PDA

View Full Version : Decision '08.


Pages : [1] 2

El Sitherino
08-31-2008, 09:41 PM
Alright, since our last thread was subverted into emotional garbage we're going to try again with a clean slate here. What I'd like to see is something based on facts and no attacks without merit.


I am personally voting for Obama as I see that our economy needs a real fix, not some facade filled with tax cuts and faulty market analysis. I also feel our social concerns in this country are not being met with adequate support and strongly believe that helping the people will reduce violence around this nation. The fact remains that the more you busy people with something constructive, the less destructive they are. I'm not naive enough to believe that all our problems will be fixed, nor do I agree with a lot of things that are done in the name of bettering our society.

But I understand there is a reason things don't happen, people don't speak out and people don't remain patient while thinking critically and intelligently.

Obama is not some be all-end all politician to me, but rather I see him as a step towards fixing the nation and restoring some balance. From there others will hopefully make way to office and continue the process.

**** the bull****, save our future.

GodsillY
08-31-2008, 09:50 PM
I'm voting for Obama because there are a lot of things that Bush has done wrong that I completely disagree with and as I understand it McCain agrees with Bush on many of these things.

Obama in my opinion has a great platform to build on, he can start fixing our economy and began pulling our troops out of Iraq as I don't see any need to be there in the first place.

I don't know much about either candidates in all honesty I usually began my real research in October, but from what I hear the best chance for the end of the war in Iraq and the beggining of a better economy lies with Obama, and honestly I don't want four more years of what we got going right now.


-SillY :)

Litofsky
08-31-2008, 10:18 PM
Both of my parents will be voting for Obama/Biden. I can't vote until the 2012 election, but I'll still throw in my two cents.

I don't greatly admire Obama. He's been a senator for four years, and has served in his state's legislature. Nothing to spectacular, but nothing to ignore, either. His ideas make sense, and I enjoy hearing a candidate speaking actual sense- not more of the "tax cuts for the wealthy" we've been hearing from Bush and McCain.

As far as I know, Obama plans on creating a slew of new jobs corresponding with 'Green Energy' (note: I don't actually believe that he will create the five million jobs he promises, but I don't believe that he will go back on that promise entirely), wants to fix our education and healthcare systems (which is a huge task, but one I believe/hope he can accomplish), and seems to be a fairly reasonable candidate.

I don't know who will win, but I'm pulling for Obama. McCain is just more of Bush's failed policies, and that's just the wrong direction for our country. We need a smart, reasonable leader that is willing to adapt to the changing world.

Obama, for the win (literally)!

Arcesious
09-01-2008, 08:14 AM
I want Obama to be president, most definitly not Mccain and that crazy Sarah Palin.

SD Nihil
09-01-2008, 11:28 AM
I hope with this topic we can have a civil conversation too. But let me make it clear that if it's just a bunch of peole that already have their minds made up and are close minded all your going to do is either create an argument, or waste each other's time. Because neither side will be convincing the other.

Now onto the topic. McCain isn't giving tax cuts to the wealthy. He's giving it to everyone. Yes I was wrong about that 150 thousand mid income thing. Last time I ask my father for what mid income level is. I've reassesed it. Mid income is between 40 and 80 thousand.

Oboma wants to tax those that are rich and give cuts only to mid and lower class families. Rather than giving tax cuts to mid and lower class let's give it to everyone. You have more money in your pocket to spend when you have more.

When you have more money people can buy more, afford more. That brings in business. The reason why guys that right now our economy is having troubles is because not because of Bush, but because of other things.

First, the value of the dollar is less due to overspending. Remember that's how we beat Russia is we spent them into oblivion. Their currency lost value.

We spend wrongly. It's not Bush who'se over spending. It's congress. Earmarking or as others call it wasteful porkbarral spending. Wasting your tax dollars on bridges to nowhere, things like a green bean museaum, etc. That's money that could be given to you.

Too much outsourcing. We hardly make anything in the U.S. anymore. Much of our items are made in China or elsewhere.

The dollar is worth more when your economy isn't overspending, and selling out like we have.

Now one of you said they don't know why we are over in Iraq. Here's why.

It started with the Gulf War. Saddam invated Kuwaitt because he thought that country belonged to him. Kuwait asked for our help. Being the world's leader in giving money, aid, etc to others, and pulling the world out of 2 world wars we defended Kuwaitt.

We pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam chose to surrender. We said okay Saddam we'll stop kicking your tail if you do the following:

A: Get out of Kuwaitt
B: Allow inspectors in from us and the U.N. so that we can make sure you produce no more weapons that can harm your neighbors for the sake of conquest.

Guys wehn America goes to war it's to defend others, stop genicide, and for our sovereignty and interests. When you country is the big dog you get to make the decisions. A lot of the world hates us because they are jelous of what we've accomplished in such a short time.

So back to what i was saying. So for a time Saddam allows our inspectors in. Later he starts stalling not letting us in here or there. Then we say okay Saddam you must let us in where we are inspecting.

We get kicked out. We warn him with sanctions. He refuses to let us in. We pass a number of sanctions, still he won't let us in, Clinton boms Saddam sending him back a couple years of production. Still no you can't come in.

Infact Saddam startis saying we bombed things like baby formula making factories. We know what we hit were military and chemical making planets.

So we pass 14 resolutions which are basically warnings. Still no you can't come in. So the only thing left to do was come in and take miliary action against Saddam. By refusing to let our inspectors in he broke our cease fire agreement.

That's why guys the Gulf war never ended there was a cease fire agreement that had those things A and B I said. Let's say for sake of the benefit of the doubt that Saddam didn't have any weapons. Well he before proved to be untrustworthy.

But if he did it's easy to hide things like missiles. Remember when Humass was firing on Israil. Those things they were figring were very mobile, but could reach another countries soil. By that alone makes them a WMD. It doesn't have to be a nuke or chemical weapon to be a WMD. It can simply be a long range missile that hits another country.

That's what we were trying to make sure Saddam didn't have. Things that could harm or effect his neighbors because we were trying to prevent another Kuwaitt.

All Saddam had to do was show us where he destroyed the weapon we can test for it, he has to provide documtation of how he destroyed the weapon, and then we =just check it off our list.

And even if you intel was inacurate doesn't change the fact Saddam broke the cease fire agreement we had. If our intel waws faulty it was Clinton's fault.

During Clinton's presidency he did a lot to tear down our intelligence agencies and our reduced the size of our military, and lessoned funding for them.

We were planning to go into Iraq anyway when Bush took office. It just wasn't the top priority until 9/11 After 9/11 any state that harbored terrorists we would go after. It doesn't mean miliarily. Maybe sometimes negociations, or sanctions. Every situation and country requires a different approach.

We went into Afganistan because they the Taliban the people in power were who attacked us. That's as good as a declaration of war. Iraq broke an agreement and we did everything to prevent the last resort. But we had to go in. We America have taken it onto ourselves to defend others and to fight oppression.

Now yes there are terrorists in Pakistan and maybe Bin Laden. But you have to again do everything you can before takng miliary action. Besides they have nuclear weapons. That even more makes us not want to go in. Plus their government isn't hostile to us. It's just the terrorists they have inside their country.

Russia the last thing we want to do is go after them with force. They are just as stron if not more than us. We can't fight them right now because we would possibily lose. That's why you got to get other nations on your sie so that Russia sees this larger force saying back off or we will take you down. You also make sanctions against them. In short you make it not int their interest to continue their conquest for their old empire.

And yes politics and relations with this country and that play a part too.

Now the other reason why our economy is not doing so well is oil. Yes there are alternatives down the road to drilling, but for right now we need to drill at home. Yes thre may be a couple alternatives to do besides oil, but your congress wants to play politics with America's energy crisis and not do anything. Plus they wish to listen to a few environmental extremeists who won't allow a single alternative to be done because of the tiniest little thing like this or that not being bio degradable.

If you are so reliant on foreign oil we are to the whim of thsoe selling us it. They know we need oil so they know we'll pay whatever. So they jack up the prices too.

If invading Iraq was all about oil then why if you are so oil mad did we not invade Saudi Arabia. We don't because we aren't all after oil. Yes we need it, but we don't attack others for it.

Heck Anwar has oil, but we don't drill there because we listen to enviromental extremeists that we can't drill there.

There are clean ways that yes cost more, but we are willing to do it to still be enviromentally minded and still harvest the oil here.

McCain's VP is an Alaskan Govoner who has executive experience which Oboma doesn't have. She's also a mayor. When you a govoner when your handed somethign on your desk you have to take care of it then. If it works or fails it's your fault either way. Senators can let their people handle stuff and don't have to respond and can be real slow if tehy want.

McCain's VP had before her announcment her approval rating was in the high 89's. Now it's in the 90's. She can speak first hand about her state and all the oil it has because she is the govoner.

Oklaholma has the lowest gas prices last I heard. And Alaska has the highest gas prices. She is all for us harvesting the oil.

Which is more important saving a few caraboo or solving the current energy crisis. Oil is America's lifeblood or lifeline. Without it we are done.

Again down the road there are going to be alternative. But for right now oil is what we need.

If we eventuall have to go into Iran which is the last thing we want, we will continue to do what we can to hinder Iran nuke making. We by taking Iraq and Afganistan have surounded Iran with Democracy. We were wanting that to influence their people to rise up against their government. It hasn't worked sadly. Could've though.

The 13 colonies stood up against England the big super power back then and didn't quit.

So again guys it isn't Bush's fault the problems with the economy it's a congress that keeps shooting down everything he tried to pass to help the economy. They did it so they can go and say see he hasn't done anything or passed anything he's not effective. See guys congress is simply playing the politics game.

Both praies Republican and Democate have let us down. I would've rather had Romni as the republican nomonie, but McCain in my opinion is certinaly better than Oboma who wants to retreat from Iraq though we handed Anbar completly over to Iraqies and that the Iraq government is talking about us starting to leave becasue we have done so well.

It's not up to Oboma to recommend leaving. That's the job of the commanders on the ground. Not people in Washington. They sit in cooshy chairs. Soldiers win wars not politions who care more about the popular decisions and getting reelected simply to be in power.

We will leave Iraq soon, but only when we feel we are done.

Now everyone I hope this topic we can have a civil discussion this time and have open minds and actually read my whole post. If you respond without reading and say something I've already commented on that shows you didn't read that's just plain ignorant. Please read. I take the time to read your posts. Please show me the same curtacy. Thank you.

Web Rider
09-01-2008, 11:44 AM
SD Nihl, please, it's "Obama" "O-B-A-M-A". You're not helping your case.

Personally, I don't support McCain because I don't support Republicans because Republicans stopped supporting small government. There have been more and more big government bills passed under Bush and I'm tired of it, it just makes people afraid of their government and feel like they have no control in their lives.

Now, that doesn't mean I like the big government of the democrats either. But if I have to choose between the big government that takes care of me when I need it and taxes me more and the big government that ensures corporate profits and institutionalizes anti-social religious policies, I'll go with the one that takes care of me and taxes me more.

I've also really not liked the way Bush has run the country for the last 8 years, and I did like McCain before he went all "party line", but after he became McSame I just can't support a reasonable person who I know desn't support what he's saying. And to be frank, if I know a candidate is lying to my face, it doesn't help them.

Corinthian
09-01-2008, 11:47 AM
What makes you think the Democrat Party has any interest in smaller government?

Web Rider
09-01-2008, 11:50 AM
What makes you think the Democrat Party has any interest in smaller government?

Go back, read my post, notice that I said: "Now, that doesn't mean I like the big government of the democrats either."

I shouldn't have to explain beyond I know the Democrats are not shooting for small government, that's why I said so in my post.

Corinthian
09-01-2008, 12:29 PM
Good to know.

Alright, I'm going to see if I can get a decent explanation. How is higher taxes a good thing for anyone, aside from the fact that it increases Government Funds and thus allows them to do more crap? If you want smaller government, wouldn't decreasing taxes be a step toward that?

El Sitherino
09-01-2008, 12:39 PM
I hope with this topic we can have a civil conversation too. But let me make it clear that if it's just a bunch of peole that already have their minds made up and are close minded all your going to do is either create an argument, or waste each other's time. Because neither side will be convincing the other.

You are not a mod, please don't act like it.

McCain isn't giving tax cuts to the wealthy. He's giving it to everyone. Yes I was wrong about that 150 thousand mid income thing. Last time I ask my father for what mid income level is. I've reassesed it. Mid income is between 40 and 80 thousand.

And do you know what these tax cuts do to America? They take away money it needs for it's continuous spending. We're creating a very sizable deficit and have no money to balance things out.

Oboma wants to tax those that are rich and give cuts only to mid and lower class families. Rather than giving tax cuts to mid and lower class let's give it to everyone. You have more money in your pocket to spend when you have more.

Obama (or likely Biden, seeing as his economic plan will likely be used in the larger scheme) recognizes that not only do we need to take in more money for the country to finance anything, but due to the effects of the Bush administration we HAVE to tax to regain stability in our economy. Not only that but we need to decrease dependency on China and other markets.

When you have more money people can buy more, afford more. That brings in business. The reason why guys that right now our economy is having troubles is because not because of Bush, but because of other things.

Okay, other things caused by Bush, the GOP, and financial nuts everywhere. You don't improve a national economy by giving away free money.

First, the value of the dollar is less due to overspending. Remember that's how we beat Russia is we spent them into oblivion. Their currency lost value.

I suggest you read an economy book. Honestly I cannot begin to explain the complexities that have caused the dollar to fall as far as it has, however I can say it's because of our weak global financial structure, not our poor ability to spend on a civilian level.

We spend wrongly. It's not Bush who'se over spending. It's congress. Earmarking or as others call it wasteful porkbarral spending. Wasting your tax dollars on bridges to nowhere, things like a green bean museaum, etc. That's money that could be given to you.

Oh really? It could be given to me?
I'm about to make a very objectionable statement however, if you're not 12 years old you have the intellectual capacity of one when it comes to understanding government and finance. Because of the actions made by the Bush administration things have gotten so out of hand that our spending is in complete rubbish. We have a poorly planned war that was declared by a president and his grunts, we have tax cuts being handed out to the wealthy with no payback, and no educational support.

Too much outsourcing. We hardly make anything in the U.S. anymore. Much of our items are made in China or elsewhere.

It's been like that for a long time pally, the fact that there's more outsourcing now is due to changes made under Republican control that took place during the Bush administration. Likely because of said administration.
Guess who gives larger slack on corporations with outsourcing? That's right, Bush does. So who's really for the American worker?

The dollar is worth more when your economy isn't overspending, and selling out like we have.

Right, and you do realize McCain won't get jobs back and convince companies to stop outsourcing, right? You also realize his entire idea is the exact opposite. It's the only way to make a little back with all the tax cuts, returns, and other unnecessary and harmful things.

Now one of you said they don't know why we are over in Iraq. Here's why.

It started with the Gulf War. Saddam invated Kuwaitt because he thought that country belonged to him. Kuwait asked for our help. Being the world's leader in giving money, aid, etc to others, and pulling the world out of 2 world wars we defended Kuwaitt.

We pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam chose to surrender. We said okay Saddam we'll stop kicking your tail if you do the following:

A: Get out of Kuwaitt
B: Allow inspectors in from us and the U.N. so that we can make sure you produce no more weapons that can harm your neighbors for the sake of conquest.

Guys wehn America goes to war it's to defend others, stop genicide, and for our sovereignty and interests. When you country is the big dog you get to make the decisions. A lot of the world hates us because they are jelous of what we've accomplished in such a short time.

