help people, it's the best way to help the whole country.

Obama's FISA vote disappointed me, but I doubt he'll continue with things as they are. McCain has admitted he will. No one is going to do anything about seatbelts. They save kids lives, so they stay. Who will give us more freedom, well, I didn't used to think "freedom" meant different things to different people, but apparently it does. Here are the freedoms lost under Bush (http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/020105ChuckBaldwin.shtml) and it's gotten worse since then. McCain will continue most of that, and has promised more. Obama will do what exactly to take away your "freedoms"?

Seriously, I'd love to see your list because I have a feeling we can dispute most of it.

Republicans and Democrats are very guilty of this. Democrats are the ones who pass seatbelt laws, smoking laws, driving with cell-phone laws... it's Democrats supposedly "looking out for the little guy." The Republicans, are slightly less apt to do this, but with things such as warrant-less wiretaps, my faith has been shaken. The issue here, is that we don't need a nanny-government telling us what is good and bad for us... well, actually it would be good if they suggested things like this to us, and advertised it, but when they make the step into unnecessary legislation limiting our basic freedoms and liberties, we should all be concerned. If you're asking me whether I think Obama would do a good job of keeping the government's greedy hands out of our lives and telling how we need to do every little thing... then, no, I don't. Anyone without blinders on can tell you that.

You have to draw a line in the sand. I still will not vote for anyone who supports the destruction of our basic rights an liberties.

Obama has been taking heat for not exactly throwing his support behind affirmative action, but you can't ignore the fact that there's still racism in this country.

McCain opposed a holiday for MLK.

Of course there is still racism. There will be for a long time. The amusing part, is that you think more racism is the answer. Government mandated racism, at that! When the government can't even get it's act together, how are the citizens supposed to. Jobs should be given/earned based on qualifications/interviews/experience. Not color. People who don't follow this, even the government, should be held to task when they don't follow these simple principles. If you're asking me whether I think Obama would do a good job of keeping the government's greedy hands out of our lives and telling how we need to do every little thing... then, no, I don't. Anyone without blinders on can tell you that.

I still will not vote for anyone who supports Affirmative Action.

]It is. All of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are. But neither of them are going to take away your guns. There are more important things to worry about that you should actually worry about.

The people's ability to defend themselves against oppressive government is NEVER up for debate. This generation's lack of appreciation for basic rights offered to them by the Constitution and Bill of Rights is absolutely astounding. Their fascination with the Judicial branch is also astounding... the Judicial branch's function is to ACCURATELY INTERPRET the law, not make it. Not define it and change it. Activist judges (the vast majority of whom are very liberal) represent a problem that none of us take seriously enough. If you're asking me whether I think Obama would do a good job of keeping the government's greedy hands off of us citizens "clinging to our bibles and guns"... then, no, I don't. Anyone without blinders on can tell you that.

I still will not vote for anyone who thinks the right to bear arms is debatable.

]
While our education system needs fixing, this is not the way to fix it.

That's your opinion. I think it would be a VERY good start. Making people accountable for their actions is a very good thing, in any industry. My wife is a teacher, and a VERY good one at that. It sickens me every day that she puts in incredible amounts of time and effort into doing the best job she possibly can, only to have the lazy, worthless, unintelligent, uninspiring teacher next door get paid twice as much just because she's been there for a few years. Sad. Very sad. If you want to inspire teachers to keep improving, inspire intelligent people to teach, then make it worth their while. Make it economically obvious. This is how human nature works... but our schools ignore it, and we all lose out because of it. The quality of the teachers in our schools is a paramount issue, and if you don't consider paying teachers more if they do better, to be an important part of that... then I think you're a little bit lost. Stop listening to the teachers unions. They're out to maintain the status quo. Nothing more.

I still will not vote for anyone who can't see the value of personal responsibility in our school systems.

Only one candidate is really looking at any alternative energies, even if that type isn't on the top of the list, and it isn't McCain.

I believe I made my post here before McCain came out as a large proponent of Nuclear energy. At any rate, I was not aware of it until after I had made my post, and I was pleasantly suprised that McCain is making Nuclear energy a top priority. Anyone who doesn't, is lacking common sense or is beholden to certain powers which are against it. The sheer numbers associated with Nuclear Energy make it the obvious choice to lead us forward with alternative fuels. I hope Obama realizes this and makes Nuclear a larger priority.

I still will not vote for anyone who does not think Nuclear has a big place in our energy-laden future.

Bob Barr of the libertarian party seems to be your best bet, though he isn't going to be perfect for you. I can tell you McCain isn't either. I don't expect you to vote for Obama, but at least know why you aren't.

You could be right... although, like you said, he's not perfect. What we really need is a destruction of the two-party monopoly. Candidates chosen on core-beliefs and ideas, not party affiliation. We need bills passed based on value systems, not party-line votes.

és:

Aug 7, 2008, 09:43 AM

I had to stop after the second paragraph of that, what utter preposterousness.

pachyderm

Aug 7, 2008, 10:03 AM

Now that Paris Hilton is running I'm voting for her. I hope it is a Hilton/Lohan or Hilton/Spears ticket... ;)

Whoops.. I just found out she wants Rhiannon(sp?0 as a running mate... oh well...

Agathon

Aug 7, 2008, 10:09 AM

You are operating under the false assumption that higher taxes = more money. If you want to help our government's financial security, you promote business, you lower taxes, you make the United States the trading capital of the world. Trade and business is what creates rich nations... not taxes, hand-outs, and more government burden.

You are operating under the false assumption of the Laffer Curve, which no respectable economist takes seriously.

I'm willing to bet that you don't even know why you pay tax (hardly anyone seems to these days).

Why are you arguing about this anyway? No matter who you vote for, you will get neoliberalism or neoliberalism lite. Such a choice surely makes it worth voting.

fivepoint

Aug 7, 2008, 10:24 AM

You are operating under the false assumption of the Laffer Curve, which no respectable economist takes seriously.

Haven't you ever played Sim City? Of COURSE the Laffer curve works! In all seriousness though, the damage that our HUGE taxation rates cause on productive citizens and businesses is monumental. Our government is too large, too powerful, and too strong-handed. It's doing things that were never intended by the founding fathers, and it's making it's own citizens dependent in ways that aren't good for anybody.

Why are you arguing about this anyway? No matter who you vote for, you will get neoliberalism or neoliberalism lite. Such a choice surely makes it worth voting.

Now THIS I can agree with. "neoliberalism lite." Hahaha! :D

Agathon

Aug 7, 2008, 11:18 AM

Haven't you ever played Sim City? Of COURSE the Laffer curve works! In all seriousness though, the damage that our HUGE taxation rates cause on productive citizens and businesses is monumental. Our government is too large, too powerful, and too strong-handed. It's doing things that were never intended by the founding fathers, and it's making it's own citizens dependent in ways that aren't good for anybody.

Not really. Have you ever wondered why countries like Sweden and Canada consistently beat the United States when it comes to the general standard of living, even though they aren't anywhere near as rich?

It's because their societies are better organized, and they are able to do more with less.

fivepoint

Aug 7, 2008, 11:37 AM

Not really. Have you ever wondered why countries like Sweden and Canada consistently beat the United States when it comes to the general standard of living, even though they aren't anywhere near as rich?

It's because their societies are better organized, and they are able to do more with less.

I'm ALL FOR doing more with less. Smaller, more efficient governments, are my cup of tea, man. One great way to do that is funding the government less. Less taxation and less spending are core beliefs I hold dearly.

I think I've gotten my point across. Later.

pachyderm

Aug 7, 2008, 01:16 PM

Whoops.. I just found out she wants Rhiannon(sp?0 as a running mate... oh well...

http://www.sloganizer.net/en/style3,Hilton-spc--apo-O8-spc-That-apo-s-spc-Hot-spc-.png

Agathon

Aug 8, 2008, 07:02 AM

I'm ALL FOR doing more with less. Smaller, more efficient governments, are my cup of tea, man. One great way to do that is funding the government less. Less taxation and less spending are core beliefs I hold dearly.

I think I've gotten my point across. Later.

Sorry, but government is the major efficiency promoting institution in every society. If you don't know this, then I wonder whether you know what "efficiency" means, and how it applies to human organizations.

That being said, I hope the US does downsize its government and render itself useless. The rest of the world has had enough of your childish antics.

fivepoint

Aug 8, 2008, 07:41 AM

Sorry, but government is the major efficiency promoting institution in every society. If you don't know this, then I wonder whether you know what "efficiency" means, and how it applies to human organizations.

That being said, I hope the US does downsize its government and render itself useless. The rest of the world has had enough of your childish antics.

:rolleyes: :D

Iscariot

Aug 8, 2008, 04:49 PM

I still will not vote for anyone pro-abortion.

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone "pro-abortion", and the fact that you would willingly use such a ridiculous term just illustrates who has the blinders on and who does not.

Insulin Junkie

Aug 8, 2008, 04:57 PM

Neither.

Cleverboy

Aug 8, 2008, 05:08 PM

atszyman

Aug 8, 2008, 05:15 PM

Politics is funny. I think the only "race" is to find out which side loses faith in their candidate faster. Last two rounds, the Republicans won with the thickest skin. This year... I'm betting they win again. LOL.

~ CB

There's an idea...

Bet everything you own on McCain winning. If you lose you can fall back on all of Obama's socialist programs that give money to everyone for doing nothing. If you win you'll be rich enough to be admitted into the GOP with open arms...Win/Win scenario if I ever heard of one...:D

it5five

Aug 8, 2008, 05:31 PM

...all of Obama's socialist programs that give money to everyone for doing nothing.

Ha! Please. If he were a socialist I'd be voting for him. Obama is a capitalist. Look at the economics part of his website:

I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress.

That's not something a socialist would say.

Cleverboy

Aug 8, 2008, 06:53 PM

JurgenWigg

Aug 8, 2008, 09:42 PM

I won't vote for anybody morally corrupt enough to support abortion.

I won't vote for anyone who hates freedom enough to ban it. The government needs to stay out of our personal lives, including medical histories. Including abortion.

I won't vote for anybody socially confused enough to think that taxation and spending is the solution to America's problems.

Yep - FDR sure had it wrong when he solved many problems by creating government funded social programs. Oh, and defeating Germany, Japan, and Italy using taxpayer money to fund the military. I think we'd all gree that America would be so much better off without Social Security, the SEC, the FDIC, D*mn tax and spend liberals!

I won't vote for anybody who supports the destruction of basic American freedoms and liberties... whether it's as simple as the choice to wear a seatbelt, or as complicated as unauthorized government wiretaps.

Or abortions. Or i guess in the same vein as seatbelts - drunk driving, driving a car that fails inspection, or any other dangerous activity that the government regulates.

I won't vote for anybody ironic enough to support legalized discrimination and/or affirmative action.

On this point, I agree. Going further, I don't think our representatives should be cowed into supporting Israel's blatantly illegal actions under threat of being labeled an anti-semite. People are so afraid of being labelled a racist that they are bending over backwards to avoid it.

I won't vote for anybody who thinks the second amendment is "open for interpretation."

I agree with you here as well. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I strongly believe that people should be able to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated Militia. Not in a well regulated militia? No keeping or bearing arms.

I won't vote for anybody who thinks teachers shouldn't get paid based on how well or how poorly they do their job.

I don't think the problem with performance based pay is that candidates believe teachers shouldn't be judged and paid accordingly, but that there is no good system to implement this. How do you determine how they're doing their job? As someone who doesn't put much faith in standardized testing and the result of "teaching to the test", it's not as easy as it sounds.