So back to what i was saying. So for a time Saddam allows our inspectors in. Later he starts stalling not letting us in here or there. Then we say okay Saddam you must let us in where we are inspecting.

We get kicked out. We warn him with sanctions. He refuses to let us in. We pass a number of sanctions, still he won't let us in, Clinton boms Saddam sending him back a couple years of production. Still no you can't come in.

Infact Saddam startis saying we bombed things like baby formula making factories. We know what we hit were military and chemical making planets.

So we pass 14 resolutions which are basically warnings. Still no you can't come in. So the only thing left to do was come in and take miliary action against Saddam. By refusing to let our inspectors in he broke our cease fire agreement.

That's why guys the Gulf war never ended there was a cease fire agreement that had those things A and B I said. Let's say for sake of the benefit of the doubt that Saddam didn't have any weapons. Well he before proved to be untrustworthy.

Uhm, disregarding all the false claims, we didn't invade Iraq for any of that ****. We said they had weapons of mass destruction, including but not limited to chemical and nuclear capability.


But if he did it's easy to hide things like missiles. Remember when Humass was firing on Israil. Those things they were figring were very mobile, but could reach another countries soil. By that alone makes them a WMD. It doesn't have to be a nuke or chemical weapon to be a WMD. It can simply be a long range missile that hits another country.

First off, no it isn't. ****'s easy to find for quite a bit below the surface of the desert. Secondly, it's HAMAS, and I'm fairly certain an RPG cannot make it's way from my house in Texas to California. A ****ing nuclear missile can, however it's several dozen tons of metal and gives off a lot of heat signature and all this other cool **** that makes it 30x more "OMGWTF" than an RPG.

Also, yes it does have to be chemical or "nuke" to be a WMD. Because generally these words are reserved only for weapons of war which have the explicit design of mass destruction. As in larger than a vehicle or building assualt, they destroy cities and large areas.
Blast radius is the definer for weapons, whether they are WMD or just a BSU.
Also, the only **** that can go from country to country is a long range missile, generally land-to-land or air-to-land. Just because you can fire an RPG from established country lines into another doesn't make it a country-to-country attacker. It just means you're a smartass with an RPG.

That's what we were trying to make sure Saddam didn't have. Things that could harm or effect his neighbors because we were trying to prevent another Kuwaitt.

No, we said Saddam had them and he wasn't giving them up.

All Saddam had to do was show us where he destroyed the weapon we can test for it, he has to provide documtation of how he destroyed the weapon, and then we =just check it off our list.

How do you show the remains of something that didn't exist?

And even if you intel was inacurate doesn't change the fact Saddam broke the cease fire agreement we had. If our intel waws faulty it was Clinton's fault.

How? A, it was British intelligence accordingly. B, it was intelligence gathered and prepared by Bush administration.
In any office or workplace around the world, they would agree.

During Clinton's presidency he did a lot to tear down our intelligence agencies and our reduced the size of our military, and lessoned funding for them.

Right, he limited spending and decreased their budget. But guess what happened. Our intelligence improved, the combat effectiveness of our troops increased, and our military was the strongest it had been in 30 years cooperatively.
Then came George W. Bush with his ignorance of military advisors.

We were planning to go into Iraq anyway when Bush took office. It just wasn't the top priority until 9/11 After 9/11 any state that harbored terrorists we would go after. It doesn't mean miliarily. Maybe sometimes negociations, or sanctions. Every situation and country requires a different approach.
No we weren't and 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. If anything Saddam would be on our side of the issue, except we were douchebags and the enemy of your enemy can likely make them an ally if you also because their enemy. Which is exactly what happened, fancy that.

We went into Afganistan because they the Taliban the people in power were who attacked us. That's as good as a declaration of war. Iraq broke an agreement and we did everything to prevent the last resort. But we had to go in. We America have taken it onto ourselves to defend others and to fight oppression.

No offense, but you're joking right? I mean Afghanistan was a legitimate war. Iraq is a lie and a debacle created under false notions. The freeing oppressed peoples thing came way the hell after the invasion and our military was given no ability to actually help people. If you can't stand speaking with people that actually spent time in Iraq during the beginning stages you could also watch this mini-series called Generation Kill, it's about the Marine's that were a part of a recon group during the invasion. It shows the scope of what had taken place pretty well.

Now yes there are terrorists in Pakistan and maybe Bin Laden. But you have to again do everything you can before takng miliary action. Besides they have nuclear weapons. That even more makes us not want to go in. Plus their government isn't hostile to us. It's just the terrorists they have inside their country.

Are you ****ting me? You want to support negotiations with someone that has shown time and time again for nearly two decades that they want to see our country and countrymen dead?
**** that, we're at war and he is the enemy, to say that Osama bin Laden should be negotiated with is the complete opposite of the candidate you're attempting to even support.

You should probably re-evaluate your ideals and morals, sir. As well it may be best for you to think about what it is you are even arguing against, or rather who.

Russia the last thing we want to do is go after them with force. They are just as stron if not more than us. We can't fight them right now because we would possibily lose. That's why you got to get other nations on your sie so that Russia sees this larger force saying back off or we will take you down. You also make sanctions against them. In short you make it not int their interest to continue their conquest for their old empire.

Granted the Russian military is strong, but uh... have you ever seen what a missile from a naval ship can do? Do you know that we also have land assault that would devistate Russian military establishment?
Not to mention I think the Brits will also have something to stake with the Russians.


And yes politics and relations with this country and that play a part too.

I'm glad you can recognize that sometimes.

Now the other reason why our economy is not doing so well is oil. Yes there are alternatives down the road to drilling, but for right now we need to drill at home.

We already can. The oil companies want more and Bush + McCain want to give it to them.
Also, no we don't need to continue drilling. We can use the rest of our reserve and convert to alternative fuel sources. Then sell any that may be drilled or leftover for profit (or rather to pay off national debt)

Yes thre may be a couple alternatives to do besides oil, but your congress wants to play politics with America's energy crisis and not do anything.

Wrong, politicians want to "play politics" (isn't that what politicians do?) with America's energy crisis and insult each other instead of making actual change. And those that attempt to make actual progress are stamped out as whacko liberal nuts.

Plus they wish to listen to a few environmental extremeists who won't allow a single alternative to be done because of the tiniest little thing like this or that not being bio degradable.

I have no idea what you're talking about so I'm going to ask for an article or something, because "this or that" doesn't tell me a lot.

If you are so reliant on foreign oil we are to the whim of thsoe selling us it. They know we need oil so they know we'll pay whatever. So they jack up the prices too.

And who keeps wanting to buy from them? Who kept wanting to use oil instead of looking at alternative? This happened back in the 70's. A lot of conservatives claim Carter was a bad president, but he at least recognized that we can't continue to deal business with people that want to see us burn. But no, we need oil, we can convert to pussy enviromentalist hippie bull**** about electric cars and some automobile powered by water that can travel at least 50 mph.
Not that impressive, but considering it was the 70's, by now we could have gotten it to 120.

If invading Iraq was all about oil then why if you are so oil mad did we not invade Saudi Arabia. We don't because we aren't all after oil. Yes we need it, but we don't attack others for it.

Uh, because we can't. Do you know why?
All the middle east would **** us up, and the rest of the world would happily watch it happen.
Learn to geo-politic.

Heck Anwar has oil, but we don't drill there because we listen to enviromental extremeists that we can't drill there.

Wah. Have the oil companies use the land they already have contracted (that has yet to be tapped) before demanding more land. Especially land with many endangered animals and vegetation.
Better yet, spend that money into something worthwhile instead of **** that'll help for maybe a year. We'd save money investing in new technology.

There are clean ways that yes cost more, but we are willing to do it to still be enviromentally minded and still harvest the oil here.
And yet you're not willing to spend just a little more than baseline on something that is completely independent of oil operation. Funny that.

McCain's VP is an Alaskan Govoner who has executive experience which Oboma doesn't have. She's also a mayor. When you a govoner when your handed somethign on your desk you have to take care of it then. If it works or fails it's your fault either way. Senators can let their people handle stuff and don't have to respond and can be real slow if tehy want.

I'm sure you know all about being a Governor.
Also, she has only been Governor of Alaska for a year and a half. Before that she was a mayor for a tiny rural Alaskan town.

Let's put this into perspective. Essentially her executive experience amounts to her being the President of the PTA Alaska.

Also, if you want to claim her Gubernatorial experience trumps Obama's, then you are also stating her experience trumps McCain's. Therefore he's incompetent to take Presidential office.


McCain's VP had before her announcment her approval rating was in the high 89's. Now it's in the 90's. She can speak first hand about her state and all the oil it has because she is the govoner.

Understandable, it's pretty easy to have a high approval rating when there's not much you actually need to do and your population is as small as her's is.
I won't deny that she's done a lot to help Alaska, but she did it by taxing the big oil companies and doing stuff you McCain supporters are attacking Obama for.

Oklaholma has the lowest gas prices last I heard. And Alaska has the highest gas prices. She is all for us harvesting the oil.

Do you know how any of this even works?

Which is more important saving a few caraboo or solving the current energy crisis.

If people are smart we can do both.
Also it's Caribou, kthx.

Oil is America's lifeblood or lifeline. Without it we are done.

I agree, DuPont should have never had hempseed oil banned in the 30's under the marijuana laws.
Oh, you mean fossil fuel. Uh, no it's not. We've changed energy sources so many times I can't even count it on two hands.

Again down the road there are going to be alternative. But for right now oil is what we need.

No it's not, hell we don't need ****, we can do pretty good with just bicycles and walking.

If we eventuall have to go into Iran which is the last thing we want, we will continue to do what we can to hinder Iran nuke making. We by taking Iraq and Afganistan have surounded Iran with Democracy. We were wanting that to influence their people to rise up against their government. It hasn't worked sadly. Could've though.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I hope you learn that quickly.

The 13 colonies stood up against England the big super power back then and didn't quit.

Yeah, and uh technically the terrorists fighting in Iraq right now would be the American's.

So again guys it isn't Bush's fault the problems with the economy it's a congress that keeps shooting down everything he tried to pass to help the economy. They did it so they can go and say see he hasn't done anything or passed anything he's not effective. See guys congress is simply playing the politics game.

Do they also put adhesive on his toilet seat so when he goes to take a dump he gets stuck and they start laughing from the next stall, then later at the water cooler they all talk about "Man, remember when he was all like 'what the ****? Who glued me to the toilet lol!?', oh man that was priceless"?

Both praies Republican and Democate have let us down. I would've rather had Romni as the republican nomonie, but McCain in my opinion is certinaly better than Oboma who wants to retreat from Iraq though we handed Anbar completly over to Iraqies and that the Iraq government is talking about us starting to leave becasue we have done so well.

Obama has never stated he wants to retreat from Iraq. In fact both candidates have stated they have plans for the lessening of troops in Iraq, pulling them out of combat. The fact that Obama understands we need to begin pulling out shows that he understands the general idea of establish general order in a region. These people need to govern themselves otherwise we'll be stuck with a worse backlash than the Korean war.

I fear to imagine the DMZ that would and likely will be permanently established in Iraq.

It's not up to Oboma to recommend leaving. That's the job of the commanders on the ground. Not people in Washington. They sit in cooshy chairs. Soldiers win wars not politions who care more about the popular decisions and getting reelected simply to be in power.

And they have stated we need to start withdrawing troops, establishing local forces.

We will leave Iraq soon, but only when we feel we are done.
That's exactly what Obama said.

Who do you really support? Was this all a joke?:lol:

Now everyone I hope this topic we can have a civil discussion this time and have open minds and actually read my whole post. If you respond without reading and say something I've already commented on that shows you didn't read that's just plain ignorant. Please read. I take the time to read your posts. Please show me the same curtacy. Thank you.

I take the time to at least attempt proper form and spelling, please show me the same courtesy. As well, I attempt to pay attention and learn to the situations around me and understand the various perspectives on any given subject, to not do so is just plain ignorant.

And this concludes my post rebuking yours.

Please take consideration that I mean my affronts to you in the most sincere and considerate of fashions, I'm simply an outgoing personality. But also, try to leave the hippie-dippie moderator **** to me and the rest of the staff.

El Sitherino
09-01-2008, 12:41 PM
Good to know.

Alright, I'm going to see if I can get a decent explanation. How is higher taxes a good thing for anyone, aside from the fact that it increases Government Funds and thus allows them to do more crap?

Like pay for the things they need to pay for?

If you want smaller government, wouldn't decreasing taxes be a step toward that?

Why has government increased during a time with decreased taxes? I don't particularly desire a large or small government, I desire one that does the job it's meant to do, protect the citizens and make the nation strong.

Neither of which has been done under this administration, and I have no reason to believe it will be done under McCain's watch. We may disagree on this, however that's our prerogative.

Web Rider
09-01-2008, 12:41 PM
Good to know.

Alright, I'm going to see if I can get a decent explanation. How is higher taxes a good thing for anyone, aside from the fact that it increases Government Funds and thus allows them to do more crap? If you want smaller government, wouldn't decreasing taxes be a step toward that?

Yes, but it would not be the first one. The first step is to reduce spending and pay off debts. Once the budget is balanced, has a surplus, or is very very close to balanced, then taxes can be reduced. Reduce waste in military spending, end no-bid contracts, if Boeing of Lockheed really want to build our warplanes, they'll do it for what we want to pay them, not for what they're willing to charge. Reduce healthcare plans for congressmen, a 2 year stint in the Senate does not mean you should get a paycheck and healthcare till the day you die, even if you're not a congressman.

A lot of small government can't be achieved because one of the things that needs to be done is to go through all the laws on the books(a nearly impossible task), and reduce them. Eliminate old ones that aren't used anymore(like no horses at the bar on tuesdays), eliminate or combine redundant laws. Remove invasive laws like the Patriot Act, remove laws that give the president powers to say "you're a terrorist, off to gitmo!"

Stop giving tax cuts, they're only hurting our ability to pay for things. There's a LOT that can be done to reduce big government and cut wasteful spending and tax cuts shouldn't be given until the government is making more money than it's spending.

Nedak
09-01-2008, 12:49 PM
Oh I forgot to mention I have put Web Rider and Han Han Sala on my ignore list. They called Corinthian's religion in the last thread bull. They caled me a jerk, said he hated me. I could go on, but I won't.


...What?

This is how I responded to you..


"This is what I just gathered.

You want McCain because you want tax cuts?

Is that what life is these days? Is it just based on money? What about the soldiers in Iraq who want to come home? A lot of them don't even think we should be there. How about the fact McCain wants to stay in Iraq, kill more Americans for an unjust war, and maybe even war Iran. Doesn't that sound dandy!?

But I'm sure money is worth more then all of those people's lives.

Or how about other countries starting to hate us because of our "bully" status? I bet they're just delusional as well.

In the long run, all the money we will be spending on war.. His tax cuts won't help.

EDIT: P.S There is no winning or losing when we don't even know why we're there in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=120ZAtBMXj4"

I never insulted you at all in that entire paragraph.


EDIT:Corinthian your on my contacts and Friends list because you have remined respectful and continue to act civil. I consider you an individual who reads and thinks before he speaks. Thank you for that.

Actually he-

screw it..:firehead

Astor
09-01-2008, 12:51 PM
Sorry if this will derail the discussion, but I have to reply to this:

Guys wehn America goes to war it's to defend others, stop genicide, and for our sovereignty and interests. When you country is the big dog you get to make the decisions. A lot of the world hates us because they are jelous of what we've accomplished in such a short time.

Just who was America defending when it went to Iraq?

No, you don't get to make the decisions just because your country is the big dog. Bush (and America, by extension) rode roughshod over everything by going into Iraq.

And the world doesn't hate America because of what they've achieved. They hate America because it disregards the sovereignty of other countries, and thinks it can bully the rest of the world into seeing things their way.

Being the 'big dog' doesn't mean you can hog the water bowl at the expense of the jack russels. eventually, they'll gang up and bite you in the behind.

Web Rider
09-01-2008, 03:02 PM
I wonder if people felt as good as I do now when Emperor Palpatine was killed?

Also: in the news, Sarah Palin's daughter is 5 months pregnant. I think this pretty much seals the deal on that Sarah Palin's "5th child" was actually her daughter's. Apparently her 17-year-old daughter is going to marry the baby's father. Because, you know, marrying the man who knocks you up is always a good idea.

So do any of you think this will reflect on McCain and if so how do you think it will go? Do you think any of the religious right will back away from McCain and Palin over this?

Litofsky
09-01-2008, 03:03 PM
Not going to bother. My last post got deleted. None of you read word for word. I'm done reapeating. I expected this to be a civil respectufl political discussion forum.
For the most part, it is. You just seemed determined on having a bad time.

Instead I get a mod who curses and says I have the economice knowlege of a 12 year old. Sala and Rider who bash the other c guys religion in the last thread. So forget it.
[/opinion]. Is it even remotely possible/likely that you're misinterpreting what they're saying?

You can believe that Bush is a evil baby killing monster who gies tax cuts to the 1 percent richest and have socialism.
Quite so! I can believe whatever I want.

Again if people in a political discussion are close minded and choose not to read, listen, or consider the other side all you've done is made people go through a screaming match and argument.
I present the idea that you are, in fact, close minded, and refer to anyone with dissimilar views as close-minded.

I watneedd an open minded discussion like so this is what I believe and this is what you believe. Oh that's why you believ e this. Oh that's why you believe that ok. So you think that way that's fine I respect your view. That's what I was expecting according to Johnathan.
And it's still possible. I suggest that, if you were acting a tiny bit nicer in your debates, people would be a tiny bit nicer to you.


Bye you wil no loner waste any more of my time.
Terribly sorry that (we) wasted your time. See ya. :waive1:

El Sitherino
09-01-2008, 03:10 PM
Also: in the news, Sarah Palin's daughter is 5 months pregnant. I think this pretty much seals the deal on that Sarah Palin's "5th child" was actually her daughter's. Apparently her 17-year-old daughter is going to marry the baby's father. Because, you know, marrying the man who knocks you up is always a good idea.

So do any of you think this will reflect on McCain and if so how do you think it will go? Do you think any of the religious right will back away from McCain and Palin over this?

I'm not sure exactly what effect it will have on the McCain campaign. People with their minds made up will find excuse to look past anything, such as her use of marijuana. Yet at the same time many of them criticized Obama and Clinton for smoking pot decades ago.

Personally, I don't think Palin is a bad person, under the right conditions, but Vice President I don't think she should be. I also am critical of John McCain on a personal and political level. I honestly cannot trust a man that has gone so backwards on his own principles for an election.

Obama may "flip-flop", but from most records it seems to be in line with the whims of his consituents. Last time I checked, that's what our representation is supposed to do, hence representatives.

Nedak
09-01-2008, 03:13 PM
So do any of you think this will reflect on McCain and if so how do you think it will go? Do you think any of the religious right will back away from McCain and Palin over this?

Of course it will.

It's probably going to irritate Christian voters more then anything.

EDIT:
I'm not sure exactly what effect it will have on the McCain campaign. People with their minds made up will find excuse to look past anything, such as her use of marijuana. Yet at the same time many of them criticized Obama and Clinton for smoking pot decades ago.
That's true. As long as fear of being attacked by terrorists still exists, McCain supporters won't stop voting for McCain.

Litofsky
09-01-2008, 03:16 PM
I don't think it's going to alienate more people than McCain already has. Personally, I think Palin was a terrible choice. In my eyes, it was an attempt to siphon off of angry Hillary voters. That's a terrible mistake.

But, as to your question, will it alienate anyone? Probably not. Maybe the people that were on the fence, but not the die-hard conservatives.

Web Rider
09-01-2008, 03:21 PM
Well, lets play hypothetical for a moment, what kind of consequences would there be for McCain's candidacy if he were to drop Palin and pick a new VP? I mean, it speaks pretty loudly of a candidate when they can't even pick their VP right.

I'm not intimately familiar with presidential candidates of the past, but have any dropped their VP(before election) and picked a new one?

Litofsky
09-01-2008, 03:27 PM
I think there would be dire consequences, indeed. If McCain dropped Palin, I believe that it would alienate conservative women- not all of them, but the ones that were considering voting for McCain, instead of Obama.

As for any candidate dropping their VP pick, I don't believe that anyone has ever done so before. But I haven't researched it: I might be wrong.

Corinthian
09-01-2008, 04:06 PM
Why would he drop Palin? Also, what evidence do you have that her fifth child isn't really hers, aside from that Michael Moore says so?

Web Rider
09-01-2008, 04:16 PM
Why would he drop Palin?
Over the issues we're talking about in the above posts. Did you not read them?

Also, what evidence do you have that her fifth child isn't really hers, aside from that Michael Moore says so?
You know, I'm tired of this, you could have said "could you provide a source for that?" or "do you have a link to support that claim?" But no, you decided to be a jerk instead. I'm done with you, I'm just reporting your post.

But yes, I do have a source.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223
I doubted it too until I read it. The biggest thing is that she claims to be 7 months along and yet her abdomen is still flat as a board. That is pretty much impossible. Most women start showing at 3 to 4 months, noticably so at 5 and 6. Beyond that it's pretty hard not to notice the woman is with child.

El Sitherino
09-01-2008, 04:18 PM
Michael Moore says so?

I personally dislike Michael Moore so I have no idea what you're speaking of.

I do however know that a woman at 44 could not be 7 months pregnant and be in the condition she was during said pregnancy. Nor would she have been admitted on the airplane when she was if she was in such a condition as had been reported.

There's just too much that doesn't add up to give any credibility to the surprise pregnancy.

Corinthian
09-01-2008, 04:44 PM
You're reporting my post because I didn't say "Source?" Because I gave a specific example? Get a grip, Rider. Yeah, I'm the jerk. You're the one who, instead of actually focusing on an actual issue, is questioning the validity of someone's pregnancy.

So, basically, your only credible evidence is she doesn't start showing until late? That seems very circumstantial. Not everyone develops at the same rate.

Astor
09-01-2008, 04:57 PM
Quite the fixation on a matter that's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, isn't it?

Sorry, got confused by the conflicting discussions about who's baby was who's. :lol:

Web Rider
09-01-2008, 05:01 PM
You're reporting my post because I didn't say "Source?" Because I gave a specific example?
You didn't give a "specific source" and you know it. You created a red herring to distract from the issue and discredit my argument by claiming that I was getting my information from a well known political con-man. Only a few nuts accept Moore as a credible source. So you are either insulting me by calling me a nut, or you are attempting to discredit the issue by claiming it came from a crazy source.

Get a grip, Rider. Yeah, I'm the jerk. You're the one who, instead of actually focusing on an actual issue, is questioning the validity of someone's pregnancy.
The "issue" is that this woman is, instead of admitting that her daughter was going to be a teen mom, decided to claim that instead she was pregnant. Now, I don't know about you, but somebody who would go that far to hide what's going on in her family is pretty crazy. Even Cheney admitted his daughter was a lesbian.

So, basically, your only credible evidence is she doesn't start showing until late? That seems very circumstantial. Not everyone develops at the same rate.

Actually no. Pregnancies are pretty standard. Most women are showing, if only slightly, in their 3rd, 4th, and in some extremes, 5th month. By the 7th mother, development of the fetus has accelerated and a woman can't get away with clothes being "a little tight". By the 7th month there's not a woman alive(save Sarah Palin) who's been pregnant that would tell you they weren't showing at all.

Another interesting factor is that her water had supposedly broken and she chose to take an 8 hour flight home instead of deliver where she was. That's unheard of.

Corinthian
09-01-2008, 05:13 PM
My mistake. I was under the impression Michael Moore was the original source for this allegation. If you have such distaste for the man, then I apologize for that error.

Exactly! It doesn't make any sense that she would lie. Sure, things are a little bit peculiar, I'll admit, but it seems much more logical to assume that this is an anomaly than that it's actually her daughter's.

I doubt that it's unheard of. I REALLY doubt it's actually unheard of. Rare and unlikely, yes, but she's Alaskan. They have crazy blood.

(For those of you who left your sense of humor in bed, I'm joking about the last part.)

El Sitherino
09-01-2008, 05:35 PM
Well it's not the first time a family has tried to pass of a child's kid as their own.

However it is indeed correct that her daughters pregnancy has little to do with the campaign aside from the social values the Republican party is advising.

Corinthian
09-01-2008, 05:44 PM
Assuming her daughter actually is pregnant, which is hardly proven.

Litofsky
09-01-2008, 05:44 PM
Assuming her daughter actually is pregnant, which is hardly proven.

The same argument can be made against Governor Palin, too.

Web Rider
09-01-2008, 05:50 PM
Assuming her daughter actually is pregnant, which is hardly proven.

Considering it was Palin's own campaign that announced it, I'd think it would be fairly reliable. Of course, maybe her daughter isn't and this is just one sick mother.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-my-daughter-is-preg_n_122947.html

I dunno the particulars of this source over another, but I'm sure there's a more fitting source considering it's an announcement from the horses mouth, so to speak.

El Sitherino
09-01-2008, 06:08 PM
Assuming her daughter actually is pregnant, which is hardly proven.

It is (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html).

Also,
Palin said when running for governor in 2006 that she would support funding for abstinence-only education in schools, according to Eagle Forum Alaska, a conservative group that sent a questionnaire asking gubernatorial candidates their views on a range of issues.
Because that's shown to be effective. LOL

Luckily this girl has money at her disposal.

Litofsky
09-01-2008, 07:01 PM
It is (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html).

Wow. Does this make Palin a hypocrite, or just stupid?

...or is this just her daughter's fault for getting pregnant?

Web Rider
09-01-2008, 07:17 PM
It's going to be interesting to see the Republican party either talk about this or try to brush it under. Obviously it's a slap in the face of abstinence only programs if the daughter of one of it's leading advocates is now a pregnant and unwed(though soon to be) mother-to-be. They can't exactly condemn Sarah, as that would undermine themselves, and condemning the daughter of a person you can't condemn isn't exactly an effective strategy either.

Considering who McCain could have chosen for a VP, and considering that from other reports I've read he knew about this before officially announcing the nomination, I think it's showing poor decision making on his part. Or, considering that McCain seems to only be toting party line and not things he used to actually believe in, it shows poor decision making on behalf of his party.

I mean, lets face it, there was discussion about Sarah Palin as a possibility, but it was mostly relegated to "well there's talk of him choosing some lady from Alaska". In more recent discussions(before the pick) I don't think there was any serious talk about Palin being picked. Or maybe I just didn't see it.

Jae Onasi
09-02-2008, 12:00 AM
...or is this just her daughter's fault for getting pregnant?

Well, I sure hope Sarah Palin wasn't involved in getting her daughter pregnant.

El Sitherino
09-02-2008, 12:11 AM
Well, I sure hope Sarah Palin wasn't involved in getting her daughter pregnant.

Unless...

Probably not, but it would be craaaaazy. :lol:

Jae Onasi
09-02-2008, 12:25 AM
Hey, look, the kid made a mistake. Lots of kids do, in a variety of different areas. All it proves is that Palin's family is human just like everyone else.

Astor
09-02-2008, 06:51 AM
All it proves is that Palin's family is human just like everyone else.

Oh yes, god forbid anybody should be, y'know, human. :xp:

I think it's nice that both the Republicans and Democrats have come out in support of Palin family's privacy in this matter. It's nothing to do with anyone else but them, after all.

Her daughter's pregnancy should have absolutely no bearing on the election - anyone who lets that decide their vote clearly has issues.

Ferc Kast
09-02-2008, 01:22 PM
Oh yes, god forbid anybody should be, y'know, human. :xp:
I agree entirely.

I think it's nice that both the Republicans and Democrats have come out in support of Palin family's privacy in this matter. It's nothing to do with anyone else but them, after all.
Uhh.... I would have to disagree, having known a friend who made that same unfortunate decision during my sophomore year of high school.

Her daughter's pregnancy should have absolutely no bearing on the election - anyone who lets that decide their vote clearly has issues.
The way I see it, anyone who doesn't let that decide their vote clearly has issues. "I am not a crook." Ring any bells? I, personally, want to know that our president & his/her family has good moral values. Having a kid before marriage is definitely not a good moral value. Or it wasn't the last time I checked, anyways. :sithk:

But, that's just my two cents. :)

Astor
09-02-2008, 01:31 PM
I agree entirely.

Good to know. :)

Uhh.... I would have to disagree, having known a friend who made that same unfortunate decision during my sophomore year of high school.

I'm not sure I understand. I was saying that it was good to respect the privacy of the people involved, and that's it's better to leave it to them, not drag it out in the open like it has been.

The way I see it, anyone who doesn't let that decide their vote clearly has issues. "I am not a crook." Ring any bells? I, personally, want to know that our president & his/her family has good moral values.

Bristol Palin isn't up for election though. None of Mrs. Palin's family are. Everybody makes mistakes, and this is tiny compared to the Nixon fiasco you quoted.

EDIT: Also, yes, it is good for a family to good moral values. But it should be up to a 17 year old girl to make her own choices about these things. The couple are also over the age of consent, so it's not like they've done anything illegal, which is how some people are acting.

And does anyone think maybe it was unplanned? They can't exactly have an abortion considering her mother's (and the party) views on the subject.

Having a kid before marriage is definitely not a good moral value. Or it wasn't the last time I checked, anyways. :sithk:


Maybe it isn't, but I don't think it's right to criticise someone because they've made a mistake. Bristol Palin having a baby shouldn't be the issue.

And besides, they've stated they'll be married before the baby arrives. At least they're doing the honourable thing.

Achilles
09-02-2008, 02:17 PM
While I do agree that discussion specifically related to Bristol should be off-limits, I do think we should question what kind of light this shines on Sarah's abstinence-only position. I think we can have that conversation without slinging any stones at a young mother who didn't ask for any of this attention.

Astor
09-02-2008, 02:27 PM
While I do agree that discussion specifically related to Bristol should be off-limits

Good to hear it! :)

I do think we should question what kind of light this shines on Sarah's abstinence-only position.

I don't think it should affect her position too badly. After all, i'm sure that only the most ardent believers could say that they didn't fool around as teenagers.

But, you could then ask all kinds of questions such as whether contraceptives were used, which I don't think would really add to the matter.

I think the average voter would probably just accept it as a mistake, a mistake that could happen to anyone who is maybe a little too influenced by their feelings.

Achilles
09-02-2008, 03:01 PM
I think this misses the point. Sarah is running on her conservative record, which includes staunch support for abstinence-only. If abstinence-only doesn't work in her home, then it greatly weakens her ability to preach to others without appearing a hypocrite. Kinda like when Ted Haggard used to preach about the sins of homosexuality before it was revealed that he himself is a homosexual, etc.