I won't vote for anybody who doesn't see the value in Nuclear energy as a MAJOR game player in America's energy future.

soooo I guess this would be a good time to ask what we're going to do with nuclear waste? And don't just say "put it underground in the mountains". With a growing world population (and associated growing food needs), and your patently anti-abortion stance, land is an increasingly valuable commodity and we can't really afford to just sweep it under the rug and ignore it for a couple thousand years.

P.S. Here is a good question to ask... why are these the only two options for president? Democrats and Republicans have a MONOPOLY on the system... they should be broken up just like Standard Oil and AT&T. Anyone else agree?[/B]

Here's a better question - how do you propose to just "break it up"? People point to countries like France or Britain with functioning multi-party systems, conveniently ignoring countries like Italy which is currently crippled with something like 22 different political parties. Unless someone has a 2/3's majority or sometimes a simple majority, it gives way to a tyranny of the few - a couple votes needed to pass something and all of the sudden 2 or 3 senators get something rammed through without any other say. Multi-party systems have their problems too, let's not forget.

JurgenWigg

Aug 8, 2008, 09:55 PM

There's an idea...

Bet everything you own on McCain winning. If you lose you can fall back on all of Obama's socialist programs that give money to everyone for doing nothing. If you win you'll be rich enough to be admitted into the GOP with open arms...Win/Win scenario if I ever heard of one...:D

True or false: the government should take care of those who can't take care of themselves?

Two-thirds (66%) say it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can't care for themselves.
-2003 Pew Research Foundation poll (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=753)

That is known as a welfare state, or a social democracy, not exactly socialism (seems like you haven't been reading your Engels, or have just bought into McCarthyism a little too much...).

For all conservative's griping about social programs, if something bad ever happened to them and they found themselves out of luck and on the streets, they'd be standing in line to collect their welfare check just like everybody else, and thankful for it. There's not as much abuse of the system as conservatives would like to lead us to believe - I have never seen a shred of evidence to show me that people are leaving their jobs just to exploit welfare and be lazy, or using abortion in lieu of contraception, or anything like that. Show me some numbers!

fivepoint

Aug 9, 2008, 07:45 AM

On this point, I agree. Going further, I don't think our representatives should be cowed into supporting Israel's blatantly illegal actions under threat of being labeled an anti-semite. People are so afraid of being labelled a racist that they are bending over backwards to avoid it.

I am glad you agree. Affirmative Action is a prime example of people doing something to reach a end-result, without care or regard for how they got there. They're willing to trample the rights of others and willing to become a racist themselves to try and make up for past offenses. It's backwards thinking, at its best.

I agree with you here as well. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I strongly believe that people should be able to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated Militia. Not in a well regulated militia? No keeping or bearing arms.

It's laid out in B/W by our founding fathers. It's not up for dispute, and yet people think that just because they don't have a gun, or don't know how to use one, or because they see murders on TV, that guns are a bad thing and that they should be outlawed. The problem, is the people, not the guns. Again, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Even if it was the "gun's problem", outside of a amendment passed by the US congress, there is no way to remove citizens rights to carry such weapons. This is fundamental... you either follow the constitution, or you don't.

I won't vote for anyone who hates freedom enough to ban it. The government needs to stay out of our personal lives, including medical histories. Including abortion.

Murder is against the law. If you value human life, you will see that abortion is the conclusion of a human life that has barely begun. The reckless nature that "pro-choicers" approach this issue is scary to me. Where have we gone as a society when we don't even value the miracle of birth any more? We think we're smart enough, holy enough apparently... to determine whether one life deserves to live or not... based on financial issues or whether or not the kid will "have a good life." You guys are devaluing our mothers and devaluing the miracle of life. You're willing to murder a child because it's "easier." How sad.

Yep - FDR sure had it wrong when he solved many problems by creating government funded social programs. Oh, and defeating Germany, Japan, and Italy using taxpayer money to fund the military. I think we'd all gree that America would be so much better off without Social Security, the SEC, the FDIC, D*mn tax and spend liberals!

There is a difference in creating basic social programs to help those who can't help themselves and what we have today. If you can't see that, than I see no way for the conversation to proceed. I - by no means - say that basic social programs should be eliminated, I am saying that many of them go too far and do more social damage than they do good. The government is overstepping it's mandate on many levels.

Or abortions. Or i guess in the same vein as seatbelts - drunk driving, driving a car that fails inspection, or any other dangerous activity that the government regulates.

Abortion, is not a right. Murder, is not a right. The devaluation of human life for the sake of 'ease', is not a right.

I don't think the problem with performance based pay is that candidates believe teachers shouldn't be judged and paid accordingly, but that there is no good system to implement this. How do you determine how they're doing their job? As someone who doesn't put much faith in standardized testing and the result of "teaching to the test", it's not as easy as it sounds.

My wife is a teacher, I was almost a teacher... It's not that difficult. Multi-point evaluations just like any job. Standardized tests, peer review, student review, boss review, self review, accomplishment review. Just like EVERY SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IN THE WORLD. Make people accountable for their actions, and don't make it difficult to fire bad employees. It's not that difficult... it's human nature.

iGary

Aug 9, 2008, 11:15 AM

Neither.

Anyone like how Obama voted FOR the protection of telecoms in wiretapping cases recently? Anyone like how he wants to tax oil companies and give the money (up to $1000) to people who cannot afford to pay their fuel bills (god forbid a company make a profit in a capitalistic society)? You guys know that he's against gay marriage? Go ahead, vote for him. He'll save the world I'm sure. You'll also be broke when it's over.

I have no idea why any democrat would vote for him other than "he's not as bad as McCain," which is debatable.

I'm writing in my friend Rupert.

skunk

Aug 9, 2008, 11:17 AM

Good luck with that. :)

iGary

Aug 9, 2008, 11:18 AM

Good luck with that. :)

:D

MacGeek7

Aug 9, 2008, 11:53 AM

Umm, we've been in a recession for a couple of years now.

Here's the difference:

McCain is going to lower taxes while continuing to increase spending, therefore increasing the national debt. A ton of this money is going to go to wasting money in Iraq.

Obama is going to raise some taxes to at least stop increasing the debt, plus he's going to end the occupation of Iraq which is a complete waste of our money.

I don't understand why Americans are so against taxes. Guess what: a country costs money to run. If raising taxes a little bit can help increase the value of the dollar (because we won't have to borrow from China, and we won't have inflation increasing so much) and improve the economy, then ****ing do it. Our tax rates are already way lower than many European countries.

Very good point - I know a couple people who won't for Obama because he is going to raise taxes

iGary

Aug 9, 2008, 11:54 AM

Very good point - I know a couple people who won't for Obama because he is going to raise taxes

I think I'd rather the government act more fiscally responsible than take more of my money. But if you like giving yours away...

mactastic

Aug 9, 2008, 03:00 PM

I think I'd rather the government act more fiscally responsible than take more of my money. But if you like giving yours away...
Fiscal responsibility is not a hallmark of modern conservatism. And if Obama's plan will raise your taxes, you must be making above what, $250,000 a year? I can't muster too much sympathy for your financial situation if that's the case.

iGary

Aug 9, 2008, 03:08 PM

Fiscal responsibility is not a hallmark of modern conservatism. And if Obama's plan will raise your taxes, you must be making above what, $250,000 a year? I can't muster too much sympathy for your financial situation if that's the case.

Fiscal responsibility is surely the hallmark of classic conservatism and republicanism. I won't argue that the republican party has totally lost its way, nor will many reasonable conservatives.

That said, make less because you make more is fair? Why can't we simply tax everyone at the same rate?

I just got a raise this year that put me into the next tax bracket. My $10,000 raise for a new job effectively worked out to $3,000. Just because I make more. And I'm "middle class." Heh. 7 grand right to taxes.

B.S.

Peace

Aug 9, 2008, 03:16 PM

Fiscal responsibility is surely the hallmark of classic conservatism and republicanism. I won't argue that the republican party has totally lost its way, nor will many reasonable conservatives.

That said, make less because you make more is fair? Why can't we simply tax everyone at the same rate?

I just got a raise this year that put me into the next tax bracket. My $10,000 raise for a new job effectively worked out to $3,000. Just because I make more. And I'm "middle class." Heh. 7 grand right to taxes.

B.S.

I agree. There should be an across the board flat rate tax of 10%. This tax includes everybody and every corporation.

No slackers.

fivepoint

Aug 9, 2008, 04:22 PM

Fiscal responsibility is not a hallmark of modern conservatism. And if Obama's plan will raise your taxes, you must be making above what, $250,000 a year? I can't muster too much sympathy for your financial situation if that's the case.

So... you're position is, that the more you make, the more right the government has to take your money and redistribute your wealth?

mactastic

Aug 9, 2008, 04:53 PM

So... you're position is, that the more you make, the more right the government has to take your money and redistribute your wealth?
So your position is that tax rates can only move one direction -- down -- no matter what the economic conditions are?
Fiscal responsibility is surely the hallmark of classic conservatism and republicanism. I won't argue that the republican party has totally lost its way, nor will many reasonable conservatives.

That said, make less because you make more is fair? Why can't we simply tax everyone at the same rate?

I just got a raise this year that put me into the next tax bracket. My $10,000 raise for a new job effectively worked out to $3,000. Just because I make more. And I'm "middle class." Heh. 7 grand right to taxes.

B.S.
And Barack Obama did that to you how? You can thank George W. Bush for that. You're blaming the wrong person here.

fivepoint

Aug 9, 2008, 05:27 PM

So your position is that tax rates can only move one direction -- down -- no matter what the economic conditions are?

I asked you first. :rolleyes:

.Andy

Aug 9, 2008, 05:35 PM

So... you're position is, that the more you make, the more right the government has to take your money and redistribute your wealth?
Until I went back to uni I was in the top tax bracket and I had no problem with it at all. It certainly was not a disincentive to work hard.

fivepoint

Aug 9, 2008, 08:28 PM

Until I went back to uni I was in the top tax bracket and I had no problem with it at all. It certainly was not a disincentive to work hard.

You guys aren't answering the question... Do you feel that the more you make, the more of a right the government has to take your money and redistribute your wealth?

iGary

Aug 9, 2008, 08:31 PM

So your position is that tax rates can only move one direction -- down -- no matter what the economic conditions are?

And Barack Obama did that to you how? You can thank George W. Bush for that. You're blaming the wrong person here.

I didn't say he did, I was making a point in favor of a fair tax. You're just fine with taxing the **** out of people (as is Obama) that make over $250,000 a year.

I'm not. And I didn't blame Obama at all.

Bush and the democratic majority congress, maybe. ;)

.Andy

Aug 9, 2008, 09:57 PM

You guys aren't answering the question...
Yes I did. You even quoted the sentence.

Do you feel that the more you make, the more of a right the government has to take your money and redistribute your wealth?
Certainly. I wouldn't call it a 'right' but I've got no problem with them taking a larger percentage the more I make. I get taxed at the same amount as those who make less at lower levels of income. Having a percentage of my income in a higher tax bracket doesn't affect my ability to buy essentials, it only reduces my expendable income. I'm old enough to realise that beyond having enough to cover essentials with some expendable income, my wife and my happiness bears little correlation to expendable income. Our pleasure derives from elsewhere - a happy relationship, time with friends and family, and enjoying our respective vocations.