Arcesious
09-02-2008, 05:27 PM
As much as I dislike the republican choices for this election, I do not beleive it to be Sarah Palin's fault. Her daughter is 17. 17! She is quite close to the age when your gain much more responsibility. She is a soon-to-be adult. I'm sure her mother raised her quite well. It is the daughter's responsibility in this case, not Sarah's. Sure, Sarah should advise her daughter about it, but because she, a soon-to-be adult, made a bad decision does not make it the parents' fault.

now, as for this whole thing... I thing we should start leaving it alone, ASAP, and just focus on the real topic of this thread.

Achilles
09-02-2008, 05:34 PM
It's not about responsibility or non-responsibility. It's about how well the policies you support work. If the policies that she supports publicly do not work privately (in her own home), then I think that calls into question her judgment.

Astor
09-02-2008, 05:34 PM
now, as for this whole thing... I thing we should start leaving it alone, ASAP, and just focus on the real topic of this thread.

Well, being an outsider to American politics, I was compelled to research Palin's policies. I was a bit surprised when I found she used to support Alaskan Independence, but that's old news, probably.

As to her policies, I realise that they are most likely the Republican Party's core values, otherwise she wouldn't be a candidate, but I do disagree with a few of them (especially some statements she made regarding them).

So based on that, if I were American, I doubt i'd vote for any ticket with her on.

That said, I feel myself drawn to John McCain more easily than Obama... maybe it's the 'grandfather' feel he has to him?

Inyri
09-02-2008, 05:36 PM
Well, being an outsider to American politics, I was compelled to research Palin's policies. I was a bit surprised when I found she used to support Alaskan Independence, but that's old news, probably.:rofl:

If she's only 44, it couldn't be that old of news. So that means in the last 20 years or so she's been anti-America and pro let's have our own state! Anyway, do you have a source for that? I'd like to see it if it's true.

Achilles
09-02-2008, 05:38 PM
If she's only 44, it couldn't be that old of news. So that means in the last 20 years or so she's been anti-America and pro let's have our own state! Anyway, do you have a source for that? I'd like to see it if it's true. More here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/todd_palin_was_registered_memb.php).

El Sitherino
09-02-2008, 05:39 PM
I think this misses the point. Sarah is running on her conservative record, which includes staunch support for abstinence-only. If abstinence-only doesn't work in her home, then it greatly weakens her ability to preach to others


This is the point of the motherhood thing. It has nothing to do with personal decisions.

This is politics and if your policy is shown to prove ineffective in your own home, then it's reasonable to conclude that it will not work effectively in a larger scope.

That is all.

Astor
09-02-2008, 05:44 PM
Anyway, do you have a source for that?

More here.

Thanks Achilles, I really should have remembered to include a source, but we can't all be like you. :xp:

Achilles
09-02-2008, 05:58 PM
This is the point of the motherhood thing. It has nothing to do with personal decisions. Not sure what this is supposed to say within the context of what you quoted.

This is politics and if your policy is shown to prove ineffective in your own home, then it's reasonable to conclude that it will not work effectively in a larger scope. Yep. Glad to hear we agree.

HeyWire
09-02-2008, 06:48 PM
I think I'll chime in on this discussion. I will be voting for McCain in this upcoming election, here's why.

My main issues are climate change, energy, the economy, healthcare, and the future of space exploration and research.

Regarding these issues, I think that McCain has an edge over Obama.

Climate Change: Both candidates essentially propose the same policies. Regulatory policies that mandate lower emissions and cap-and-trade. Honestly, the best and only policies that will work in a capitalistic economy

Energy and alternatives: Both candidates back increased renewable and bio fuels. However, McCain doesn't support subsidies for such fuels. McCain does support subsidies for nuclear energy, which I am a big supporter for. Nuclear power has gotten an undeserved bad reputation. The newest nuclear reactor in the country is thirty years old. Obama supports research on safe and secure nuclear power... but this technology is already here. Newer reactors are built to burn their fuel twice and produce less waste. Such a power source has the ability to burn the estimated 200 years of uranium reserves on the planet at present consumption. The time will allow development of other alternatives while lessening carbon pollution.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/bourd.htm

The economy: This is perhaps the most complex issue. The economy has its invisible hand in everything this election is all about. Energy consumption, foreign wars, healthcare, etc. There is no quick fix, there is no "plan" that will fix it. We have a national debt, low taxes, and completely retarded spending structure. However, increases in taxes due to a government funded national healthcare structure would not help. Not only would it invariable disrupt or destroy the healthcare industry, it would cause taxes to increase without alleviating any debt.
The economy of gas prices is tied to the world market where increased demand in China and India leads to increases in the price of oil period. It will not decrease without supply being made available. There is no way around it. Alternative fuels are one answer. Ethanol is already putting a dent in prices domestically, electric cars are another answer. But unless we can plug out hybrids into an outlet not powered by oil or coal, we're just polluting and using oil at the source not the destination. Another thing nuclear power will help with. In this area, I just think that a Republican will be better able to function.

Healthcare: This goes to the economics issue as well. Any nationally tax funded healthcare system will hurt the economy. There is zero doubt of this. More taxes is less GDP. McCain proposes tax credits that will offset the cost of any insurance for those who can afford it, and subsidy safety nets for those low income people who can't.

Space: I love space, this is purely a subjective issue, though not without its benefits. I don't believe that as a species we should abandon the progress that we have made exploring the natural world, including space. Any cuts or eliminations for NASA will undermine this. McCain seems to me to have always been a supporter of NASA.

Other issues: Abstinence only is a ridiculous religion based policy. However, this is America, and if I choose to tell any of my kids that they should use condoms when they choose to act how they are biologically compelled I will do so. Its up to the parents, and always has been. This is not a governmental issue.
Gay marriage: I'm not gay, but if other people choose to be or are, thats completely their business and not up to the state to tell people that they can't enter into these kinds of legal and social contracts.

Any and all baby mama drama has no bearing on my choice. The VP has no constitutionally allowed power, so it doesn't really matter who fills the chair. :edit: Besides, its not any of my business. :edit:

Sorry for the wall-o-text, if you respond, I will get back to this post :)

SD Nihil
09-02-2008, 07:13 PM
Now I see a double standard here with Palan's daughter.

Sarah is a mother. And as a mother all you can do is teach and decipline your children. And of course live the example of how you wish your children to live..

So since all you can do is parent you are not responsible for your child's controdictory decisions to how you were raising them. We all have choice. And we all can choose to deviate from how we were taught.

Oboma's mother had him out of wedlock. The media didn't jump all over his mother for that. But yet here they are with Palan's daughter.

In both cases both Palan's daughter and Oboma's mother had children out of wedlock. Oboma has even said this does not belong in the election.

In Palan's case that's her daughter making the decision to have a child at such a young age. And with Oboma his mother had him out of wedlock. He's a grown man and it has or shouldn't have anything to do with an election.

I see a double standard because with Oboma the media didn't make a big deal out of it. With Palan's daughter they are. Sounds like a double standard to me. Sounds like they're jumping all over this for political purposes. All to somehow discredit Palan for political gain.

El Sitherino
09-02-2008, 07:27 PM
Now I see a double standard here with Palan's daughter.
I don't, I see people looking at things with the wrong perspective. And making a bigger deal than should be.

Sarah is a mother. And as a mother all you can do is teach and decipline your children. And of course live the example of how you wish your children to live..

Indeed.

So since all you can do is parent you are not responsible for your child's controdictory decisions to how you were raising them. We all have choice. And we all can choose to deviate from how we were taught.
I don't think anyone is arguing that at all.

Oboma's mother had him out of wedlock. The media didn't jump all over his mother for that. But yet here they are with Palan's daughter.

They didn't have a reason to jump on Obama's mother for the circumstances of his birth. While I agree the media is making a larger deal of this than they should the simple fact is that it's not simply about her becoming a mother. She has every right to.
The issue here is that this event completely contradicts the ideology that has been set forth by this party and upheld by McCain's campaign. This throws things in a bit of a jig and they're hoping this can pull in their favor.

My concern with this is that even with this having happened McCain/Palin are of the abstinence only persuasion. I think this is a socially irresponsible decision. As public schools are funded by government money (both state and federal) the government should allow, or rather enforce the highest possible education for our children. If I have to sacrifice for this so be it, but I see the potential for a better future to be a wiser investment than other things tax money goes to.

In both cases both Palan's daughter and Oboma's mother had children out of wedlock. Oboma has even said this does not belong in the election.

Okay.

In Palan's case that's her daughter making the decision to have a child at such a young age. And with Oboma his mother had him out of wedlock. He's a grown man and it has or shouldn't have anything to do with an election.

Poor structure aside, I don't think anyone will disagree with this.

I see a double standard because with Oboma the media didn't make a big deal out of it. With Palan's daughter they are. Sounds like a double standard to me. Sounds like they're jumping all over this for political purposes. All to somehow discredit Palan for political gain.

Sounds to me like someone doesn't understand how journalism works, especially modern journalism.

Also, it's not a double standard as Obama was born 40+ years ago and if they did for some reason make a news cast about it it'd likely be about mixed race children as opposed to teenage mothers.

Now let's have a civil, cal, discussion where at the end of the day we don't dispise each other for having differering views, but where we can agree to agree or agree to disagree and nothing personal with mutual respect for each other. For those that are Americans we can disagree on politics and policy, but we should agree on principle. Freedom of speach for example. We are all for the basic freedoms, but with policy we simply differ on how to further those principals that make us Americans.I don't hate you. In the end we are all Americans with differing views. This statement applies to those here that are Americans.

Thank you.
Again, can you stop with this. These comments are not necessary.


Also you haven't refuted my arguments from the previous debate. I understand my personality may come off as unusual and flamboyant, however there's method to the madness.

Rogue Nine
09-02-2008, 07:31 PM
Palan's
Her name is Sarah Palin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin).

decipline
Discipline (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discipline).

controdictory
Contradictory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradictory).

Oboma's
His name is Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama).

dispise
Despise (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despise).

differering
Differing (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/differing).

speach
Speech (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speech).

SD Nihil
09-02-2008, 08:04 PM
I don't, I see people looking at things with the wrong perspective. And making a bigger deal than should be.
I guess you could say that too. People are having the wrong perspective, again using your words "wrong perspective". Yes they are making a big deal out of Palan's daughter's decision that the mother didn't make. Her daughter cho

I don't think anyone is arguing that at all.

Good. In the McCain vs. Oboma and earlier in this topic it was. Like I said hopefully things will be better from here on out.se to do. I agree.

They didn't have a reason to jump on Obama's mother for the circumstances of his birth. While I agree the media is making a larger deal of this than they should the simple fact is that it's not simply about her becoming a mother. She has every right to.
The issue here is that this event completely contradicts the ideology that has been set forth by this party and upheld by McCain's campaign. This throws things in a bit of a jig and they're hoping this can pull in their favor.

Exactly what I mean. These people stand for what they stand for and Palan's daughter chose to do what she did. And who'se fault is it. It's the daugher not Sarah Palan. She is not at fault for her daughter making the decision she did. Yes your right it does give the other side ammo. I agree.

And like I said with Oboma his mother having him out of wedlock the media didn't make a big deal out of that, but in Palan's case they are. I agree it shows they have an adgenda and their double standard.

Sounds to me like someone doesn't understand how journalism works, especially modern journalism.

Also, it's not a double standard as Obama was born 40+ years ago and if they did for some reason make a news cast about it it'd likely be about mixed race children as opposed to teenage mothers.

Yes nowadays journalism is very cut throat and adgenda and the reporter's bias are intermingled in the story they present. What it use to be and what it should be is that they report the facts and leave it up to the public to make their own conclusions. But yes it's changed. Bias whether it was concervative or liberal use to be not factored into journalist's reporting or at least much less. Yes today it's different.

That's why to get the full story you or at least I watch both CNN and Fox. I've just made my decisions that lean more concervativily. And in my opinion if someone white marries someone that's black so what. It's just pigmintation in the skin, karatan, and epithelial tissue that's just different. Now yes blacks are more prone medically to diabetes for some strange reason, but just biologically slight differences. Doesn't make us different people or shouldn't.

Now I will say if two parents have a child that's mixed race kids today can be cruel. Some kids wil just pick on you all because of even the tiniest things like you have a beter shirt, or you have a funny acent. Kids.

Yay one post that that was civil. (applods). Let's continue.

Also you haven't refuted my arguments from the previous debate. I understand my personality may come off as unusual and flamboyant, however there's method to the madness.

Oh. Please elaborate.

jonathan7
09-02-2008, 08:07 PM
If McCain get's in I'll take it as evidence that democracy clearly doesn't work - I will also have lost all faith with the general intelligence of the majority of the American public (not that I have much faith, where ever there is a majority consensus - the mob after all is just a collection of sheep). That's my 2 cents, on this; I'll leave the rest of you to argue your points :xp:

Litofsky
09-02-2008, 08:21 PM
If McCain get's in I'll take it as evidence that democracy clearly doesn't work - I will also have lost all faith with the general intelligence of the majority of the American public (not that I have much faith, where ever there is a majority consensus - the mob after all is just a collection of sheep). That's my 2 cents, on this; I'll leave the rest of you to argue your points :xp:

Quote for truth. I agree with most everything you just said, Jon. :)

SD Nihil
09-02-2008, 08:31 PM
Jothanathan
If McCain get's in I'll take it as evidence that democracy clearly doesn't work - I will also have lost all faith with the general intelligence of the majority of the American public (not that I have much faith, where ever there is a majority consensus - the mob after all is just a collection of sheep). That's my 2 cents, on this; I'll leave the rest of you to argue your points

Hey thanks for the link to this forum. Rocky start I think we're better now. So I still don't get though why you think democracy doesn't work. Still don't get why you think that. People vote on their own bias, facts, prejedice, views, religion, etc. They made their own decisions and vote.

Now it isn't a pure democracy. Meaning it's not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. The electoral college allows states to count more fairly than what mob rule would do. Because if it was purely mob rule it would be based on population. Meaning because of California's population they would count more than say wyoming. I looked up wyoming in the atlas. According to the one I have that's the least populated stae. What the electoral college's intent and purpose is to make a more fair system than that of a mob rule which would mean that California would count more than Wyoming.

It's far from perfect, but it's better than mob rule according to those who made it the way we vote.

jonathan7
09-02-2008, 08:38 PM
Rocky start I think we're better now. So I still don't get though why you think democracy doesn't work.

Forgive me, but I was under the impression it was 8 12 years since you had a democratically elected candidate in charge of your country?

* Thanks Sithy for pointing out my error.

Now it isn't a pure democracy. Meaning it's not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. The electoral college allows states to count more fairly than what mob rule would do. Because if it was purely mob rule it would be based on population. Meaning because of California's population they would count more than say wyoming. I looked up wyoming in the atlas. According to the one I have that's the least populated stae. What the electoral college's intent and purpose is to make a more fair system than that of a mob rule which would mean that California would count more than Wyoming.

It's far from perfect, but it's better than mob rule according to those who made it the way we vote.

So what happened to one man one vote? Surely that's kind of the point of all men being born equal?

I never tire, of using this quote, as I love it so...
His play - Enemy of the people;

Dr. Stockmann: Never, Mr. Aslaksen! It is the majority in our community that denies me my freedom and seeks to prevent my speaking the truth.

Hovstad: The majority always has right on its side.

Billing: And truth too, by God!

Dr. Stockmann: The majority never has right on its side. Never, I say! That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent men must wage war. Who is it that constitute the majority of the population in a country? Is it the¨clever folk, or the stupid? I don’t imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over. But, good Lord!–you can never pretend that it is right that the stupid folk should govern the clever ones I (Uproar and cries.) Oh, yes–you can shout me down, I know! But you cannot answer me. The majority has might on its side–unfortunately; but right it has not. I am in the right–I and a few other scattered individuals. The minority is always in the right.

As such I disagree with Democracy; on the grounds I would do a better job than the idiots the people of Britain put in charge of the UK.

El Sitherino
09-02-2008, 08:40 PM
People vote on their own bias, facts, prejedice, views, religion, etc. They made their own decisions and vote.
You say that like it's proper. I understand it's realistic, but we're supposed to set aside our biases and vote on what will be better for our country, globally. From our social policy to our foreign policy, we need to vote for what will improve the quality of the nation.

The American Dream isn't about settling for average, or excusing yourself away. It's about making improvement so you can sit pretty at the top of your mountain. Not necessarily an ego thing, but rather you make your success from the bottom up.

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-02-2008, 08:45 PM
So what happened to one man one vote? Surely that's kind of the point of all men being born equal?One square mile of barren land devoid of life one vote.

mimartin
09-02-2008, 09:19 PM
If McCain get's in I'll take it as evidence that democracy clearly doesn't work - :lol: I was under the impression that everyone knew American democracy didn’t work back in 2000 with United States Supreme Courts involvement in stealing a Presidential election.

You did not firgure out that American I will also have lost all faith with the general intelligence of the majority of the American public (not that I have much faith, where ever there is a majority consensus - the mob after all is just a collection of sheep). American intelligence? Don’t you get American television programs across the pond? Between that and our giving George Bush a second term, how can you even question our intelligence?

Now I see a double standard here with Palan's daughter. I agree. If it had been a Democratic candidate, we would be hearing all about their lack of family values. I agree with Achilles on this matter.

Personally, it is not an issue with me because I still remember being a teenager and doing a lot of thing my parents taught me not to do. However, my mother was not running for office and my mother taught me sex education and not just abstinence.

The American Dream isn't about settling for average, or excusing yourself away. It's about making improvement so you can sit pretty at the top of your mountain. Not necessarily an ego thing, but rather you make your success from the bottom up.QFT

Only I'd add the American Dream is not just for the privilege few, but should be all inclusive. It is my belief that hard work and perseverance should ensure that dream comes true for all Americans. However, that is not the case today.

jonathan7
09-02-2008, 09:24 PM
:lol: I was under the impression that everyone knew American democracy didnít work back in 2000 with United State Supreme Courts involvement in stealing a Presidential election.

American intelligence? Donít you get American television programs across the pond? Between that and our giving George Bush a second term, how can you even question our intelligence?

<3 mimartin - where you been bud? Don't recall seeing you post for a while (though this maybe because I have been away ;)) Glad to see you back! :)

Corinthian
09-02-2008, 10:02 PM
So, basically, Jonathan, Democracy only works if your favored candidate wins? That's interesting.

jonathan7
09-02-2008, 10:11 PM
So, basically, Jonathan, Democracy only works if your favored candidate wins? That's interesting.

No - what on earth made you think that? I don't believe in democracy full stop - but out of a choice of only Obama and McCain there is only one clear winner as to who is fit to lead a country...

SD Nihil
09-02-2008, 10:15 PM
Well John if you are refering to Bush being re elected yeah the electoral process was done, but due to a dispute with things being so close in 2000 courts got invoved. It brought controversary. Even about hanging chads also made each card have to be looked at very carefully to make sure there wasn't a mistake of who that person voted for. Oh and dimples where the hole wasn't pushed through. And in 2004 many of those that voted for Kerry simply disagreed with it too. But in both elections the electoral college was used. As for 12 years ago I believe Clinton was in office. How do you think the electoral college was not used 12 years ago?

So what happened to one man one vote? Surely that's kind of the point of all men being born equal?

They do count. But if it again was vote per person without the electorla college then it again would be mob rule where it would have to do with population. You might want to look up and read more about the electoral college. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to not understand something here. Maybe not.

As such I disagree with Democracy; on the grounds I would do a better job than the idiots the people of Britain put in charge of the UK.

Again it's not a pure democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Please look up both if you want. There's a difference. I thought a뀐lso we were talking about democracy in reference to the U.S. If you think you will do better then if politics is your interest please take the necessary classes and get a job in that field. You have a very good start in that you have the enthusiasm. That's good

El Sithiro
You say that like it's proper. I understand it's realistic, but we're supposed to set aside our biases and vote on what will be better for our country, globally. From our social policy to our foreign policy, we need to vote for what will improve the quality of the nation.

Your right that's how it should be, but this is the fact of how things just are.

mimartin
I agree. If it had been a Democratic candidate, we would be hearing all about their lack of family values. I agree with Achilles on this matter.

Personally, it is not an issue with me because I still remember being a teenager and doing a lot of thing my parents taught me not to do. However, my mother was not running for office and my mother taught me sex education and not just abstinence.

I'm happy we agree. Speaking of sex education as far as those classes that try to discourage having sex early and encourage abstanance. I think rather than say you can get this or that or you then have to have all this responsibility. I think rather than telling them that they should show the screaming babies and the exhausted parents. Just show a parent that has like 5 babies and she's a teen. Yikes. I mean I'm still wrestling whether I should ever have kids in that geez some kidds are just bad, messy, annoying, but that's just me.

Web Rider
09-02-2008, 10:27 PM
So, basically, Jonathan, Democracy only works if your favored candidate wins? That's interesting.

it's just poor sportsmanship, people on both sides do it. I don't think it means democracy doesn't work, but I do think it shows VERY poorly of the American populace.

They do count. But if it again was vote per person without the electorla college then it again would be mob rule where it would have to do with population. You might want to look up and read more about the electoral college. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to not understand something here. Maybe not.
Mob rule is prevented by Congress and the bill of rights and other legal stuff. The electoral college is just a smaller mob, and if it wanted to it could cast it's votes for whomever it chooses, though unless the government was majorly corrupt they wouldn't get away with it. So that won't happen.

I'm happy we agree. Speaking of sex education as far as those classes that try to discourage having sex early and encourage abstanance. I think rather than say you can get this or that or you then have to have all this responsibility. I think rather than telling them that they should show the screaming babies and the exhausted parents. Just show a parent that has like 5 babies and she's a teen. Yikes. I mean I'm still wrestling whether I should ever have kids in that geez some kidds are just bad, messy, annoying, but that's just me.
honestly, I think that's a great idea.

Jae Onasi
09-02-2008, 11:03 PM
....Only a few nuts accept Moore as a credible source. So you are either insulting me by calling me a nut, or you are attempting to discredit the issue by claiming it came from a crazy source.Corinthian, Web Rider, the snarky bickering is getting annoying. Both of you need to be civil, reporting offensive posts if need be and not announce it to the entire universe, or simply not post. Subjecting the rest of us to this is tiresome.


The "issue" is that this woman is, instead of admitting that her daughter was going to be a teen mom, decided to claim that instead she was pregnant. Now, I don't know about you, but somebody who would go that far to hide what's going on in her family is pretty crazy.This is not confirmed. Your Daily Kos link said the story couldn't be found. It also sounds very odd.

Actually no. Pregnancies are pretty standard. Most women are showing, if only slightly, in their 3rd, 4th, and in some extremes, 5th month. By the 7th mother, development of the fetus has accelerated and a woman can't get away with clothes being "a little tight". By the 7th month there's not a woman alive(save Sarah Palin) who's been pregnant that would tell you they weren't showing at all.
Now, I have to address this, because I hate for medical misinformation to get bandied about. As both a doc and woman who's been pregnant twice, which is more than a lot of people here will ever be, I can tell you that it is extremely common for women who are pregnant for the first time not to show until well into the 5th month, sometimes closer to month 6. I wore regular clothes until about 5.5 months of pregnancy with my son, and 5 months with my daughter, and I didn't look really big until closer to 8 months. Most women don't show much until month 5. The typical baby (http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment2.php) is only around 2.19 in/5.4cm at week 12 gestation, 4.5 in/11.6in at week 16 gestation, and 6.46 in/16.4cm at week 20. How much do you think a few inches of baby is going to make a woman show?

Furthermore, while there is a range of what's normal, each woman, and indeed each pregnancy, can have/be a very different experience. That range of normal is very wide. I carried both my kids very differently, and it changed how 'pregnant' I looked each time. There are plenty of stories of women who never realized they were pregnant until they went into labor because they never 'showed' and had an extremely irregular cycle. Some women have very small babies and won't show much, and some women are extremely adept at artful dressing.

Another interesting factor is that her water had supposedly broken and she chose to take an 8 hour flight home instead of deliver where she was. That's unheard of.No it's not. The amniotic sac can have a small break without rupturing completely and that can go on for days or even weeks before labor starts. Furthermore, labor doesn't always start as soon as the water breaks. Mine broke and it took about 2 hours before labor even started, and it was a good 12 hours from that point til my daughter was born. In addition, when you've developed a relationship with a provider, particularly if you have an unborn child with developmental/genetic problems, you don't want to give birth with a total stranger in attendance who's completely unfamiliar with your case and your baby. It doesn't surprise me in the least that she wanted to get home to the providers with whom she was familiar and who understood her particular needs.

And does anyone think maybe it was unplanned? They can't exactly have an abortion considering her mother's (and the party) views on the subject.Does it matter if the baby was planned or unplanned? The point is moot--she's pregnant, and I pray for her, her baby, and her fiance that everything goes well. Also, why are you assuming that she'd have an abortion if she was a Democrat or if her mother was pro-abortion? Why couldn't she decide on her own that she wanted to have her baby, regardless of parental wishes or party lines? I dearly hope she's decided she's having her baby because she and her fiance want to love and care for this tiny person they have created together, and not because the Republican party wants her to.

@Achilles--I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin revisits her decision on abstinence-only programs in light of her daughter's pregnancy. Perhaps this will be one of the positive things she gains from a challenging situation.

Arcesious
09-02-2008, 11:07 PM
Indeed, voting is an appeal to to the majority, a fallacy.

Edit: Oh sorry Jae. My mistake.

Don't edit out moderator comments. --Jae

Edit: Oh sorry.

SD Nihil
09-02-2008, 11:23 PM
Web Rider
Mob rule is prevented by Congress and the bill of rights and other legal stuff. The electoral college is just a smaller mob, and if it wanted to it could cast it's votes for whomever it chooses, though unless the government was majorly corrupt they wouldn't get away with it. So that won't happen.

All the more that supprts the fact it's not based on mob rule. If enough people in that state vote towards one candidate those electoral votes go that candidate. Yes it isn't corrupt. Thanks for supporting me.

honestly, I think that's a great idea.

Now of course part of me also wants them to see what how do ii put this delicatly...if in those vids we could include certain products of the baby being cleaned up. Of course with something that graphic you'd probably have to have a concent form to see it. Something tells me back then we did to see sex ed vids anyway. It's been long enough I can't remember. Probably. If so this just would be an appendige to it.

Now also the miricle of child birth. It should show the birth. And the alien looking placenta. By the way animals and some native tribes eat that thing. Somewhere I'm grosing someone out. It makes me ahppy to know that's so. Now for the evil bush laugh. He He He. Dange I forgot to do that shoulder thing. lol. See guys I may be a concervative, but even I can make fun of some annoying things.

But anyway back to what I was saying. They should also tell in the vid what they said on Scrubs. "Congratulations. Your expecting. Your doctor will tell you everything you need to know." Then the doc says "Youll fa**, pe* and po* infront of 10 complete strangers (medical staff) that wil be staring intently at your vag***. Which has a 80 percent chance of taring."

Now back to the bush thing. It's so great to have a president that looks like he's looking into the sun. How he always blinks. And you know when he gets something right when he gets a little excited at the end and gets that almost excited haulted laugh.

I know he jokes about how he talks like a 1st grader. Like we are going to get em. And how he says some words like nuclear wrong. He says it like nukular. Listen Bush if you joke about it and see your doing something wrong that's the first step. The second is correcting the fact your saying it wrong. That's just ignorant. When you know your saying it wrong and tell everyone you know, but still do it. Yes sometimes he makes me cring when he talks.

Whether we get Oboma or McCain we'l either have to deal with McCain saying "My Friends". Or Oboma constantly says the two words hope and change. I guess on the bright side it could sure provide a good drinking game word. He he said hope drink. He said my friends. Drink. At the Saddle back debate McCain I counted said My friends 17 times. Oui.

I know I put stars in those above words. Not sure whether it was against the rules or something to actually spell it out. But you know what I was meaning. I hope I got some laughs. Scrubs is awsome.

Jae Onasi
09-02-2008, 11:26 PM
Indeed, voting is an appeal to to the majority, a fallacy.
No, voting for the person who you think will do the best job is both your right and your privilege. You should exercise it wisely and as often as you can. There's nothing fallacious about it if you've done your research on the candidates and chosen the one who you believe will best do the job.

mimartin
09-02-2008, 11:29 PM
I'm happy we agree. Speaking of sex education as far as those classes that try to discourage having sex early and encourage abstanance. I think rather than say you can get this or that or you then have to have all this responsibility. I think rather than telling them that they should show the screaming babies and the exhausted parents. Just show a parent that has like 5 babies and she's a teen. Yikes. I mean I'm still wrestling whether I should ever have kids in that geez some kidds are just bad, messy, annoying, but that's just me.
Isn't that what sex education is suppose to do? Shouldnít sex education show the ramifications of your actions, but also show you the safest method to practice the safest possible sex should you stray? The problem with Palinís position on sex education is she believed we should only teach our children abstinence and not with safest way to have sex. I agree with her that the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases is abstinence. The problem with only teaching abstinence as a prevention method is you end up with pregnant teenagers.

Sex education should inform and be design to present information to save lives and prevent unwanted pregnancies. It should have any thing to do with political agendas. So no, I donít think we really agree on this issue. Plainís seventeen-year-old daughter has nothing to do with my belief that she is a major idiot. Her stance on only teaching abstinences does. If she can make such an irresponsible decision on something so fundamental, why should I be encouraged by her other politically motivated decisions that could affect my life should she become President.

Arcesious
09-03-2008, 12:06 AM
Well maybe I should have been more clear... I beleive everyone has the right to an opinion, right to a vote, and whatnot, but appeal to majority via a mass vote isn't very reasonable. And that's why we debate over these things... Thing is, when a debate comes out in favor for a certain side, the other side's original position is still often supportable via voting in this democratic system. I'm saying this for both sides... There are 'sheep' on all sides of arguments who don't take the time to think critically. Although I admit oftentimes forget to think critically and end up concluding things with a fallacious opinion...

Bascially, we can vote about this stuff, but there are some things I think should be really debated by the 'smart people', which the people in power should have to consider unbiasedly... (Although operating without any bias is quite hard.)

"The people who pretend to know it all annoy the people who do."

For example: Creationism in public schools. It's been debated quite often, and the conclusion seems to be that that should be left to churches and private religious schools. Yet that issue still seems to be subject to a vote via popular opinion.

It's for stuff like that, and other things, that voting is a really illogical...
Not to mention the other big ones... Global Destabilization, Gay Marriage, Abortion...

Yep, all those are subject to votes about what to do about them, by the governement and the population. And frankly, the way voting effects those kinds things is very oftenly horribly inefficient and inneffective...

I beleive that everyone's opinion matters- up until opinions can be forced by a popular vote. (Facts and evidence are quite the opposite.) All opinions being attempted to 'be put into stone' should be analyzed for validity and improvement/discrediment via critical thinking and rational analyzation.