It's obvious that from 'redistribution of wealth' your perception is the govt taking 'your' money and giving it to those who are less wealthy to make 'them' more wealthy. In reality that money goes to many positive things like education, infrastructure, and healthcare that benefits everyone. My biggest issue is with tax money being spent inefficiently/unethically and largely vote based on programs strong on health and education. In my opinion there is no better way place to invest a country's money.

atszyman

Aug 10, 2008, 11:31 AM

You guys aren't answering the question... Do you feel that the more you make, the more of a right the government has to take your money and redistribute your wealth?

Do you eat more drive more and consumer more in general and spend every cent of your new increased earnings every time you get a raise and change tax brackets? If not the sales taxes, and gas taxes now consume a smaller percentage of your income and the progressive tax structure at the federal level is designed to counter the regressive taxes at the local and state levels. I would agree with a complete flat tax as long as includes all types of income, capital gains, wages and also manages to flatten out the regressive taxes as well.

tonyeck

Aug 10, 2008, 06:41 PM

I guess it's the good old "lesser of two evils" for president again right?

Although it doesn't matter what I think, I just live in the US (have done for 3 years) but can't vote

JurgenWigg

Aug 11, 2008, 04:48 PM

Yes I did. You even quoted the sentence.

Certainly. I wouldn't call it a 'right' but I've got no problem with them taking a larger percentage the more I make. I get taxed at the same amount as those who make less at lower levels of income. Having a percentage of my income in a higher tax bracket doesn't affect my ability to buy essentials, it only reduces my expendable income. I'm old enough to realise that beyond having enough to cover essentials with some expendable income, my wife and my happiness bears little correlation to expendable income. Our pleasure derives from elsewhere - a happy relationship, time with friends and family, and enjoying our respective vocations.

It's obvious that from 'redistribution of wealth' your perception is the govt taking 'your' money and giving it to those who are less wealthy to make 'them' more wealthy. In reality that money goes to many positive things like education, infrastructure, and healthcare that benefits everyone. My biggest issue is with tax money being spent inefficiently/unethically and largely vote based on programs strong on health and education. In my opinion there is no better way place to invest a country's money.

Very, very well said :)

solvs

Aug 14, 2008, 04:12 AM

Now that Paris Hilton is running I'm voting for her. I hope it is a Hilton/Lohan or Hilton/Spears ticket... ;)
They're all too young to play, sorry. ;)

You brought up Obama... I was just laying out my top concerns/issues. But I'll relate them to Obama for you.
This is a thread about Obama vs. McCain. What else would I talk about? And your views on the subject(s) seem to be mostly based on partial fallacies or preconceived notions over facts and reality.

A. I'm not talking about Bush. Neither was I suggesting one candidate over the other... I'm talking about issues. The fact that teen pregnancies and STDs went up under Bush doesn't "tell me" anything. There are far more variables at play here... not that I care about defending W, but you make it sound like it's a simple matter, and it is not. Basic statistical fundamentals would tell you how useful your argument is. Take your focus off of Bush for a minute, and think about the issue here. We're talking about life/death, not your hatred for neocons.
Of course. It's simply blind hatred of neocons. Wouldn't have any legitimate reasons to dislike them now would I. The reason I brought up Bush is because McCain's plans are now similar to his. The facts that you continue to so willfully ignore tell you that the current system one candidate is using isn't working, compared to one similar to what the other candidate plans to do, which did. We're talking about what has worked and what hasn't. You want to support something that hasn't because he talks about it (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3483eb20-9228-4700-9557-57a47a676e0b)(though not much, especially compared to Bush, who also talked and did nothing... actually made things worse).

If you're asking me whether or not I think Obama would do a good job reducing/eliminating abortion... then, no, I don't.
Then you would be wrong. As I was trying to point out, the plans he's proposed are similar to those that actually reduce things like abortion and STDs. McCain's plan is to talk about how bad abortion is, do nothing about it, then continue policies that make things worse. Who has blinders on?

I still will not vote for anyone pro-abortion.
Can't really see the forest for the trees I guess, because if you saw the big picture, you'd see that only one candidate will actually do something about abortion if that's such a big issue for you, and it ain't McCain (at least not this week, he used to be pro-choice).

You are operating under the false assumption that higher taxes = more money. If you want to help our government's financial security, you promote business, you lower taxes, you make the United States the trading capital of the world. Trade and business is what creates rich nations... not taxes, hand-outs, and more government burden.
I'm operating under the correct, fact based, knowledge that cutting and spending, again despite his talk something McCain plans on continuing, will give us more of what we have now. Of course we should cut spending. I wish Obama would cut more, that's actually the most important issue IMO (do that and then deal with the rest), but while his plans are not great, again, they are better than McCains.

If you're asking me whether I think Obama would do a good job of reducing taxes and promoting trade/business and strong economic growth... then, no, I don't. Anyone without blinders on can tell you that.
If you think McCain is going to help the economy with his current plans (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/11/job-killing-john/), and that Obama's are worse, you obviously don't know much about either of their plans:

Barack and the Buck (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815226803922393.html)

I still will not vote for anyone who doesn't put the economy first. It's the best way to help people, it's the best way to help the whole country.
Then Obama may not be your perfect candidate, but McCain (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/07/a-surge-for-all-seasons/) definitely (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/08/plouffe-mccains-dhl-deal_n_117790.html) is not (http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/08/market-watch-mc.html) either, unless you want more of the same (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/08/08/ralph_reed_come_meet_my_friend.html) and worse (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/13/rove-defends-mccains-lobbyist-friends-by-saying-obama-has-them-tooyea-right/), which is working out so well for us so far. His advisers aren't great either (http://drexeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2008/08/meet-john-mccains-policy-director.html). Especially those like Phil (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html) Graham (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/27/breaking-mccain-campaign-general-co-chair-at-heart-of-foreclosure-crisis/), who though is no longer officially involved with the McCain campaign, practically wrote most of his policies.

Also, guess which candidate is for the bipartisan energy compromise (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/gang-of-10-obamas-checkmate.html) and who isn't because he's in big oil's pocket?

Democrats are the ones who pass seatbelt laws, smoking laws, driving with cell-phone laws...
All of which actually save lives, especially others lives, not just yours (and the money saved in heathcare costs that affects us all).

The Republicans, are slightly less apt to do this
You're kidding right? Gay rights. Torture. Politicizing most of the ever increasing gov. The Patriot Act is just a small part of that. A real conservative would be disgusted with all of it, and wouldn't bother to try to compare it to such petty things as what you're angry at the Dems for doing (though most of what you've mentioned is bipartisan).

If you're asking me whether I think Obama would do a good job of keeping the government's greedy hands out of our lives and telling how we need to do every little thing... then, no, I don't.
What do you think he's going to do? :confused:

You have to draw a line in the sand. I still will not vote for anyone who supports the destruction of our basic rights an liberties.
Then you're going to hate all the candidates except Ron Paul.

Of course there is still racism. There will be for a long time. The amusing part, is that you think more racism is the answer. Government mandated racism, at that! When the government can't even get it's act together, how are the citizens supposed to. Jobs should be given/earned based on qualifications/interviews/experience. Not color. People who don't follow this, even the government, should be held to task when they don't follow these simple principles.
Yes, there is still racism. We can even see it hiding in the Presidential race (http://nymag.com/news/features/49138/). I guess we expect it to be more overt, but the truth is it's actually more subtle. Kinda the point. I don't know how to fix things, no one does, but Obama had a pretty good speech about it and other things after the Wright thing (while McCain's preachers were ignored of course). Was actually one of the few politicians who even was willing to talk about it. Maybe you missed it, or decided to focus more on other less important things in the speech as the MSM did. Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Right there, talking about how he understands that people are frustrated about things like affirmative action.

I still will not vote for anyone who supports Affirmative Action.
Neither candidate will say they support it, but neither candidate will do anything about it either way either. :rolleyes:

Why are you only criticizing Obama for things McCain has also not done much about, nor plans too, or even is worse at?

The people's ability to defend themselves against oppressive government is NEVER up for debate. This generation's lack of appreciation for basic rights offered to them by the Constitution and Bill of Rights is absolutely astounding. Their fascination with the Judicial branch is also astounding... the Judicial branch's function is to ACCURATELY INTERPRET the law, not make it. Not define it and change it. Activist judges (the vast majority of whom are very liberal) represent a problem that none of us take seriously enough.
The same court that ruled in favor of gun rights that Obama supported? And as has been proven, the "activist" judges (whatever that means) are actually usually the conservative ones. According to every study I've read, several I've posted, the liberal and moderate ones usually vote based on facts, not belief. Scalia was actually judged most activist. I could provide more proof if you want, but I notice you didn't provide any.

If you're asking me whether I think Obama would do a good job of keeping the government's greedy hands off of us citizens "clinging to our bibles and guns"... then, no, I don't.
Do you really think Obama's going to take away your guns? Even after saying he'll support the courts ruling on the subject? Please. He wouldn't dare and we all know it. Of course, McCain used to be for gun restrictions, but then he's been for gun rights too. Really though, as I said, it doesn't matter because neither of them is going to do anything about your guns. Anyone paying attention would know that.

That's your opinion.
Based on evidence. NCLB as it is now is not working. It just isn't. More of the same isn't going to fix anything.

Stop listening to the teachers unions.
For someone who's so good at judging character, you sure get a lot of things wrong when you try to strawman me and make it seem like I support something I don't. My Mom is a teacher. She doesn't like the union either. Especially when they're helping a bad teacher stick around. But she understands she needs one sometimes. And every teacher I know, yes even the good ones, will tell you that NCLB is an utter failure. You teach to a test. A series of tests. Kids don't learn anything, and you can't teach them. So let's punish the teachers for rules and tests we push on them, and even if they have a bad class, which my Mom has had, let's punish the teachers some more. Then the school can tell them to "help" the students get better scores so they don't lose funding. Because that's a good idea. Taking away funding when kids are doing poorly. And as if they don't have enough issues with things like equipment and supplies.

The system does need an overhaul, but you'd think it would be obvious that more of the same, which McCain wants to do, wouldn't be that good.

Also:

Elite Prep School Student McCain Bashes Obama's Education (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001189.htm)

Yeah, I know I trust him with our educational system.

I still will not vote for anyone who can't see the value of personal responsibility in our school systems.
But you'll vote for someone who supports a failed education policy?

I still will not vote for anyone who does not think Nuclear has a big place in our energy-laden future.
Yeah, nuclear energy could be palpable. Which Obama has admitted too. But unless it's heavily regulated, and the environmental impact weighed, it could be disastrous (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/the-misconception-of-nucl_b_118061.html) (and expensive (http://www.gregpalast.com/the-mccain-plan-homer-simpson-without-the-donut/)).

So, I guess what I'm still saying is that I think you need to do more research, because whatever you're basing your opinion(s) on, it isn't any kind of fact, logic, or reality I'm familiar with. Love the way you talk down to us though. We all have blinders. Because we know what people actually stand for and what there plans are, vs. just our perception based on nothing. Or worse, some talking head who's obviously filling your head with misinformation. :rolleyes:

Ike's Granddaughter seems to like him (http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/eisenhowers), and that's saying something (especially since McCain's not doing as well with vets as you'd think (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/12/the-veterans-vote-is-far-from-locked-up/)).

fivepoint

Aug 14, 2008, 08:23 AM

Sorry for not responding to everything... I simply don't have the time.

Then you would be wrong. As I was trying to point out, the plans he's proposed are similar to those that actually reduce things like abortion and STDs. McCain's plan is to talk about how bad abortion is, do nothing about it, then continue policies that make things worse. Who has blinders on? Can't really see the forest for the trees I guess, because if you saw the big picture, you'd see that only one candidate will actually do something about abortion if that's such a big issue for you, and it ain't McCain (at least not this week, he used to be pro-choice).

Does Obama support abortion, or doesn't he? Quit tip-toeing around the obvious. It's all about appointing supreme court justices to overturn Roe V. Wade.

I'm operating under the correct, fact based, knowledge that cutting and spending, again despite his talk something McCain plans on continuing, will give us more of what we have now. Of course we should cut spending. I wish Obama would cut more, that's actually the most important issue IMO (do that and then deal with the rest), but while his plans are not great, again, they are better than McCains.

Did I say more tax cutting and spending? Did I say more than the same? It is difficult to have a discussion if you keep deciding what I said instead of actually reading it. I said that I wanted less taxation and less spending. The current presidential choices give us the option of tax cutting and spending or tax raising and spending. Neither is a good option. Never is. I think you're generally making the mistake here of assuming that I'm going to vote for John McCain. Again, deciding what I say instead of reading it.

You're kidding right? Gay rights. Torture. Politicizing most of the ever increasing gov. The Patriot Act is just a small part of that. A real conservative would be disgusted with all of it, and wouldn't bother to try to compare it to such petty things as what you're angry at the Dems for doing (though most of what you've mentioned is bipartisan).

They're all to blame. Like I said. Democrats are historically more likely to do so.

Yes, there is still racism. We can even see it hiding in the Presidential race (http://nymag.com/news/features/49138/). I guess we expect it to be more overt, but the truth is it's actually more subtle. Kinda the point. I don't know how to fix things, no one does, but Obama had a pretty good speech about it and other things after the Wright thing (while McCain's preachers were ignored of course). Was actually one of the few politicians who even was willing to talk about it. Maybe you missed it, or decided to focus more on other less important things in the speech as the MSM did. Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Right there, talking about how he understands that people are frustrated about things like affirmative action.

Neither candidate will say they support it, but neither candidate will do anything about it either way either. :rolleyes:

Why are you only criticizing Obama for things McCain has also not done much about, nor plans too, or even is worse at?

I made a general statement about which issues would cause me not to vote for someone. I did not mention any names because I didn't want people turning it into a flamewar on how their candidate is different than I characterized them. I put it in B/W. I told you the 10 or so issues that mattered to me, without making it confusing and cluttered. I criticized Obama directly because someone replied saying trying to tell me how Obama would be a good fit for my views. Even though nothing could be further from the truth. I could do the exact same thing against McCain, but as usual there isn't anyone on here representing McCain.

The same court that ruled in favor of gun rights that Obama supported? And as has been proven, the "activist" judges (whatever that means) are actually usually the conservative ones. According to every study I've read, several I've posted, the liberal and moderate ones usually vote based on facts, not belief. Scalia was actually judged most activist. I could provide more proof if you want, but I notice you didn't provide any.

Let's just use the example you gave. Gun rights. Which judges have tried to loosen these regulations and limit/eliminate gun ownership in the past? This is a case where the Bill of Rights is very clear. Let me just save you from the research: 90% are liberal judges.

Based on evidence. NCLB as it is now is not working. It just isn't. More of the same isn't going to fix anything.

For someone who's so good at judging character, you sure get a lot of things wrong when you try to strawman me and make it seem like I support something I don't. My Mom is a teacher. She doesn't like the union either. Especially when they're helping a bad teacher stick around. But she understands she needs one sometimes. And every teacher I know, yes even the good ones, will tell you that NCLB is an utter failure. You teach to a test. A series of tests. Kids don't learn anything, and you can't teach them. So let's punish the teachers for rules and tests we push on them, and even if they have a bad class, which my Mom has had, let's punish the teachers some more. Then the school can tell them to "help" the students get better scores so they don't lose funding. Because that's a good idea. Taking away funding when kids are doing poorly. And as if they don't have enough issues with things like equipment and supplies.

Who suggested "more of the same?" Performance based pay needs to be expanded and improved. It needs to use more performance reference points as I mentioned earlier... not just one test. It's really not that complicated. Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I told you my position, in B/W and you didn't listen. Here is what I said:

"My wife is a teacher, I was almost a teacher... It's not that difficult. Multi-point evaluations just like any job. Standardized tests, peer review, student review, boss review, self review, accomplishment review. Just like EVERY SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IN THE WORLD. Make people accountable for their actions, and don't make it difficult to fire bad employees. It's not that difficult... it's human nature."

I stand by my statement, 100%.

Cleverboy

Aug 14, 2008, 08:43 AM

Does Obama support abortion, or doesn't he? Quit tip-toeing around the obvious. It's all about appointing supreme court justices to overturn Roe V. Wade. Here's what Obama's said.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

OBAMA'S PLAN
* Protecting a Women's Right to Choose: Obama will make safeguarding women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.
* Reducing Unintended Pregnancy: Obama will work to reduce unintended pregnancy by guaranteeing equity in contraceptive coverage, providing sex education, and offering rape victims accurate information about emergency contraception.

Here's what McCain's said.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” A spokesman said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.”

McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.

McCain was asked whether he would reinstate the Reagan era rule that prevents international family planning clinics that receive federal funds from discussing abortion. “I don’t believe they should advocate abortion with my tax dollars,” McCain said, adding that he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.”

If you're a single-issue voter and you limit a politician's answer to a simplistic YES/NO, then John McCain is your man on "abortion". Don't ask him about stem-cell research and rape though... while he supported stem-cell research and doesn't support abortion he tends to equivocate constantly.

--And yes... he'd appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. Cheers.

~ CB

solvs

Aug 18, 2008, 08:02 AM

I was merely pointing out fivepoint that you seem to be criticizing Obama while ignoring McCain. There are those here who support McCain. And while I admit people who don't support Obama don't have to be supporting McCain, and again I pointed out that the libertarian candidate may be your best bet, my point was that while Obama isn't great, he's better than what McCain has become. I noted your wife was a teacher, but wanted to also point out that I knew a teacher as well, while you wanted to make it seem like I was on the side of the union or something. Still don't get that one. :confused: While you criticize me for putting words into your mouth, that's exactly what you were doing to me. You did so in the other thread too, making it seem like I base my opinion on something I don't, but you seem to - belief over fact.

I wasn't tip toeing around anything either. Obama says he's personally against abortion, which is why he wants to try to reduce it. McCain talks about it, and says a good game, but he'll continue Bush's policies, which haven't done much good. Supreme court justices or not, McCain isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade. It would be political suicide even if he could, and the GOP knows it. Bush had all 3 houses and he couldn't (wouldn't) do it. McCain with a Dem led Congress? I doubt he has a shot. So who would do more realistically regarding the issue? If Obama followed Clinton's plans, which it looks like he will, he would. Same with education policies. Obama isn't going to do what you're saying they should, but neither is McCain. Again, not that I'm saying you were going to vote for McCain, but you do seem to be criticizing one side for something both are doing (or in this case, not doing). Since this is a thread about McCain vs. Obama, and they are the only 2 who have a chance in this election, that's what I'm talking about.

McCain is also promising a borrow and spend approach, despite claiming cuts, he hasn't been able to give details. The ones he does give barely save us what we're paying in Iraq in a month. You want less taxes and less spending. I get that. But you aren't going to get it. As you alluded to, we have a choice between higher taxes on the wealthy with less corporate welfare and some decreases in spending in some areas while other areas are increased, and the borrow and spend we have now, maybe less but maybe worse. Those are your options. Unless you're making over $250,000 a year, your taxes actually might even be better off with Obama, and our deficits certainly will be better.

And while historically you seem to think the left take away our rights, the right are the ones trying to take away the important ones right now. The left merely doing a few things that actually do help people, as I noted in another thread. Even if you feel your rights are being trampled all over. There are far more important things to worry about that actually affect us negatively that you should be more worried about than the ones you mentioned. Gun rights not being among them because, again, neither side is going to take away your guns or even try. If you legally own one, you have nothing to worry about from either side. Like abortion, it's a wedge issue that both sides talk about, but neither really does much about. There are things that really matter that Obama hopefully won't continue:

U.S. May Ease Police Spy Rules (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503497.html?hpid=topnews)

Anyway, more on McCain:

Big Union Drops Tough Social Security Mailer Hitting McCain's Wealth (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/big_union_drops_tough_mailer_h.php)
McCain’s All Hatin’ on New Hampshire Civil Unions (http://wonkette.com/256050/walnuts-mccains-all-hatin-on-new-hampshire-civil-unions)
Presumptuous Maverick (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/presumptuous-maverick-by-digby-yglesias.html)
Hard Qweschins: What the TradMedia Will Never Ask McCain, But Should (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/08/13/hard-qweschins-what-the-tradmedia-will-never-ask-mccain-but-should/)
McCain's Lobbyists Raked In $1 Billion From U.S. Clients, Study Says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/report-mccains-lobbyists_n_118659.html)
10 Questions Rick Warren Won’t Ask John McCain (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/15/10-questions-rick-warren-wont-ask-john-mccain/#more-31840)

An article about McCain's missed votes, among other things:

Eight Strikes and You’re Out (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13friedman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin)

McCain thinking he's like Roosevelt, when he isn't, and Obama is actually more like:

Rushmore or Less (http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/rushmore-or-less/index.html?hp)

And something kinda funny about McCain's advertising:

Spears-Hilton Week Over, McCain's News Coverage Falls Again (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/spears-hilton-week-over-mccains-news.html)

Note the bottom part with the visual representation of what they say in their respective blogs/sites.

And something I wouldn't have thought of, but:

Troops Deployed Abroad Give 6:1 to Obama (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html)

So much for the myth of the military always leaning right.

solvs

Aug 25, 2008, 05:13 AM

Ok, I probably killed the thread with that last one, but this is a thread about Obama vs. McCain. Those are our choices. This goes for liberals too. You can pretend both sides are the same, and the more the Dems shift to the center-right the easier it is to pretend they are, but it's clear they aren't. I felt the same way in '00 with Gore, but he would have made a much different Pres than Bush would have. He couldn't have possibly been worse. He just couldn't. McCain wants to follow the same failed policies Bush has pushed. His economic adviser Phil Graham (who's still involved with the campaign) hasn't just said some stupid and insensitive things, he helped make the housing and gas crises worse, as has been posted. You can be pissed at Obama for not being who you thought he was, for being disappointed in things he's done or not done (I know I am) but he's who we've got. And for the other side, if you're going to criticize Obama, it would be nice if you knew why and had your facts better lined up, especially if you're going to ignore McCain's often much worse policies. Again, you don't have to like him either, but he's who you've got. Accept it or vote 3rd party. Or look into Obama, who no, is not great, but he's not that bad.