Edit: However, for some things, it may be wise to be avoided to be definitly concluded. For example: Let's say there is a deadly disease spread through oranges in the USA... Oranges are banned. Ten years later, the disease dies off, but without a cure to counteract it might come back. Research provides inneffective means to make an antidote for the disease. But should the orange ban be lifted? Maybe a strand of the disease is still left and could grow back up into great infestation of ornages again. I could go on but... I think you get my point...

Problem is, scepticism and the inductive fallacies work wonderfully to avoid allowing working conclusions. IE, if gays should be allowed marriage or not. A basic, non-thorough example: If God exists and the Bible/Quran/whatever it is is literal and true? Then it's a mistake, but if he doesn't, why keep restricting their right to marriage? (Perhaps there are even more than just these two sides of the argument.) Problem is, we can't 100% be sure about such things, and because of that, much progress is held back. However, this is sometimes a good thing.

Admittedly, we have to use some judgement via 'opinion' to conclude things. Although, that leads into an annoying debate over whether beleiving that scientific fact is true is using faith or not and stuff like that...

Jae Onasi
09-03-2008, 12:44 AM
The problem is, aside from the blatant elitism, the 'smart people' don't always accurately represent all the people. How in the world are you going to pick these 'smart people'? Sorry, but as soon as you turn over power to a few and take it away from all citizens, you no longer have a democracy, you have at best an oligarchy and at worst a dictatorship by 'the smartest'. I have no desire to live in a country where I could potentially have zero input on decisions because I didn't happen to be in a position to be chosen as one of the 'smart people' or able to curry the favor of said smart people. Granted, democracy has its warts and it may have its sheep, but if you create a 'rule by intelligence', you'll demote people who used to have opinions down to the level of all the other ovines that you're trying to get rid of when in fact their opinion could have had great merit and value to society.

Totenkopf
09-03-2008, 01:11 AM
Seems to me that arguably both candidates have made missteps in their choices. I have to wonder what the race might have looked like had Clinton and Romney been the veep picks. It's funny that Biden couldn't scare up more votes than the size of the small town Palin was mayor of (9000+/-) while he ran for the dem nomination and Palin's biggest problem appears to be "who is this woman?", especially this close to the election. The whole argument about "foreign policy" experience is pointless. Obama has none, hence the pairing of Biden w/him by his own party. Even assuming McCain got elected w/Palin and then died in office, she'd merely be where BO is now and a veep could be picked to balance out her inexperience. At least she's only the bottom half of the rep ticket.

While I believe there's some value in a meritocracy, I'm not sure to what degree I'd trust the people who set the standards if the "smart people" ran everything. What criteria would be used to determine who qualified and who didn't? I've met some pretty flaky people who had high IQs.

@Johnathan--not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that BO's loss would constitute a failure of "democracy". I realize you favor his candidacy over McCain's, just don't understand your reasoning. Or was that just you being a bit cheeky.

Tommycat
09-03-2008, 03:35 AM
Geez you guys must not know how to spin things. See, Palin could justify her position and still have her daughter being pregnant as a show how abstinence only is the best solution. All she has to do is have her daughter say that she was on the pill and they used a condom. It would show that the only way to prevent a pregnancy is to do as her mother wanted and be sex free until marriage. Simple. Whether it's true or not, it's all in how you spin it. Not to mention kids are allowed to hold different views than their parents. Unless everyone here agreed fully with everything their parents said when they were teens. Heck some of you are from religious families and are non-religious.

At any rate, To the topic(as I feel that Bristol's promiscuity is kinda off topic), I think that so far the best arguments against McCain are he shares the party with Bush. But honestly he has shown a great willingness to cross party lines to get things done. Heck he even got a Democrat to come to the Republican National Convention to speak for him. Not just any Democrat, but a former VP candidate. It was funny to hear Clinton getting praise at the RNC. And Lieberman is right. If he had won his party's nomination I might have voted for him to be frank. We need to stop being so stuck on the party and more focussed on what is better for the country.

Admittedly I haven't studied Obama's history, but has he crossed party lines to work with Republicans on any issues? I'm genuinely curious, because aside from the ads, I haven't looked at him much.

As for the tax cuts for the "rich" please stop. How many people does a person making under 150k per year employ? In some households depending on the city and state you live in 150k is barely scraping by(well maybe a little better than that). At least the person making 200k a year employs at least one other person. The person making 300k might employ 3 to 5 people. If you increase the tax they pay, you decrease the people they can employ. If you increase it too far, they take risks in how they hide their wealth and you lose even more tax revenue. This is not economics, but more psychological economics. Taxes hurt businesses. Businesses employ people. Tax them too much and they find ways to cut costs to keep them in the lifestyle they enjoy. Or they just pass that cost on to the consumer.

edit: Gotta say you should be careful what you use to determine "smart" in this perfect society... Unless you agree with me that is... I had routinely scored in the extreme genius range on IQ tests. Lowest was a 140'ish after I had been out killing brain cells the night before... I'm not saying I'm a better decision maker than anyone, not by a long shot. Just saying that you might not like who ends up making the decisions if you use tests to determine who should choose the leader. I mean more hollywood stars support Obama than McCain, and they tend to lower the average IQ of that candidate's supporters.

Astor
09-03-2008, 03:52 AM
Also, why are you assuming that she'd have an abortion if she was a Democrat or if her mother was pro-abortion? Why couldn't she decide on her own that she wanted to have her baby, regardless of parental wishes or party lines? I dearly hope she's decided she's having her baby because she and her fiance want to love and care for this tiny person they have created together, and not because the Republican party wants her to.

Apologies Jae, I wasn't assuming that she would, I was just commenting that it's at odds with Republican beliefs. I wasn't saying that she should have an abortion, just that any hint of it would probably weaken her mother's position.

Arcesious
09-03-2008, 08:20 AM
Well opinion polls can be quite useful for study of what people's opinions are. Anyways, here's an idea: You get all the scientists and whoever are willing to study and make decisions about these things, and have them collaborate, with an equal amount of 'smart people' on all sides of an argument. The people get to elect their representatives, but the 'smart people' must be taken very seriously by their elected leaders. It should not be a definite matter of IQ- perhaps just experience. Also, these people would need to very open-minded and understanding people- who understand the issues and know how and why people think the way they do. They would have to study the issues with science and address them. They would then have to see what the people's opinions are, and consider them highly. IE, they have to read their 'hate mail' to see if anyone else has a useful opinion that they didn't consider before. They have to be excessively throrough in their work, to make sure they don't make mistakes.

mimartin
09-03-2008, 09:04 AM
All she has to do is have her daughter say that she was on the pill and they used a condom.
Wow. No, that would be even worse. That would show a double standard. She supports complete sex education for her daughter, but only wants her constituents’ children to be taught abstinence. Palin is better off sticking to her guns at least abstinence appeals to those that are misguided enough to believe you can legislate morality.
It would show that the only way to prevent a pregnancy is to do as her mother wanted and be sex free until marriage. Yes and if we taught compressive sex education to our children they would have that information. After giving them the complete facts, they would know that the abstinence was the only 100% safe method to prevent pregnancy and spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Everyone should know condoms and other prevention methods fail. However, knowing the proper method of use significantly reduces the failure rate and helps prevent the spread of diseases.

I’m not condemning Palin for wanting to teach abstinence in sex education classes. I agree with her that it is the only sure method. I am condemning her for only wanting to teach abstinence in sex education classes, because sometimes, just like the rest of us, teenagers don’t do what is best.

Jae Onasi
09-03-2008, 09:49 AM
Well opinion polls can be quite useful for study of what people's opinions are. Anyways, here's an idea: You get all the scientists and whoever are willing to study and make decisions about these things, and have them collaborate, with an equal amount of 'smart people' on all sides of an argument. The people get to elect their representatives, but the 'smart people' must be taken very seriously by their elected leaders. It should not be a definite matter of IQ- perhaps just experience. Also, these people would need to very open-minded and understanding people- who understand the issues and know how and why people think the way they do. They would have to study the issues with science and address them. They would then have to see what the people's opinions are, and consider them highly. IE, they have to read their 'hate mail' to see if anyone else has a useful opinion that they didn't consider before. They have to be excessively throrough in their work, to make sure they don't make mistakes.

So you basically want a robot to run things, because no one is that perfect. First of all, no one could possibly read that much mail at that level of governance. Secondly, mail does not accurately represent how the general population thinks. Third, I have a very high IQ, understand people, understand issues including their history and how they affect society, understand science and psychology, and can read polls just like everyone else, but I suspect you'd find me unacceptable because I'm religious and therefore potentially more 'close-minded' than you'd like. If by 'smart people' you also mean 'not religious', I would find that incredibly offensive, by the way--there are many, many brilliant people who also happen to be religious. Fourth, IQ and experience don't always translate over to leadership ability--those are completely different skillsets. Fifth, the 'smart people' would tend to choose more people like themselves and perpetuate a particular course of action when it may no longer be what's best for the country or region as a whole. There's no recourse in your system to get rid of 'the smart people' who aren't doing a good job. Sixth, I think you're assuming you'd be one of the 'smart people' in this system. What if you're not? What if the smart people decide that getting rid of all controversial comedy and drama is good because it's mindless trash? Good-bye Comedy Central, CNN, Fox news, and anything else that could cause dissent. What if they decide it's a good idea to wiretap your every conversation to make sure you and others don't commit crimes or do bad things to each other? That would be for the good of society, of course...and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it if you disagreed.

With elections you and a few million of your closest friends have the option to get rid of people you don't agree with by electing in people you do agree with. I'll take my democracy any day, thank you, and happily exercise my vote in November.

jonathan7
09-03-2008, 10:40 AM
Much as I would love to respond to many of the points on democracy/forms of Government, I think they are taking this thread off-topic.

I would comment, that I do have my own political theory; it is not a democracy, but freedom of thought, speech and action are rated highly. The Government is a highly selective progress, almost in a national service vein of picking only those who are best for the job. The people do still have elections - in that they vote in someone for their area to represent their concerns and raise them to the government, however it is the governments decision to take these up or not. I hope that clarifies my thoughts on this.

Jae Onasi
09-03-2008, 02:11 PM
Yeah, we probably need to steer back to the topic at hand.

I think we're at a fundamental and historic crossroads in how the US is going to proceed as a country.

What's at stake?
1. How the Iraq war is conducted. If Obama is elected, the mandate will be to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. If McCain is in, we'll be there longer than Obama's timetable.
2. Healthcare. With Obama, I think we'll see a move to nationalized health care in a way that Bill Clinton was not able to do in the early 90's. With McCain I think we'll see more of private business model.
3. Higher education: I think Obama will work to make higher education much more affordable and accessible than McCain will.
4. Domestic vs. foreign issues--Obama is clearly better in the domestic department than foreign, McCain's going to be stronger in foreign issues.
5. Taxes. More gov't programs mean
s more taxes, period. National health care, free or heavily subsidized higher education, and expansion of other social programs is going to take more of our tax dollars. Americans must decide if they are willing to pay the higher taxes required for these benefits.
6. Environment--expect more controls from Democrats and loosening of restrictions from Republicans. I think both need to find a healthy balance, and I don't think either of them have done enough to find that balance.
7. Energy--if Democrats win I think we'll see a greater and faster push to alternative fuels. I think the Republicans will pursue more drilling for oil and some work on alternatives. I think we need to do a big push to alternatives _and_ drill some more to get us by until we've converted as quickly as possible to those alternaties, but that's a topic for another thread I'm sure.
8. Supreme Court picks--that's pretty simple--McCain's going to choose more conservative justices, while Obama will pick more liberal ones. That's going to affect how laws are interpreted in the US for years, and I think this is one of the biggest impacts a President actually has.
9. Gun control--expect more gun control, especially assault weapons, with Obama.
10. Foreign issues--I think the world will try to curry Obama's favor and I think he'll reach out more to nations we've had cold relations with. However, he runs the risk of getting taken advantage of as he attempts to be conciliatory. His diplomatic efforts might be viewed as weakness by some other countries. McCain's not going to deal with BS, but he's not going to try as hard to make friends from neutral or hostile countries, either.
11. Immigration--more open with Obama, I'm sure. I would suggest that both men need to work on the issue of illegal aliens, certainly speed up the process and widen the numbers of immigrants allowed.
12. Oil--well, since neither candidate is so attached to the oil industry as Bush is, we might actually see something useful done in that arena. I'm not holding my breath on that one, however.

Those are just some of the issues--there's plenty more.

SD Nihil
09-03-2008, 02:47 PM
I agree we are at a crossroads. The fact that we have a woman VP nomone and a black presidential nomine shows how far we've come as far as civil rights is concerned. How far we've come in just a feew decades. With all the Palin rumors, pictures, blog statements flying around I at least will be waiting to see what Sarah says tonight.

In St. Paul there was this group calling themselves the republican welcoming commitiee. These guys were talking about kidnapping delagates. So far police have made about 400 arrests. Also I heard something this morning about someone stealing Sarah's social security number.

Bad move whoever did that. With things like lifelock that protect your social security number in the wrong hands even and plus the fact she's a govoner of a real roguh and tumble state, whoever did this is in deep.

Attacks like this only ticks people off. It certinally doesn't help anything in my opinion. It's ridiclous.

The RNC welcoming party group was learned about according to police by police. The police put in an embeded opertive. I'm hearing about it on tv as I'm typing this. Uh 300 at the verty minimum captured. Many of it's leaders are in hiding...apparently these bad dudes had some site too.

Hope someone finds out more about this info wise.

Jae Onasi
09-03-2008, 02:50 PM
The people arrested were arrested because they were not protesting peacefully--they were causing property damage and in some cases resisting arrest after they'd been caught being destructive. I've not heard anything about kidnapped delegates.

mimartin
09-03-2008, 03:13 PM
What's at stake?
1. How the Iraq war is conducted. If Obama is elected, the mandate will be to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. If McCain is in, we'll be there longer than Obama's timetable. That is a nice way to put it. With Obama we get our troops out of harmís way. With McCain we are there indefinitely. This means more of our young men and women die and we continue to look like invaders and not liberators. It was a valiant effort by our military of an ill conceived plan by our civilian government to bring democracy to Iraq. Problem is you cannot force democracy on a country, they have to want it.
2. Healthcare. With Obama, I think we'll see a move to nationalized health care in a way that Bill Clinton was not able to do in the early 90's. With McCain I think we'll see more of private business model. Iím more under the opinion this is all talk by both sides just like it has been the past four elections. Nothing is going to happen because all sides are more worried about profits than 47 million uninsured Americans.
3. Higher education: I think Obama will work to make higher education much more affordable and accessible than McCain will. Iíd say they are close to the same on this issue; both have this as a higher priority than Bush.
4. Domestic vs. foreign issues--Obama is clearly better in the domestic department than foreign, McCain's going to be stronger in foreign issues. Obama is going to work with allies and build up American image in the world. I believe McCain will do the same, but as of now he is saying he wants to continue the Bush plan.
5. Taxes. More gov't programs meanÖ We are going to have higher taxes no matter who is elected. I cannot believe we will allow our debt to spiral out of control until we have 19% interest rates again. The question is do you want that money spent building up our infrastructure, our schools and the health care for all Americans or do we want the money going to building up a foreign counties infrastructure, their schools and their health care (and funerals) in our attempt to nation build.
6. Environment--expect more controls from Democrats and loosening of restrictions from Republicans. I think both need to find a healthy balance, and I don't think either of them have done enough to find that balance. Agreed.
7. Energy--if Democrats win I think we'll see a greater and faster push to alternative fuels. I think the Republicans will pursue more drilling for oil and some work on alternatives. I think we need to do a big push to alternatives _and_ drill some more to get us by until we've converted as quickly as possible to those alternaties, but that's a topic for another thread I'm sure. I agree, but would change on the Republican side to Ė will pursue more drilling for oil and pay lip service to working on alternatives.
8. Supreme Court picks--that's pretty simple--McCain's going to choose more conservative justices, while Obama will pick more liberal ones. That's going to affect how laws are interpreted in the US for years, and I think this is one of the biggest impacts a President actually has. Agreed again. I believe if McCain is elected Roe vs. Wade will be overturned in the near future and abortion will go underground again. It will not stop abortion; just make it unsafe and uncontrolled.
9. Gun control--expect more gun control, especially assault weapons, with Obama. Agreed and since I donít use an assault weapon to hunt Bambi I donít care.
10. Foreign issues--I think the world will try to curry Obama's favor and I think he'll reach out more to nations we've had cold relations with. However, he runs the risk of getting taken advantage of as he attempts to be conciliatory. His diplomatic efforts might be viewed as weakness by some other countries. McCain's not going to deal with BS, but he's not going to try as hard to make friends from neutral or hostile countries, either. To fight terrorism takes a world effort, the problem is we have alienated most of the world. Obama is an intelligent person and I believe he will surround himself with intelligent, knowledgeable people. So until someone tells me he appointed Mickey Mouse or Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, Iím not going to worry about it.
11. Immigration--more open with Obama, I'm sure. How is that even possible? How can you be more open than allowing amnesty to illegal aliens? Is Obama going to send buses to pick them up?
12. Oil--well, since neither candidate is so attached to the oil industry as Bush is, we might actually see something useful done in that arena. I'm not holding my breath on that one, however. Yes, McCain will work to open up ANWR. Allowing oil companies the rights to drilling without proper compensation thus increasing the oil companiesí profits. We will get lower gas prices for a year or two in three to five years and the oil companies get record profits again.