Only one candidate will come close to being fiscally responsible, to actually reducing not just abortions (not just talking about it and letting them slightly decrease as they would anyway) but also STDs and unplanned pregnancies period, among other things you may prefer. His faith based programs are better too, which some on the left may not like, but unlike Bush they should actually do what they're supposed to, not just line their buddies pockets. His support of the military is more than just talk. And while his education and healthcare plans aren't great, at least he has them, unlike McCain, who until recently didn't have anything (and even now they haven't been great either). Neither of them are going to do much about guns or gays, for better or worse. Those are our choices, for better or worse. Anyway:

McCain's Head Games on Taxes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/mccains-head-games-on-tax_b_114247.html)

And:

McCain Makes Energy Promise Impossible To Keep (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/19/mccain-makes-energy-promi_n_119852.html)

We all know about the housing gaffe now, and the questions about the draft, but the Dems should also be out there hammering him over how he was railing about pork, but voted for the same bills he was just criticizing:

"Outrageous" Exaggerations (http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html)

In other news, besides the soldiers overwhelmingly supporting Obama, he's also gotten support from some in the religious community, like a Bush pastor who presided over Jenna's wedding (http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/bush-pastor-rips-mccain-over-sturgis-backs-obama/), and believe it or not, from Toby Keith (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080819/ap_on_en_mu/people_keith_obama;_ylt=AsnLyEbwvAkMPSd7bFoVJpDZn414). :eek:

noodle654

Aug 27, 2008, 09:14 PM

McCain...

zap2

Aug 27, 2008, 09:42 PM

^^ How?

What in that past 8 years made think we're doing good?

Failed war?
Failing economy?
When did spy on our own citizens become ok?
Torturing prisoner? When was that ok? When did American stop standing for justice?!?!
When was the biggest deficit in our history ok?
When did soaring gas prices become ok?
When did vote against minimum wage become ok?
When did losing our jobs become ok?

When did we stop living up for justice?

yg17

Aug 27, 2008, 10:03 PM

McCain...

Thank you for explaining your positions. You're well thought out, informational post has convinced me to vote for McCain.

solvs

Sep 2, 2008, 08:39 AM

Ill keep it short and simple this time, but I still think I should post links:

Cindy McCain's Half-Sister: I'm Voting For Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/28/cindy-mccains-half-sister_n_122134.html)

Ouch. Wonder if anyone will notice. Also a note on the elephant in the room often brought up but not really talked about:

The Negrological Constant (http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2008/08/negrological-constant.html)

And sorry, one more:

The unlikeliest political comeback in history (http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.2432465.0.The_unlikeliest_political_comeback_in_history.php)

solvs

Sep 14, 2008, 04:12 AM

I don't think his speech went over very well (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-speech-reacti_n_124115.html), even with his own, but gave the Dems some fodder too (http://www.barbaraboxer.com/news/bulletins?id=0048). Palin seems to have taken most of the brunt off anyway. But this is still about McCain.

Obama for Harley-Davidson; McCain opposes 'Buy American' (http://www.usw.org/media_center/news_articles?id=0052)
Tim Johnson: Palin's Experience Claims "Laughable," McCain "Hard To Work With" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/tim-johnson-palins-experi_n_126004.html)
Next President to Reshape Court (http://www.washingtonindependent.com/5745/next-president-to-reshape-supreme-court)

And for those still wondering about his voting record while campaigning, it's not great (http://www.zencabin.com/?p=561).
John McCain has missed 408 votes (63.8%) during the current Congress…
I'm hoping they dare try the elitist comments too, because the Obama camp has plenty of fodder against that (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/04/those-democratic-elitists/) too.

Adamo

Sep 14, 2008, 07:19 PM

Ha! Please. If he were a socialist I'd be voting for him. Obama is a capitalist. Look at the economics part of his website:

That's not something a socialist would say.
No, the country/society is capitalist, you expect him to win any votes by saying: we're moving to socialism, guys! It's not going to happen. There's nothing wrong with capitalism or indeed any other form of society, America is a capitalist society already though, that's not going to change - but, injecting socialist ideas (as no society is completely one thing or anything, things aren't just black and white) such as health-care for everyone and not just those who were lucky enough to afford it, has really got to be a step forward. If you don't agree with that then really, I've little time for you.
Neither.

Anyone like how Obama voted FOR the protection of telecoms in wiretapping cases recently? Anyone like how he wants to tax oil companies and give the money (up to $1000) to people who cannot afford to pay their fuel bills (god forbid a company make a profit in a capitalistic society)? You guys know that he's against gay marriage? Go ahead, vote for him. He'll save the world I'm sure. You'll also be broke when it's over.

I have no idea why any democrat would vote for him other than "he's not as bad as McCain," which is debatable.

I'm writing in my friend Rupert.
Obama has gone on record for what he personally believes is right/wrong, but shows that he's capable of free thought and does not see the point in banning gay marriage or abortion, as American people can decide for themselves what they want.
So... you're position is, that the more you make, the more right the government has to take your money and redistribute your wealth?
That's an element of socialism at work - if you're earning that much, then you can cope with having less of it and put it to good use. If you don't like it, don't vote for him - simple as that. Don't moan about it if you don't like it, that's why you've got your vote.

rdowns

Sep 14, 2008, 07:27 PM

John McCain has missed 408 votes (63.8%) during the current Congress…

And Obama has missed almost half. Pretty pathetic on both counts if you ask me. These guys were elected to represent their constituents, not to miss votes while campaigning.

Adamo

Sep 14, 2008, 07:43 PM

Isn't that attributed to them staying where they represent and working there instead of voting all the time?

rdowns

Sep 14, 2008, 07:46 PM

Isn't that attributed to them staying where they represent and working there instead of voting all the time?

That's crap. Being in Congress is a part time job. Plenty of time is available for members to be in their home districts. Missing those amount of votes is unconscionable.

solvs

Sep 22, 2008, 10:02 AM

McCain Ad Blames Obama For Loss Of Michigan Jobs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/19/mccain-ad-blames-obama-fo_n_127864.html)

You'd think this wouldn't be working, but apparently it is.

Michigan voters waver on Obama over race, economy (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-15-Michigan-voters_N.htm?csp=34)

atlanticza

Sep 24, 2008, 02:23 AM

Well it would appear that the majority of Mac owners are Democrats - which is a good thing. (In South Africa, most of us are rooting for Obama.)

solvs

Oct 4, 2008, 10:03 PM

Michigan voters waver on Obama over race, economy (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-15-Michigan-voters_N.htm?csp=34)

Glad to see I'm wrong, as McCain is now pulling out of Michigan (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081002/NEWS15/81002076).

If anyone is still wanting a breakdown:

Obama Vs McCain: OTB Policy Wonks Weigh In On Where The Candidates Stand On Key Issues (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/off-the-bus-reporter/obama-mccain-set-themselv_b_128691.html)

As for policy:

McCain Proposed Spending Freeze Would Leave Millions of America's Students in the Cold (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-proposed-spending-freeze-would/story.aspx?guid={49A86097-A48A-4E03-822E-3CEAAE2B7210}&dist=hppr)
McCain's Social Security Plan Would Cut Benefits To People Who Already Paid For Them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-herrington/mccains-social-security-p_b_129544.html)
McCain's Miserable Record of Not Supporting America's Troops and Veterans (http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1973)
Barr: 'I Think McCain Is A Hypocrite' (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/10/02/barr-i-think-mccain-is-a-hypocrite/)

And the one that shows who McCain really is:

Make-Believe Maverick (A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty) (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain)

That last one was a long read, but it's worth it.

solvs

Oct 6, 2008, 12:44 AM

Sorry, one more:

Examining the candidates (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127)
In our special report on the election we analyse the two candidates’ economic plans. Here, we ask professional economists to give us their views

AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.
What was that again about how McCain was the one with the economic experience, and Obama just didn't plumb know nothin' 'bout... I don't know, something folksy or whatever.

Cleverboy

Oct 6, 2008, 06:55 AM

And the one that shows who McCain really is:

Make-Believe Maverick (A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty) (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain)

That last one was a long read, but it's worth it. Interesting. CNN ventured close to this with its "Exposed" series on McCain, but veered away from any stories that were too personal or hearsay. Oy.

~ CB

Wotan31

Oct 6, 2008, 04:17 PM

Some interesting commentary:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/cavuto-democrats-1515202463/

rdowns

Oct 6, 2008, 04:21 PM

Some interesting commentary:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/cavuto-democrats-1515202463/

I'm amazed they still have it up.

skunk

Oct 6, 2008, 04:24 PM

What a load of vacuous tosh. What is interesting about it? :confused:

Anuba

Oct 6, 2008, 05:45 PM

Obama doubles his lead from 4 to 8 points, according to CNN.

iGary

Oct 6, 2008, 07:13 PM

I'm not voting for either. if I could, I'd write in my friend Rupert. :)

skunk

Oct 6, 2008, 07:15 PM

Your friend should be deeply honoured, whoever he is.

NT1440

Oct 6, 2008, 07:15 PM

I'm not voting for either. if I could, I'd write in my friend Rupert. :)

murdock?!

shame on you....

;)

solvs

Oct 7, 2008, 08:29 PM

Here's another one about that "maverick" title, apparently the family who's name it comes from isn't happy with McCain using it the way he has:

Who You Callin’ a Maverick? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05schwartz.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=maverick&st=cse&oref=slogin)

And if he's going to use it as proof of experience, more on McCain's time in the military:

Mishaps mark John McCain's record as naval aviator (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aviator6-2008oct06,0,7633315.story)

(BTW, if anyone wants to try and say this somehow means I'm against the military of something by pointing that out, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that vetrans groups gives McCain a rating of D (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/nowhearthis/archives/150802.asp) on an A-F grading scale)

And more about who will be better for most people's taxes:

McCain Will Raise Your Taxes, Obama Will Raise Your Income (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-herrington/mccain-will-raise-your-ta_b_131935.html)

Cynicalone

Oct 7, 2008, 08:37 PM

I'm voting for Obama.

.Andy

Oct 7, 2008, 09:13 PM

Vote Mavrik over socialest.

solvs

Oct 8, 2008, 02:28 AM

McCain isn't doing so well at this point, as per the gutter politics.

Registration Gains Favor Democrats (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100502524.html?)
Swing State Registration Boom: Florida Dems Outpace GOP; Ohio Gains Almost 500,000 New Voters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/swing-state-registration_n_132618.html)
Independent Voters Move Toward Obama (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122332442918808789.html)

McCain (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/6/10333/9547/308/621081) is losing (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14285.html) in Virginia (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-tucker/surge-of-new-voters-and-o_b_132115.html) now too (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/obama-up-10-in-virginia-a_n_132268.html).

He keeps talking about how he's going (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html) to cut (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/opinion/06krugman.html?hp) Medicare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-millenson/mccains-health-care-plan_b_132650.html) (which despite what she claimed, Palin wouldn't have had to fear losing her healthcare (http://washingtonindependent.com/10743/palin-family-qualifies-for-free-federal-health-care)) and SS, he's going to lose Florida too.

skunk

Oct 8, 2008, 04:52 AM

and again...

What if John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington (et al) had been a bunch of "Joe six-pack" ordinary folks? What if they decided to just complain about lack of representation at a pub in Boston instead of meeting in Philadelphia to form the Congressional Congress? Had they been anything less than extraordinary, anything less than brilliantly passionate intellectuals, we'd likely not be having any election come November. What nonsense. Of course you would be having elections, just like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. We'd have granted you independence - eventually - just like our other colonies. You might have had to join in WW2 in a slightly more timely fashion than you did, that's all.

takao

Oct 8, 2008, 04:56 AM

What nonsense. Of course you would be having elections, just like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. We'd have granted you independence - eventually - just like our other colonies. You might have had to join in WW2 in a slightly more timely fashion than you did, that's all.

without US war of independence there would have not been a french revolution and without that all the rest is speculation

fivepoint

Oct 8, 2008, 08:03 AM

There is only person I trust to actually uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, whether it's easy/popular or not. The two main candidates simply pick and choose when they want to follow it, and ignore it when it doesn't suit their interests. This person is the only one willing to do what it takes to truly restore our nation's fiscal conservatism, balance the budget, eliminate government manipulation of the dollar, and return us to true free markets.

It's time people stood up and demanded that "debt and spend" isn't cutting it any more. And the solution certainly isn't "tax and spend." The problem... is the spending itself. Government has grown out of control and has gone far beyond the original intent of the founders. The end result is that our citizens stop thinking for themselve, and start relying on the government for everything they need.

McCain and Obama have more similarities than they do differences... Come November, I'll be voting for REAL change. I'll be voting for a non-interventionist foreign policy... something that neither major candidate is suggesting. Even Obama wants to increase the size of the military and put more and more troops in Afghanistan. I'll be voting to bring America back to greatness, restore our national sovereignty, and increase the value placed on personal property and personal liberties offered to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Come November, I'll be voting for the "Constitution's Best Friend". Come November, I'll be "writing-in" for Dr. Ron Paul, and I hope you do too.

yellow

Oct 8, 2008, 08:04 AM

Man, there sure are a lot of communists on this board! :)

és:

Oct 8, 2008, 08:05 AM

I'll be voting for Dr. Ron Paul, and I hope you do too.

I look forward to him becoming president in November. You might as well vote for a lump of coal, it'll make as much difference.

ogee

Oct 8, 2008, 08:24 AM

I thought McCain was an oven chip

/me is confused...again

fivepoint

Oct 8, 2008, 09:34 AM

I look forward to him becoming president in November. You might as well vote for a lump of coal, it'll make as much difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Vb0LdKcxI

és:

Oct 8, 2008, 09:51 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Vb0LdKcxI

I've seen it, as I subscribe to foratv on youtube. It's not really that relevant to what I've said. There is a need for a real third party, but your vote for Ron Paul isn't going to make a difference that's comparable to a vote for Obama (or McCain).

Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote for whoever you want, that's your choice and I respect it - that's ****ing democracy! However, your country is at a massive crossroads and voting for Ron Paul or Bob Barr isn't going to do much.

As for Ron Paul, he seems great on the surface but in reality I don't find him appealing at all.

BoyBach

Oct 8, 2008, 10:34 AM

Vote Mavrik over socialest.

I'll see your "Mavrick" and "Socialest", and raise you a "Muslin".

138545

Un-fecking-believable!

yellow

Oct 8, 2008, 10:42 AM

I'll see your "Mavrick" and "Socialest", and raise you a "Muslin".

LOL! Do you know where that was posted? I didn't see it in my neighborhood, but I REALLY wouldn't be surprised.

Samarium

Oct 8, 2008, 10:44 AM

I simply like Obama for his new ideals. He is a bright person.

63dot

Oct 8, 2008, 10:47 AM

I'll see your "Mavrick" and "Socialest", and raise you a "Muslin".

138545

Un-fecking-believable!

Ya we haf sum smart peoples in the USA

There is only person I trust to actually uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, whether it's easy/popular or not. The two main candidates simply pick and choose when they want to follow it, and ignore it when it doesn't suit their interests. This person is the only one willing to do what it takes to truly restore our nation's fiscal conservatism, balance the budget, eliminate government manipulation of the dollar, and return us to true free markets.

It's time people stood up and demanded that "debt and spend" isn't cutting it any more. And the solution certainly isn't "tax and spend." The problem... is the spending itself. Government has grown out of control and has gone far beyond the original intent of the founders. The end result is that our citizens stop thinking for themselve, and start relying on the government for everything they need.

McCain and Obama have more similarities than they do differences... Come November, I'll be voting for REAL change. I'll be voting for a non-interventionist foreign policy... something that neither major candidate is suggesting. Even Obama wants to increase the size of the military and put more and more troops in Afghanistan. I'll be voting to bring America back to greatness, restore our national sovereignty, and increase the value placed on personal property and personal liberties offered to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Come November, I'll be voting for the "Constitution's Best Friend". Come November, I'll be "writing-in" for Dr. Ron Paul, and I hope you do too.

I think many people feel the way you do, and he will come in third place, far ahead of the greens or libertarians. He won't make a difference this time, but someone who is for bringing our troops home, and keeping out of other countries' wars will win an election some day. It was never our job to be the policeman of the world, but it will take many years before the United States realizes this.

és:

Oct 8, 2008, 10:55 AM

but someone who is for bringing our troops home, and keeping out of other countries' wars will win an election some day.

Yeah, with any luck it'll be this year. Barack Obama.

63dot

Oct 8, 2008, 11:01 AM

Yeah, with any luck it'll be this year. Barack Obama.

While I am voting for Obama, I think he will get us out of Iraq but not that quickly. It's a big undertaking. He will probably expand our presence in Afghanistan as that is where the enemy is, not Iraq. Our total troop deployments will definitely be decreased overall with Obama vs. McCain.

BoyBach

Oct 8, 2008, 11:01 AM

LOL! Do you know where that was posted? I didn't see it in my neighborhood, but I REALLY wouldn't be surprised.

I've done some extensive investigating (otherwise known as google!) - the sign is from Florida. (http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/10/video-racist-anti-obama-sign-in-florida.html)

és:

Oct 8, 2008, 11:25 AM

While I am voting for Obama, I think he will get us out of Iraq but not that quickly. It's a big undertaking. He will probably expand our presence in Afghanistan as that is where the enemy is, not Iraq. Our total troop deployments will definitely be decreased overall with Obama vs. McCain.

The only thing I disagree with is that the enemy is in Afghanistan. No Afghani attacked us (the UK/US). Whilst the Taliban are like rabid dogs, it's not like they are in the position to wage war against our countries.

But hey, I can at least grasp a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, even if I don't agree with it and what we have to remember is that there are two wars happening and two wars that will be inherited.

Obama, a former anti war protester, is more likely to resolve these issues and less likely to get us into unneeded new ones. McCain, I feel, will probably attack Iran... then we're all in trouble.

yellow

Oct 8, 2008, 11:32 AM

I've done some extensive investigating (otherwise known as google!) - the sign is from Florida. (http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/10/video-racist-anti-obama-sign-in-florida.html)

Goo... gle? What is this goo.. gle that you speak of?

fivepoint

Oct 8, 2008, 11:35 AM

Yeah, with any luck it'll be this year. Barack Obama.

Hmmm....

Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/

Obama said he backs current plans to increase the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops. Under his defense plan, more resources would be committed to counter-insurgency and intelligence expertise as well as language and cultural skills.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/08-hopefuls-would-grow-the-military-2007-05-02.html

And of course... the best for last:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4

63dot

Oct 8, 2008, 11:55 AM

Hmmm....

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/08-hopefuls-would-grow-the-military-2007-05-02.html

And of course... the best for last:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4

That's terrible that the democrats have become so hawkish in recent years. Many did not agree with Clinton going into the Balkans, and during the Carter years, it would have been strange to think the next democratic President after him would be so interventionalist. I hope Obama will not expand our military overall but make the trend more towards self-defense vs. intervening in other countries.

Clive At Five

Oct 8, 2008, 12:44 PM

imac/cheese

Oct 8, 2008, 12:53 PM

I look forward to him becoming president in November. You might as well vote for a lump of coal, it'll make as much difference.

There is a need for a real third party, but your vote for Ron Paul isn't going to make a difference that's comparable to a vote for Obama (or McCain).

I really dislike the perception that a vote for someone that will not win is a wasted vote. Since no single person's vote has ever changed the outcome of a major election, does any one vote make a difference? How does a vote for Obama or McCain make more of a difference than a vote for a third party or a vote for a write-in candidate? A vote is simply a show of support for your candidate. It could even be argued that a vote for a third party or write-in does a lot more than a vote for a major candidate. Since third parties normally only get a few hundred thousand votes, one vote means quite a bit, while for a major candidate getting 50 million votes, an individual vote carries less weight.

Ugg

Oct 8, 2008, 12:59 PM

Bob Barr.

I'm not a Libertarian but I think we need to take a step back a look at the damage big government has done to our freedom. It has been as stifled by the religious right as it has the socialist left.

We need to rewind, reevaluate, reprioritize, and rebuild. The only way to do that is to dislodge the out-of-control two-party ruling class.

Big government has failed! Now it's time to restore what our Founding Fathers had intended us to have: actual liberties.

-Clive

Such grandiose statements look good but on further examination are totally without substance.

Big gummint has become the whipping boy of the Republicans and the Libertarians. However, when it comes time to feed, the biggest hogs always have R's and L's branded on their beefy butts.

What Liberties are you actually talking about?

és:

Oct 8, 2008, 01:09 PM

I really dislike the perception that a vote for someone that will not win is a wasted vote. Since no single person's vote has ever changed the outcome of a major election, does any one vote make a difference? How does a vote for Obama or McCain make more of a difference than a vote for a third party or a vote for a write-in candidate? A vote is simply a show of support for your candidate. It could even be argued that a vote for a third party or write-in does a lot more than a vote for a major candidate. Since third parties normally only get a few hundred thousand votes, one vote means quite a bit, while for a major candidate getting 50 million votes, an individual vote carries less weight.

You're joking, right?

We're not talking about one vote. We're talking about lots of people's one vote. Nadar, Paul and Barr votes added together will easily be enough to swing the election.

és:

Oct 8, 2008, 01:13 PM

Hmmm....

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/08-hopefuls-would-grow-the-military-2007-05-02.html

Did you mean to reply to me?

If you did, then why have you posted that? It doesn't have anything to do with brining home troops from Iraq, nor starting needless wars. You could have found information on the best techniques for growing gherkins, it would have been as useful to your argument.

It makes me angry when you pull dirty little stunts like that. It's one of the reasons why you commend very little respect on this forum.

Clive At Five

Oct 8, 2008, 01:17 PM

Such grandiose statements look good but on further examination are totally without substance.

Big gummint has become the whipping boy of the Republicans and the Libertarians. However, when it comes time to feed, the biggest hogs always have R's and L's branded on their beefy butts.

What Liberties are you actually talking about?

I'm sorry, I don't recall any Libertarian even being in a position to compromise their party platform like the Republicans and Democrats both have. Could you please add substance to YOUR argument?

Meanwhile, I'll tell you exactly what I'm talking about:

Personally, I've always found it frustratingly hypocritical that the Republicans try to champion reducing government intervention, yet they frequently support censoring violent video games, invading personal privacy with wire-taps, initiating unjustified wars overseas and denying rights to those of certain sexual orientations. I've also found it frustratingly hypocritical that the Democrats try to champion personal freedoms when their policies only serve to regulate even more, essentially reducing individual freedoms. Examples include blocking the privatization of social security, perpetually increasing self-defense/firearms restrictions, inhibiting free trade, and (the classic) raising taxes to pay for social programs.

Is it possible to find a compromise or are economic liberties and social liberties mutually exclusive?

The first item of the L.P. platform states "individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make." This single sentence embodies so much of what I think is wrong with our society today. There is absolutely no accountability. People are living consequence-free with their "entitlist" attitudes running at full-blast. This whole sub-prime loan issue is a perfect example: The political ideology behind it says, "people should have a right to buy a home even though their poor credit makes them unsuitable for a loan." Not to be without compassion for people who can't buy homes (note: I am one of those people), NO THEY DO NOT! We do not deserve what we haven't earned. We need to break ourselves from the notion that the government OWES us something ("ask not what your country can do for you" - JFK).