Druganator
09-03-2008, 03:54 PM
That is a nice way to put it. With Obama we get our troops out of harmís way. With McCain we are there indefinitely. This means more of our young men and women die and we continue to look like invaders and not liberators. It was a valiant effort by our military of an ill conceived plan by our civilian government to bring democracy to Iraq. Problem is you cannot force democracy on a country, they have to want it.
.

Well Obama is talking about taking them out of Iraq and putting them into Afghanistan so they wouldnt really be out of harms way, they would just move from one ****hole to another

jonathan7
09-03-2008, 03:59 PM
Well Obama is talking about taking them out of Iraq and putting them into Afghanistan so they wouldnt really be out of harms way, they would just move from one ****hole to another

The difference is one of those holes we should be sat in... And the other we shouldn't be in - it would also seem to me Afghanistan needs more attention than Iraq these days anyways.

Achilles
09-03-2008, 04:04 PM
The difference is one of those holes we should be sat in... And the other we shouldn't be in - it would also seem to me Afghanistan needs more attention than Iraq these days anyways.QFT

mimartin
09-03-2008, 04:36 PM
Well Obama is talking about taking them out of Iraq and putting them into Afghanistan so they wouldnt really be out of harms way, they would just move from one ****hole to another

There is a big difference between moving to Afghanistan to search for Al-Qaeda (remember those people that actually attacked us on 9/11/2001) and democracy building in Iraq. We should have never moved our troops from Afghanistan to Iraq in the first place. We diverted our manpower, our money and our energy from going after Al-Qaeda to a giant deadly Easter egg hunt, only Saddam did not hide any eggs. I would rather have our soldiers in Afghanistan fighting against those that attacked us instead of fighting in Iraq for Halliburtonís profits.

it would also seem to me Afghanistan needs more attention than Iraq these days anyways.
QFT

Since we drew our troops out to fight in Iraq giving the Taliban and Al-Qaeda a chance to regroup, we now have to retake the country. That is a very nice tribute to those that gave their life when we first invaded the country. :rolleyes:

SD Nihil
09-03-2008, 04:56 PM
That is a nice way to put it. With Obama we get our troops out of harm’s way. With McCain we are there indefinitely. This means more of our young men and women die and we continue to look like invaders and not liberators. It was a valiant effort by our military of an ill conceived plan by our civilian government to bring democracy to Iraq. Problem is you cannot force democracy on a country, they have to want it.[/QUOTE

I believe he was trying to point o out some of the issues without giving a bias. Just simply listing the issues. That's what I got from it.

You seem to speak about Iraq like we've already lost. It was a valient effort. At least that's what I interpurated.

We are doing so good that on Monday we handed over Anbar provence completly to the Iraqies. Before wAnbar was thought of as a lost cause. Now it's secure and Iraqies are taking over. As I said in the prior topic the Iraq government is stiring about talking about making movements towards getting a lot to leave soon. Not because of losing at all. We are on the virge of victory.

It's almost wrapped up. Alqueda is gone from Iraq as well. Suicide bombings are down I think at least 70 percent.

No one has ever said besides people saying in their opinion like what you've said you think we'll be there indefinintly. No one ever said that. We'll leave soon. That time is very near.

And you won't be able then to say it was a failed war when we walk out of there victorous. When we leave is up to the commanders on the ground actually fighting the war. Not politions in cooshy chairs. Or at least they shouldn't be the ones to say how the conditions are.

The facts and evidence show we have done this well and are almost at victory's doorstep.

[QUOTE]I’m more under the opinion this is all talk by both sides just like it has been the past four elections. Nothing is going to happen because all sides are more worried about profits than 47 million uninsured Americans.

We'll see.

Obama is going to work with allies and build up American image in the world. I believe McCain will do the same, but as of now he is saying he wants to continue the Bush plan.

You prefer him. I prefer McCain. I care less what other countries that don't have our interests at heart think. And more about what we are doing to fight terrorism and secure us world wide.

We are going to have higher taxes no matter who is elected. I cannot believe we will allow our debt to spiral out of control until we have 19% interest rates again. The question is do you want that money spent building up our infrastructure, our schools and the health care for all Americans or do we want the money going to building up a foreign counties infrastructure, their schools and their health care (and funerals) in our attempt to nation build.

Well we will see higher taxes with Oboma if you are making I believe it is over 150 thousand. And everyone under that gets a tax decrease according to Obama if we get him.

Sounds like Socilism. Redistribution of wealth. Kinda sounds like punishing those who worked hard and made much. So what it offends you. So what you don't like this guy has more than you. Work.

My father use to live in someone's garage. Now he's retired and quite weel if I must say. The point is you can do it if you apply yourself and work hard.

In my opinion with welfare as long as your not able to work and on disability. As long as your not disabled you can work. Welfare means we that are working ahve to pay for you sitting on your butt doing nothing, but collecting a check for being a lazy slug.

With McCain everyone according to what he's said he's said if he gets in everyone gets a tax cut. And no not the wealthiest 1 percent according to those who say that.

Simply pointing out this is what the candiates say. Now we need to stop overspending yes. We beat Russia in the cold war by spending them into oblivion. If we keep spending the way we are we'll spend our selves into oblivion too if we're not careful.

With the way we are spending we can't do that with all of these crisises going on and be able to survive 20 years from now.

So whoever gets in needs to stop the overspending. In my opinion. So spending money your tax dollars and things like a green bean museum or spending it on bridges to no where needs to stop. Earmarking or as I call it wastefull pork barrel spending needs to cease. We didn't ask them to make a green bean museaum of all things.

As far as energy is concerned a lot of the technology isn't there yet as far as alternatives. Now there is wind power. But some have complaints about that too.

What happens with these wind devices is it's like these prapellers attached to these poles which when the perpeller spins to powers a generator. Even when down here there is no wind up how far they extend there is wind.

The problems some have with it is that it can confuse bats and shred them. Also it's an eye sore if it's put in someone's yard.

So for right now oil we need. I'm for drilling at home. It was on the table to drill during the Clinton years to drill in Anwar, but was not passed. Had it been improved back then gas prices might be lower because we'd have more oil.

We are using as much oil right now as we did back during WWII times. Guys China has signed 100 year leases to drill in the gulf. Yet we haven't because environmental extremists. They don't want to drill in Alaska or Anware. We could be fully independent of foreign oil if we drill here. If we do we won't have Sauida Arabia oil sellers screwing with the prices because we have to pay. It is getting lower over there. I think they built some pump system over there to get oil out deeper.

Sarah feels we should drill in her state. Alaska's gas prices are the hightest in the nation at last check. In my opinion screw the caraboo. Drill.

In my opinion being energy independent is more important than caraboo.

I would love to not use oil and at the same time be energy independent. But right now the technology isn't there yet. And the wind power thing people have disputes with.

Agreed again. I believe if McCain is elected Roe vs. Wade will be overturned in the near future and abortion will go underground again. It will not stop abortion; just make it unsafe and uncontrolled.

No because too many wouldn't want that. I think it should be up to individual states to decide whether to aloow or disallow abortions in their own states. It's not afair to either side to say no abortions. Or to say abortions for all.

That's unfair to both sides. It should be in this state you can get an abortion, but over in this state you cannot. It's just more fair in my opinion.

Agreed and since I don’t use an assault weapon to hunt Bambi I don’t care.

Three words. The Second Amendment. Right to bare arms. If I want to have a gun in my house to defend against intruders it in my opinion is not the government's job to go against the second amendment.


To fight terrorism takes a world effort, the problem is we have alienated most of the world. Obama is an intelligent person and I believe he will surround himself with intelligent, knowledgeable people. So until someone tells me he appointed Mickey Mouse or Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, I’m not going to worry about it.

It's not our job to kiss the butt of nations doing wrong. A lot of the world doesn't like us because they are jelous of all the accomplishments, how generous we are, how we pulled countires out of 2 worlds wars, how we've spread freedom so quickly,

They think we are bullies because of our power. Without us Hilter would rule, comunism would be throughtout the world, and freedom would be little.

When we go to war we go for our furthering of our ideals (which is mostly done by influence and deplomacy), defending nations inocent that are invaded by oppressors like Hilter.

How is that even possible? How can you be more open than allowing amnesty to illegal aliens? Is Obama going to send buses to pick them up?

I agree. I'm not sure if you are aware, but last I heard 6000 Americans died on the border down there.Americans getting kidnapped, drug lords. It's awful. The kidnapping is to get the families of the kidnapped to force them to pay these drug lords money.

We need a wall. We have the right to defend our borders.

And I believe when you come in you learn English. It's the language of the land. When you go into another country and plan to live there in my opinion you should learn their language.

It's a process to be a citizin. I think those that are here illegially that commit a felloney should get thrown out of the country.

Go through the process to become a U.S. citizin And pay the taxes. The rest of us have to.

As for Afganistan I think both plan to put some number more in Afganistan.

mimartin
There is a big difference between moving to Afghanistan to search for Al-Qaeda (remember those people that actually attacked us on 9/11/2001) and democracy building in Iraq. We should have never moved our troops from Afghanistan to Iraq in the first place. We diverted our manpower, our money and our energy from going after Al-Qaeda to a giant deadly Easter egg hunt, only Saddam did not hide any eggs. I would rather have our soldiers in Afghanistan fighting against those that attacked us instead of fighting in Iraq for Halliburton’s profits.

We went into Iraq because Hussain broke the cease fire. I would be happy to again like I did before in the prevous topic elaborate.

Astor
09-03-2008, 05:15 PM
You seem to speak about Iraq like we've already lost. It was a valient effort.

It being a valiant effort doesn't make up for past mistakes, though.

We are doing so good that on Monday we handed over Anbar provence completly to the Iraqies. Before wAnbar was thought of as a lost cause. Now it's secure and Iraqies are taking over. As I said in the prior topic the Iraq government is stiring about talking about making movements towards getting a lot to leave soon. Not because of losing at all. We are on the virge of victory.

Or it could be that the US is sick of it, perhaps?

It's almost wrapped up. Alqueda is gone from Iraq as well. Suicide bombings are down I think at least 70 percent.

And you won't be able then to say it was a failed war when we walk out of there victorous. When we leave is up to the commanders on the ground actually fighting the war. Not politions in cooshy chairs. Or at least they shouldn't be the ones to say how the conditions are.

The facts and evidence show we have done this well and are almost at victory's doorstep.

Where are you getting this from? I can't comment as to whether the war is a failure or not, but I haven't really seen much evidence supporting either viewpoint.

I care less what other countries that don't have our interests at heart think. And more about what we are doing to fight terrorism and secure us world wide.

So you don't care that America is often seen as a bullying, imperialistic menace by many in the world at large?

What happens with these wind devices is it's like these prapellers attached to these poles which when the perpeller spins to powers a generator. Even when down here there is no wind up how far they extend there is wind.

The problems some have with it is that it can confuse bats and shred them. Also it's an eye sore if it's put in someone's yard.

That's the most ludicrous thing i've heard.

Three words. The Second Amendment. Right to bare arms. If I want to have a gun in my house to defend against intruders it in my opinion is not the government's job to go against the second amendment.

As I understand, no side is saying you can't have a gun, just that certain guns (such as assault weapons) aren't really necessary.

It's not our job to kiss the butt of nations doing wrong. A lot of the world doesn't like us because they are jelous of all the accomplishments, how generous we are, how we pulled countires out of 2 worlds wars, how we've spread freedom so quickly,

That's right, I'm jealous because i'm not American. And we were doing just fine in the First World War without America, thank you. And the 'we saved you in the war' thing is getting kind of old.

They think we are bullies because of our power. Without us Hilter would rule, comunism would be throughtout the world, and freedom would be little.

Of course it would. :dozey:

When we go to war we go for our furthering of our ideals (which is mostly done by influence and deplomacy), defending nations inocent that are invaded by oppressors like Hilter.

An M1 Abrams blowing apart a Mosque isn't democracy.

jonathan7
09-03-2008, 05:21 PM
That's right, I'm jealous because i'm not American. And we were doing just fine in the First World War without America, thank you. And the 'we saved you in the war' thing is getting kind of old.

Especially considering any proper review of World War 2 in Europe would reveal that it was the Russians who had the major hand in defeating the Nazi's - Russia was the Nazi's bridge too far, and where their massive war engine stalled.