Just as the government shouldn't abuse our financial freedoms like they have with housing programs and now this bailout, neither should it abuse our social freedoms. The most prevalent case is our Christian-based/biased government, which practically smites all those with non-aligning views. Yes, our country was founded on Christian values but we cannot misconstrue it by allowing ourselves to impose Christian values on everyone, as we have. Not only is this politically wrong, but its religiously wrong! I strongly support the separation of church and state, as did our Founding Fathers. Many of the first colonies were founded because of religious persecution. Are we to say that others seeking similar religious freedoms (or freedom from religion) today shouldn't be granted those same rights?

The Libertarian Party calls for the end of this sort of government intervention: "We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion." Their policy goes on to defend long-time opponents of conservatives: "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government [...] Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships." Also, "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Meanwhile, economically, "A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. [...] The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society." "All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. [...] Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a 'Balanced Budget Amendment' to the U.S. Constitution..." Also, "Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system."

America was founded as a land of freedom. Just reading these platform statements makes me wonder what happened to it all. We're missing so many of the essential freedoms we've fought to protect: Freedom from censorship; freedom to worship; freedom not to worship; freedom from discrimination, whether it be on the basis of gender, race, or sexual preference; freedom to bear arms to defend one's rights; freedom to hold ourselves to our own code of ethics; the list goes on. It's these freedoms that the Libertarian Party strives to restore, along with a sense of fairness and accountability.

Of course, the L.P. platform is not without its flaws. It doesn't address the economic separation of the classes and furthers the problem by completely deregulating health care & education and abolishing a minimum wage amongst other things. (My personal beliefs - and I assume many or yours - stands firmly against the all-too-prevalent inherited socioeconomic status, which is the main catalyst in the separation of the classes.) The good news is that even if a L.P. candidate is elected, checks & balances will ensure that our schools don't lose critical funding and that those in need of proper health care will receive it.

So it's not perfect but it clearly offers an excellent alternative to the typical two-party thumb-wrestling. I definitely won't say it's the best long-term solution (we need a sound educational system more than anything else!) but at this point in time when the government is bigger than its ever been, we need to take a step back and realize we've let things go a bit too far at the expense of our freedom. The Libertarian Party is the best middle ground for both left and right-wing voters to agree on, at least until we get our government back on the right track.

"IMHO"

-Clive

fivepoint

Oct 8, 2008, 01:23 PM

I'm sorry, I don't recall...

-Clive

Amen! ;)

Clive At Five

Oct 8, 2008, 01:36 PM

Amen! ;)

Foul! Contextual misquote! 15 yards, first down!

In all seriousness, I hope you read the entire sentence and picked up on the fact that it was a rhetorical statement. There haven't been any Libertarians who've compromised their party platform because there haven't been any Libertarians in political power. This is not to imply that it would/wouldn't happen if one was to be elected. It's simply to point out that Ugg's statement was blatantly false.

-Clive

Anuba

Oct 8, 2008, 01:57 PM

You're joking, right?

We're not talking about one vote. We're talking about lots of people's one vote. Nadar, Paul and Barr votes added together will easily be enough to swing the election.
Listen... I'm all for having multiple parties in a democracy, I think the American de-facto two party system is a bit of a joke. Here in Sweden we have 7 parties in the parliament and we'll probably have 8 after the next election in two years. And that's fine for a parliament, and would be fine in the US House of Representatives and even the Senate. They can form alliances, work independently, whatever, it's all fine and well.

But there can only be one president. You can't have 6 different choices and if the three right-wing guys manage to get 51% combined, they team up as some sort of three-headed monster prez. Picture if you have like 6 different guys to vote for, and the votes are distributed as follows: 29/28/15/14/8/6 percent. The "winner" would be an incredibly weak president with 71% of the people against him. Right from the outset he would have less support than Bush has today. There should only be two presidential candidates, because that way the winner will have at least 50% of the people behind him. We don't have a president in Sweden, we have a prime minister who is elected by the parliament but if we did have a presidential election, the parliament would have to pick out two candidates for us first, anything else would be counterproductive.

I think Nader and Paul are doing the country a huge disservice by running, the only thing they accomplish is to make the winning candidate a weaker president. These guys should be busy trying to get into Congress, not messing up the presidential election.

fivepoint

Oct 8, 2008, 01:59 PM

Foul! Contextual misquote! 15 yards, first down!

In all seriousness, I hope you read the entire sentence and picked up on the fact that it was a rhetorical statement. There haven't been any Libertarians who've compromised their party platform because there haven't been any Libertarians in political power. This is not to imply that it would/wouldn't happen if one was to be elected. It's simply to point out that Ugg's statement was blatantly false.

-Clive

Dude, slow down... I was referring to your entire post! It was excellent! I just didn't want to quote the whole darn thing! You may notice that I've been promoting a VERY similar set of ideals on this forum for quite some time. :rolleyes:

Clive At Five

Oct 8, 2008, 02:05 PM

But there can only be one president. You can't have 6 different choices and if the three right-wing guys manage to get 51% combined, they team up as some sort of three-headed monster prez. Picture if you have like 6 different guys to vote for, and the votes are distributed as follows: 29/28/15/14/8/6 percent. The "winner" would be an incredibly weak president with 71% of the people against him.

I think the "71% against" statement is a little misleading... For example, one might prefer Nader as a first choice for president. That doesn't mean that an Obama victory would result in that voter being "against" Obama. Multiple parties introduces the possibility of picking the best of a good batch of politicians.

Couple that with Instant Run-Off Voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_run-off_voting) and you'll have a candidate that is mathematically best-fit with the voters' desires.

Of course to think this will happen in the US is just a dream.

Maybe someday...

Dude, slow down... I was referring to your entire post! It was excellent! I just didn't want to quote the whole darn thing! You may notice that I've been promoting a VERY similar set of ideals on this forum for quite some time. :rolleyes:

Oh, my bad, didn't catch that! You might have picked a precarious spot to endquote... ;)

Glad you liked it, BTW.

-Clive

takao

Oct 8, 2008, 02:06 PM

Listen... I'm all for having multiple parties in a democracy, I think the American de-facto two party system is a bit of a joke. Here in Sweden we have 7 parties in the parliament and we'll probably have 8 after the next election in two years. And that's fine for a parliament, and would be fine in the US House of Representatives and even the Senate. They can form alliances, work independently, whatever, it's all fine and well.

But there can only be one president. You can't have 6 different choices and if the three right-wing guys manage to get 51% combined, they team up as some sort of three-headed monster prez. Picture if you have like 6 different guys to vote for, and the votes are distributed as follows: 29/28/15/14/8/6 percent. The "winner" would be an incredibly weak president with 71% of the people against him. Right from the outset he would have less support than Bush has today. There should only be two presidential candidates, because that way the winner will have at least 50% of the people behind him. We don't have a president in Sweden, we have a prime minister who is elected by the parliament but if we did have a presidential election, the parliament would have to pick out two candidates for us first, anything else would be counterproductive.

that's why most countries have multiple voting rounds for their president if he is directly elected and no candidate emerges with more than 50 percent

és:

Oct 8, 2008, 03:07 PM

Listen... I'm all for having multiple parties in a democracy, I think the American de-facto two party system is a bit of a joke. Here in Sweden we have 7 parties in the parliament and we'll probably have 8 after the next election in two years. And that's fine for a parliament, and would be fine in the US House of Representatives and even the Senate. They can form alliances, work independently, whatever, it's all fine and well.

But there can only be one president. You can't have 6 different choices and if the three right-wing guys manage to get 51% combined, they team up as some sort of three-headed monster prez. Picture if you have like 6 different guys to vote for, and the votes are distributed as follows: 29/28/15/14/8/6 percent. The "winner" would be an incredibly weak president with 71% of the people against him. Right from the outset he would have less support than Bush has today. There should only be two presidential candidates, because that way the winner will have at least 50% of the people behind him. We don't have a president in Sweden, we have a prime minister who is elected by the parliament but if we did have a presidential election, the parliament would have to pick out two candidates for us first, anything else would be counterproductive.

I think Nader and Paul are doing the country a huge disservice by running, the only thing they accomplish is to make the winning candidate a weaker president. These guys should be busy trying to get into Congress, not messing up the presidential election.

Rrrright. So you're not actually disagreeing with me, then?

:confused

Anuba

Oct 8, 2008, 03:23 PM

Rrrright. So you're not actually disagreeing with me, then?

:confused
Yeah, I was sort of joining the choir, not rebutting... I can see where it got confusing though.

The fringe candidates have the potential to win the election for McCain, like Nader did for Bush in 2000 even though Nader doesn't admit it. I'm not gonna pin a hurricane on a butterfly, but Nader was -- however involuntarily -- a tool for the guy who gave us the Iraq war and its death toll, the economic meltdown and an environmental policy that makes cavemen look sophisticated. Can't he look at that stuff and go "Man... it's not worth it"?

és:

Oct 8, 2008, 03:25 PM

Yeah, I was sort of joining the choir, not rebutting... I can see where it got confusing though.

The fringe candidates have the potential to win the election for McCain, like Nader did for Bush in 2000 even though Nader doesn't admit it. I'm not gonna pin a hurricane on a butterfly, but Nader was -- however involuntarily -- a tool for the guy who gave us the Iraq war and its death toll, the economic meltdown and an environmental policy that makes cavemen look sophisticated. Can't he look at that stuff and go "Man... it's not worth it"?

Well, I certainly agree with that, my brother.

atszyman

Oct 8, 2008, 03:31 PM

I'll see your "Mavrick" and "Socialest", and raise you a "Muslin".

138545

Un-fecking-believable!

Since when is religion a genetic trait?

TheAnswer

Oct 8, 2008, 03:41 PM

Since when is religion a genetic trait?

Being a Muslin is woven into the very fabric of one's being. :p

BoyBach

Oct 12, 2008, 12:24 PM

It looks like Sen. Obama is stealing the 'grey vote' from Sen. McCain:

106-year-old voter chooses Obama

139167

A 106-year-old American nun living in a convent in Rome could well be the oldest person to vote in the 2008 US Presidential election.

Sister Cecilia Gaudette, who last voted for President Eisenhower in 1952, has registered to vote and says she will vote for Democrat Barack Obama.

Although hard of hearing, she keeps herself informed by reading newspapers and watching TV at the convent.

"I'm encouraged by Senator Obama," she says.

"I've never met him, but he seems to be a good man with a good private life. That's the first thing. Then he must be able to govern," she adds.

Sitting in her modest office in the convent where she has lived for the past 50 years, the diminutive nun appears uninterested in the row inside the American Catholic church over Senator Obama's support for pro-choice policies on abortion.

Asked about her hopes for the US under an Obama presidency, she says: "Peace abroad. I don't worry about the Iraq war because I can't do anything about it. Lord knows how it will end."

"It is very complicated," she said. "Those Eastern people are not like we are."

But despite taking part in the 4 November election, Sister Cecilia does not intend to return to the US.

"I have no plans for the future. I am too old to go back to the US. Life has changed too much."

But she still watches "very important events" on TV. The election comes under this category.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7665925.stm

Being a Muslin is woven into the very fabric of one's being. :p

Bada-boom, tsh! :D

63dot

Oct 12, 2008, 10:25 PM

63dot

Oct 12, 2008, 10:26 PM

We are bluer than Hawaii and redder than Utah when it comes to onesidedness.

Those states favor their candidate by only 64% pecent.

skunk

Oct 13, 2008, 05:58 AM

Some numbers put Obama up only five percent, some as high as ten percent. The Macrumors community is the most liberal I have ever heard of if this poll is representative. If we were a demographic group that counted, then Obama should be shopping for interior decorating for the White House and booking his speaking engagements for his new policies for the next four years.And yet the funny thing is that neither of your main parties would be regarded as remotely liberal anywhere else in the world.

és:

Oct 13, 2008, 06:19 AM

Some numbers put Obama up only five percent, some as high as ten percent. The Macrumors community is the most liberal I have ever heard of if this poll is representative. If we were a demographic group that counted, then Obama should be shopping for interior decorating for the White House and booking his speaking engagements for his new policies for the next four years.

It's just that your political system is so far right leaning that even conservatives seem like liberals. There are quite a few conservatives in Europe that would be considered too liberal in the US.

I hate the way it's all conservative/liberal in the US. It's misleading at best.

63dot

Oct 13, 2008, 07:30 PM

And yet the funny thing is that neither of your main parties would be regarded as remotely liberal anywhere else in the world.

This remains to be seen. It's already a lost cause for the GOP and they know this election is over so America is looking to see how Obama is going to come in and fix things. The GOP has the vast resources going to senate and house races as McCain only has a third of the monies that Obama has.

With the problems America has, we need some substantial change implemented soon. Socialized medicine, while not universally popular, is now a very strong possibility. Putting tax monies into the pockets of the middle class, instead of the rich, is completely a necessity. These Obama administration changes should turn out to be the most liberal ideas in many years. But it's not Obama, it's the United States that realizes the help needs to go to the people, not multi-millionaires or large corporations. We have already seen the damage in that.

Peace

Oct 13, 2008, 07:40 PM

This remains to be seen. It's already a lost cause for the GOP and they know this election is over so America is looking to see how Obama is going to come in and fix things. The GOP has the vast resources going to senate and house races as McCain only has a third of the monies that Obama has.

With the problems America has, we need some substantial change implemented soon. Socialized medicine, while not universally popular, is now a very strong possibility. Putting tax monies into the pockets of the middle class, instead of the rich, is completely a necessity. These Obama administration changes should turn out to be the most liberal ideas in many years. But it's not Obama, it's the United States that realizes the help needs to go to the people, not multi-millionaires or large corporations. We have already seen the damage in that.

Don't underestimate the power and ruthlessness of the republican party.

VOTE!!

63dot

Oct 14, 2008, 12:30 AM

Don't underestimate the power and ruthlessness of the republican party.

VOTE!!

First of all, my democrats are every bit as ruthless, don't kid yourself for one second. This is politics and these are the rules. Maybe the libertarians, american independents, peace and freedom, and greens play fair, and thus they don't get far, and unfortunately that's the way it is.

I am voting for Obama and I am sure it's a pretty happy vote on my part, but I am sad that he didn't pick Hilary as VP, and I voted for Obama in the primaries.

If Obama picked Hilary, McCain would retire by now and be playing shuffleboard on a cruise somewhere in the Caribbean. As it stands with McCain with a 1 in 20 chance in winning, he still has a very small ray of hope so he has to play it out to the end and see if he gets lucky. I am sure McCain knows he can't win with the cards that have been dealt him with a much more popular Obama and a bad choice on his own part by making Palin his running mate. McCain could have made it closer in the polls if he chose a popular republican politician like Giuliani or Romney (who would still not give the White House to the GOP in November).

No matter what I vote and I realize that in California there are big issues of human rights like prop 8, and important local races which actually affect people where I live much more directly than who is in the White House three thousand miles away.

We have this horrible governor here but there is nothing I can do about it in three weeks, but when the chance comes, I will do what I can to get rid of the guy. I like his movies, and the family he married into, but the govenator is GOP business as usual...but that's another thread, and rant.

montanachad

Oct 14, 2008, 12:36 AM

Ntombi

Oct 14, 2008, 01:30 AM

Bob Barr '08 (L)

..but I prefer Ron Paul in either the GOP or Libertarian parties.

However I would love to see who's going to pay for stuff like Universal Health Care - is that like Medicare for the masses? 25% taxes anyone?

Sure, if it leads to universal health insurance and more vacation and lower unemployment and paid parental leave and paid day care and--well, basically what most of western Europe has been doing for decades. :)

I have no problem with the "socialization" of the US, though I know I'm in the minority. I notice some die-hard capitalists weren't too proud for the government to step in over the last couple of weeks either.

My first choice was Edwards, then Hillary, then Obama, none of whom are close to perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

And Obama showed his strength and judgement in choosing Biden--a choice that has shown itself to be better and better when reflected off of the lenses of Sarah Palin's glasses.

zioxide

Oct 14, 2008, 01:38 AM

However I would love to see who's going to pay for stuff like Universal Health Care - is that like Medicare for the masses? 25% taxes anyone?

Yeah, if we had universal health care, our taxes would go up. But then you wouldn't have money taken out of your paycheck each week by your employer to pay for healthcare.

63dot

Oct 14, 2008, 08:01 PM

Bob Barr '08 (L)

..but I prefer Ron Paul in either the GOP or Libertarian parties.

However I would love to see who's going to pay for stuff like Universal Health Care - is that like Medicare for the masses? 25% taxes anyone?

With a pullout of Iraq, I think it can be done on far less than that. I pay 15% percent and am willing to go up a few percent for universal healthcare. But only time will tell. A quarter of my income would be hard to muster, for people like me. Personally, with 300K in medical bills, I would benefit from universal healthcare, but the majority of under 55 folk would not. We would need taxes well below 20% percent to make people agree to it. I wonder what percentage our military excursions in Kosovo and Baghdad have cost from our taxes?

A more isolationist approach would be better, leaving military action to special forces and most conflicts dealt with through diplomacy vs. the long deployments in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, cold-war style.

hulugu

Oct 14, 2008, 10:27 PM

Yeah, if we had universal health care, our taxes would go up. But then you wouldn't have money taken out of your paycheck each week by your employer to pay for healthcare.

Yep. Assuming ideal circumstances, a 25% income tax would actually put money back into my pocket. Health insurance eats up a couple of percentage points by itself, so I think worst-case the whole thing is a wash.

BoyBach

Oct 17, 2008, 02:09 PM

Interesting...

Powell may endorse Obama in TV interview

General Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, is preparing for a live TV interview on Sunday amid intense speculation that he is ready to endorse Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Aides from John McCain's campaign are bracing themselves for another damaging blow with one being quoted suggesting that such an announcement from Mr Powell would be "personally embarrassing" for the Republican nominee - with whom he has been friends for 25 years - and would "create momentum against us”.

Mr Powell, who himself once considered a bid to become America's first black president, worked for the last three Republican administrations and has strong credentials on national security policy.

Since quitting as Secretary of State in 2005, however, he has distanced himself from President Bush while dropping hints recently that he might back the Democratic nominee in this election.

Last month he said electing a black president would send an "electrifying" message to the world before adding that he would base his decision on which candidate "blends a right measure of experience and judgment".

In London this week, where he attended the Africa Rising festival, Mr Powell took the stage at the Royal Albert Hall to declare: "I stand before you tonight as an African American.

"Many people have said to me you became Secretary of State of the USA, is it still necessary to say that you are an African American or that you are black, and I say, 'yes' - so that we can remind our children. It took a lot of people struggling to bring me to this point in history."

...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4965036.ece

gauchogolfer

Oct 17, 2008, 02:15 PM

Interesting...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4965036.ece

I'm so keeping my fingers crossed that this comes to pass. Last nail in the coffin for McCain.

mactastic

Oct 17, 2008, 02:38 PM

Oh man, that would hurt. And probably be worth a point or two in the national polls for Obama, since Powell seems to have emerged from the Bush regime with his honor largely intact (although I can't for the life of me figure out WHY people think this).

solvs

Oct 26, 2008, 08:12 PM

Resurrecting this thread from the internets version of eternity, a couple of weeks, looks like Powell did endorse Obama, and McCain is indeed probably finished.

More nails in the coffin:

New VoteVets Ad: Veteran Claims McCain Let Him Down (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/new_votevets_ad_veteran_claims.php)
Phoenix New Times Details McCain's Rift with Veterans (http://vetvoice.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=415334F3C94DED92F24380CA83597512?diaryId=2072)
'Economists For McCain' Trash McCain's New Mortgage Plan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/economists-for-mccain-tra_n_133718.html)
John McCain's New Mortgage Plan Is Worse than I Had Imagined Possibly, Even Given What I Know About John McCain (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/john-mccains-ne.html)
Primum Non Nocere — The McCain Plan for Health Insecurity (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/16/1645)
Obama Condemns Gambling With Healthcare As McCain Proposes Laissez Faire Economic Plan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/ad-wars-obama-condemns-ga_b_135993.html)
John McCain Thinks You Are Stupid (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/18/john-mccain-thinks-you-are-stupid.aspx)
McCain losing ground with working-class whites (http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20081010/NEWS/810109976/1006&title=McCain%20losing%20ground%20with%20working-class%20whites)
Improving America's Reputation -- McCain Would Lecture, Obama Would Listen (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-zalman/improving-americas-reputa_b_134335.html)
We Need a President Who Plays Well With Others (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-atherton/we-need-a-president-who-p_b_135470.html)
Wall Street Donors Resent Being Blamed by McCain (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122393943185530625.html)
He (McCain) Just Can’t Quit W (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19rich.html?ref=opinion)
McCain draws bipartisan criticism for 'robo calls' (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=1498745)
Two Quit Call Center Jobs Over Anti-Obama Robocalls (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/woman-quits-job-at-call-c_n_136798.html)

And the most damning:

The Second Debate Revealed a Fatal Flaw in McCain's Candidacy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/the-second-debate-reveale_b_132909.html)
If an extraterrestrial beamed down to Earth at 8:59 p.m. Eastern time last night and watched the second presidential debate, I'm sure he would have thought John McCain had some good ideas.
-
And our visitor from another solar system would have to be impressed with McCain's adamant assertions of the great judgement he has shown on foreign policy issues and his ability to work with Democrats.

But without the benefit of knowing the records of the two candidates, the ET wouldn't know that the John McCain he saw at the debate bore no resemblance to how John McCain, the senator from Arizona, has behaved. And based on the polls over the last two-plus weeks, it seems like the American people know the difference, at least enough of them to put McCain's hopes for the presidency in real trouble.
And if anyone is still wondering:

John McCain’s 44 Flip-Flops (http://thinkprogress.org/mccain-flip-flops/)
Jukebox John keeps changing his tune (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops)
McCAIN SURPASSES HIS 100TH FLIP-FLOP/GAFFE/DECEPTION! (http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm)

As for "that one":

Barack Obama's Innovative War On Poverty (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/13/barack-obamas-innovative_n_134162.html)

A nice little dig at Fox:

Obama: "If I Were Watching Fox News, I Wouldn't Vote For Me" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/magazine/19obama-t.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

And a story that I'm not sure if it's true, anymore than that one about the sexist, racist, obnoxious McCain at the resort I posted earlier, but it makes a good story compared to he's a socialist terrorist:

Mary lacked money to fly home to Norway – he saved her love (http://leishacamden.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-that-it-matters.html)

It's long, but it gives me hope that Obama may actually not be an asshat, like so many others who make themselves seem to be the second coming.