@ SD Nihil - any proper review of the last 50 years would reveal that American foreign policy, has either been non-existent, constantly bad or damn right hypocritical (not that Britain's is much behind). How can we be fighting a 'War on Terror' against the 'evil people' - when we support regimes as barbaric as Saudi Arabia (a government which circumcises baby girls, so they can't enjoy sex later in life, chops of thieves hands etc).

mimartin
09-03-2008, 05:58 PM
The facts and evidence show we have done this well and are almost at victory's doorstep. Then I take it you support Obama's plan. Let’s start pulling out the troops since everything is so stable. And more about what we are doing to fight terrorism and secure us world wide. Fighting terrorism needs a world wide effort. When terrorist cells can hide anyway, you need other governments help in rooting them out. What we are doing now is just giving them more places to hide. Sounds like Socilism. Redistribution of wealth. Kinda sounds like punishing those who worked hard and made much. So what it offends you. So what you don't like this guy has more than you. Work. For your information, I am one of those that according to your interruption of the data will be getting a tax increase. I agree with you interruption of wealth redistribution, but it works both ways. I just don’t see the benefit or the fairness in taking from the middle and lower class and giving it to the rich. Giving tax breaks to corporations that move operations off shore not only seems unfair, but dooms our economy. So by all means let us continue the wonderful economy we have now.
With McCain everyone according to what he's said he's said if he gets in everyone gets a tax cut. And no not the wealthiest 1 percent according to those who say that.How financial prudent is it to give tax cuts with the debt we have now? We need to become more financially independent and conservative not less. I’m all for cutting taxes, but only if we have a surplus not when we are running at a huge deficit. I can give you 9,655,168,190,493.32 reasons we don’t need a across the board tax cut. It goes up by 1.90 billion dollars a day and your share is $31,691.41. Yea, tax cuts sounds like the really conservative thing to do. Now you can see why I’m a democrat. Both sides are going to spend, but only the democrats are willing to pay their way, the Republicans just want to push it off on our children. In my opinion being energy independent is more important than caraboo. I’m not against drilling in ANWR if it were done in the environmental friendly way possible. I’m against giving the oil away to the oil companies. The caribou in ANWR are a natural resource just as the oil in the ground is. We should take care to preserve our natural resources. To me the caribou are not more important than humans, but they are more important to me than oil company profits and I do own oil company stock.
I would love to not use oil and at the same time be energy independent. But right now the technology isn't there yet. No it isn’t and the technology will never be there unless we spend money researching alternatives. No because too many wouldn't want that. Want has nothing to do with it. A Supreme Court decision should not have anything to do with what we want. It should have to do with the letter of the law and nothing else. So banning abortion was ruled unconstitutional in 1973. What has changed? The Constitution hasn’t, so it must be political and not have anything to do with the law of the land. Why should I be disallowed a medical procedure in one state and deny that procedure in another state? What about individual rights?
Three words. The Second Amendment. Right to bare arms. If I want to have a gun in my house to defend against intruders it in my opinion is not the government's job to go against the second amendment.So why can’t I have a rocket launcher in my home for protection? I own guns and have a license to carry concealed weapons. I was a member of the NRA until they took a walk on the stupid side. There is a difference between home protection and firing an assault rifle that goes through two walls killing the next door neighbor. Same goes for large clip sizes. If someone is so terrible that you can’t hit what you are shooting at with 3 to 8 shots then maybe they should buy a dog for protection.

It's not our job to kiss the butt of nations doing wrong. List three things any European country has done wrong other than not take kindly to our intimidation. I’m not talking about making friends with Iran or North Korea. I’m taking about making up with our oldest ally. You know the nation that gave us support during the Revolutionary War with whom there might not be an America today. France! Yea, we saved their butts in WWII, but they saved our butts long before that.

We need a wall. We have the right to defend our borders. I agree, I just don’t like the idea of wasting our money on a wall with a bunch of gaps in it.

SD Nihil
09-03-2008, 05:59 PM
It being a valiant effort doesn't make up for past mistakes, though.[/QUOTE

Mistakes are made in war. You can't anticipate everything, and yes things could've been done better. Yes learn from the past and do better in the future. Now we're in the present and we are soon to victory.

For the leaving Anbar thing I just did a google search. Here's one: http://www.topix.com/military/marine-corps/2008/09/iraqis-take-control-of-once-bloody-anbar-province

Well here's all the results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=UsS.+hands+over+control+of+Anbar+to+Iraqies&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

[QUOTE]So you don't care that America is often seen as a bullying, imperialistic menace by many in the world at large?

You are correct sir. Because of all the generosity, pulling Europe out of 2 world wars, humanitarin aid, promoting freedom, spreading freedom, and fighting for the inocent and oppressed. So yes I care less for the comments of thankless nations.

That's the most ludicrous thing i've heard.

What's so ludicris? Elaborate please.

As I understand, no side is saying you can't have a gun, just that certain guns (such as assault weapons) aren't really necessary.

That's right, I'm jealous because i'm not American. And we were doing just fine in the First World War without America, thank you. And the 'we saved you in the war' thing is getting kind of old.

What country are you from. Without us you'd be speaking German. I know saving your tails is getting old. But it's because we ae a nation that fought for you. We did for France and Iraq and haven't gotten anything in return. We're not getting oil from Iraq.

Now I'm going down stairs to eat my steak and baked potato while you eat your baloney and cabage. A little joke for ya. lol.

Arcesious
09-03-2008, 06:03 PM
So you basically want a robot to run things, because no one is that perfect.
No, I want people. Not the kind of people who are political puppets.

First of all, no one could possibly read that much mail at that level of governance. Secondly, mail does not accurately represent how the general population thinks.
Good point.

Third, I have a very high IQ, understand people, understand issues including their history and how they affect society, understand science and psychology, and can read polls just like everyone else, but I suspect you'd find me unacceptable because I'm religious and therefore potentially more 'close-minded' than you'd like.
No, not at all. The system would have to be fair to all sides. Also, I think that every person is close-minded in some way, so that's kind of unavoidable. Being an Athiest, i have a Bias about religion, preventing me from be totally open to it. It works kind of the same for all sides... Even neutral sides are, in a sense, biased by refusing to form a definite opinion, and being neutral on issues...

If by 'smart people' you also mean 'not religious', I would find that incredibly offensive, by the way--there are many, many brilliant people who also happen to be religious.
No, that's not what I mean. I think you're jumping to conclusions about what I'm saying. If I meant 'Athiests only' I would have said 'Athiests only'. But I didn't. I said 'smart people'. And a smart person, in my definition can be smart and brilliant no matter what they beleive.



Fourth, IQ and experience don't always translate over to leadership ability--those are completely different skillsets.
Good point. That's why I suggested that people who can lead, taking the position of politicians, will lead, and be advised by the 'smart people'.


Fifth, the 'smart people' would tend to choose more people like themselves and perpetuate a particular course of action when it may no longer be what's best for the country or region as a whole.
Good point. I'll revise my idea- the 'smart people' would have to be voted for by the people.


There's no recourse in your system to get rid of 'the smart people' who aren't doing a good job.
Also, another good point. Ths is exactly why i put this idea into a debate thread- because I wanted it to be debated and to receive criticism in order for it to either be discredited or improved upon as a working/non-working idea.
Perhaps these 'smart people' should be under the jurisdiction of being voted in and voted out, within reason.

Sixth, I think you're assuming you'd be one of the 'smart people' in this system. What if you're not?
Not at all. Admittedly, I used to arrogantly think that 'my opinion was the best' and that 'I should lead', but not anymore. (About three months ago.)
I realize that I don't know everything. I do not have a PHD, nor am I in an AP/Honors classes at my school. I do not beleive that I have the ability to lead, because my decisions in the past, and even recently, have lacked good reason many times. Because of this, I think that I cannot make big, hard decisions on big issues for any entire country or even a small commmunity, because I am prone to error. Therefore, because of my proneness to error and use of logical fallacies, I put my opinion out there, and watch others disect and advise on it, in order to correct me when I am wrong so that I don't make a huge mistake. Still, I can make relatively good decisions for myself, but I don't think I can make good decisions for others. In summary, I do not beleive I have what it takes to lead. Nor am I a good oral speaker. Perhaps a deveolping writer, but in real life, when I'm not on the internet, I talk pretty casually and 'red-neckishly.' (And that's because I have some 'stage fright' issues... :xp: )


What if the smart people decide that getting rid of all controversial comedy and drama is good because it's mindless trash?
Also another good point. I think that a justice system to keep this system in check would need to be put in place to make sure free speech and all those fundamental rights we have are never infringed upon.


and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it if you disagreed.
Another good point. In the past, I've been for security over privacy, but my opinion of that has changed. I don't beleive that these great freedoms we have should be violated, no matter what. ;)


With elections you and a few million of your closest friends have the option to get rid of people you don't agree with by electing in people you do agree with.
Agreed, but consider this example: Say that 90% of the population was say.... Racist or something against black people, and a KKK leader was running for president. Now, this situation is impossible to happen today, because of the bill of rights. However, this is still somewhat similar to what goes on today. Things like restricting certain Gay Rights for example, relate to this 'KKK' example of election. (This is a highly exaggerated example, used in order to make a point.) However- Mccain is in no way a bad person. He wants what is best for the country, and so does Obama. Both of them have their faults. However, nobody's perfect, so it is unavoidable to have to choose between two imperfect candidates every four years. The candidates can be really close to perfect, or really messed up. ither way; we're alll human, and we all make mistakes. But the thing is that we have to learn from those mistakes, and "treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated." ;)


Anyways, if this is going to far off topic, we could either continue it in another thread, somewhere else, or end it here. It's your call.

jonathan7
09-03-2008, 06:07 PM
You are correct sir. Because of all the generosity, pulling Europe out of 2 world wars, humanitarin aid, promoting freedom, spreading freedom, and fighting for the inocent and oppressed. So yes I care less for the comments of thankless nations.

What country are you from. Without us you'd be speaking German. I know saving your tails is getting old. But it's because we ae a nation that fought for you. We did for France and Iraq and haven't gotten anything in return. We're not getting oil from Iraq.

Did you even read my post? I'll quote it again for you;

Especially considering any proper review of World War 2 in Europe would reveal that it was the Russians who had the major hand in defeating the Nazi's - Russia was the Nazi's bridge too far, and where their massive war engine stalled.

@ SD Nihil - any proper review of the last 50 years would reveal that American foreign policy, has either been non-existent, constantly bad or damn right hypocritical (not that Britain's is much behind). How can we be fighting a 'War on Terror' against the 'evil people' - when we support regimes as barbaric as Saudi Arabia (a government which circumcises baby girls, so they can't enjoy sex later in life, chops of thieves hands etc).

A common misconception - the War analysts have actually found that even if the Nazi's had got to mainland Britain; we would have won a land battle, with the Nazi's stalling in the face of London's defences and failure to gain the aerial advantage, inflicting perhaps a cataclysmic defeat on the Nazi's - which is probably why Hitler never really tried to seriously to mount operation Sea Lion (the invasion of Britain) - I don't think we could of won on our own - but as stated, Russia was the Nazi's big mistake.

However again we are going wildly off-topic, so I suggest we return to the topic at hand, I did however feel compelled to correct the fallacies you were trying to promote.

Edit: Agreed, but let's not forget the Americans involvement in helping supply the Red Army with Lend Lease. Let’s also not forget England holding on against the blitz and without England as a staging ground the liberation of Europe may never have happened. Let’s also not forget….(could go on for a few pages)

The victory in World War II was a group effort without any one of the allies victory would be in doubt. I really believe American history short changes the rest of the world’s contribution to the allies victory. I also think American history does not take into proper account how close we came to losing the war. It took everyone working together along with some stupid mistakes by the other side to win that war.

Oh, don't get me wrong America played a big part in the war, nor am I trying to sound ungrateful for your help.

Astor
09-03-2008, 06:12 PM
You are correct sir. Because of all the generosity, pulling Europe out of 2 world wars, humanitarin aid, promoting freedom, spreading freedom, and fighting for the inocent and oppressed. So yes I care less for the comments of thankless nations.

America didn't pull us out of anything. In the First World War, American simply sped up Germany's already inevitable defeat.

I don't deny that the supplies that Britain paid for during World War II helped, and the situation was dire at the time, but England and her allies were far from helpless.

I'll refer you back to J7's posts for more information.

What's so ludicris? Elaborate please.

Not only that you felt the need to explain what a Wind Turbine is, you then claim that bats are being shredded by them, without providing any proof.

What country are you from. Without us you'd be speaking German.

No, i'd be speaking English. I don't remember the Germans making occupied nations speak German.

But it's because we ae a nation that fought for you.

Of course, because we all need America to come in and ride roughshod over everything.

We did for France and Iraq and haven't gotten anything in return. We're not getting oil from Iraq.

Have you thought that maybe they could do without American 'help'?

Now I'm going down stairs to eat my steak and baked potato while you eat your baloney and cabage. A little joke for ya. lol.

How quaint. :dozey:

mimartin
09-03-2008, 06:17 PM
Russia was the Nazi's bridge too far, and where their massive war engine stalled. Agreed, but let's not forget the Americans involvement in helping supply the Red Army with Lend Lease. Let’s also not forget England holding on against the blitz and without England as a staging ground the liberation of Europe may never have happened. Let’s also not forget….(could go on for a few pages)

The victory in World War II was a group effort without any one of the allies victory would be in doubt. I really believe American history short changes the rest of the world’s contribution to the allies victory. I also think American history does not take into proper account how close we came to losing the war. It took everyone working together along with some stupid mistakes by the other side to win that war.

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-03-2008, 06:21 PM
You are correct sir. Because of all the generosity, pulling Europe out of 2 world wars, humanitarin aid, promoting freedom, spreading freedom, and fighting for the inocent and oppressed. So yes I care less for the comments of thankless nations.These are the kind of ideas that create terrorists.

What's so ludicris? Elaborate please.Hos in different area codes.

What country are you from. Without us you'd be speaking German. I know saving your tails is getting old. But it's because we ae a nation that fought for you. We did for France and Iraq and haven't gotten anything in return. We're not getting oil from Iraq.Read jon's post about the Russians.

Now I'm going down stairs to eat my steak and baked potato while you eat your baloney and cabage. A little joke for ya. lol.Little = not funny?

tk102
09-03-2008, 06:35 PM
Drop the WWII discussion. Back on topic. Posts may be deleted without warning.

EnderWiggin
09-03-2008, 08:18 PM
And you won't be able then to say it was a failed war when we walk out of there victorous. When we leave is up to the commanders on the ground actually fighting the war. Not politions in cooshy chairs. Or at least they shouldn't be the ones to say how the conditions are.

You know how they call the president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces? It's for a reason. He's got the leadership role in that he hears about how the conditions are from his generals and then decides what he wants to do. Because it is his call.

You prefer him. I prefer McCain. I care less what other countries that don't have our interests at heart think. And more about what we are doing to fight terrorism and secure us world wide.

So you'd rather America was the saviour (:D) of all? When did we get put in charge of the entire world?

Welfare means we that are working ahve to pay for you sitting on your butt doing nothing, but collecting a check for being a lazy slug.

Offensive and just plain wrong in some cases.

With McCain everyone according to what he's said he's said if he gets in everyone gets a tax cut. And no not the wealthiest 1 percent according to those who say that.

Suuuure.

As far as energy is concerned a lot of the technology isn't there yet as far as alternatives.

Some is, and we're working on the rest of it.


What happens with these wind devices is it's like these prapellers attached to these poles which when the perpeller spins to powers a generator. Even when down here there is no wind up how far they extend there is wind.
The problems some have with it is that it can confuse bats and shred them. Also it's an eye sore if it's put in someone's yard.

Who has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap? (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/VanVelding/BobKelso.jpg)

So for right now oil we need. I'm for drilling at home. It was on the table to drill during the Clinton years to drill in Anwar, but was not passed. Had it been improved back then gas prices might be lower because we'd have more oil.


There's a ton of land that's been bought for the oil companies to drill on, but just hasn't been tapped yet. Let's drill there before destroying the environment, kay?

We could be fully independent of foreign oil if we drill here.


Respectfully, that's bull****. And it's too bad the language filter is going to star that out.


Sarah feels we should drill in her state. Alaska's gas prices are the hightest in the nation at last check. In my opinion screw the caraboo. Drill.


What the ****? The caribou are an innocent species. What gives us the right to kill millions of them in the name of wealth?

In my opinion being energy independent is more important than caraboo.


Already called you on this BS, but here's another question: You do know that oil will eventually run out, right?

I would love to not use oil and at the same time be energy independent. But right now the technology isn't there yet. And the wind power thing people have disputes with.
Again, if we would focus on developing those technologies, we wouldn't have this problem. And again, source on the bats?



No because too many wouldn't want that. I think it should be up to individual states to decide whether to aloow or disallow abortions in their own states. It's not afair to either side to say no abortions. Or to say abortions for all.


Then people from one state will just go to another to get an abortion.

Why isn't it fair for them to say abortions for all? Then, the people who would choose it can choose it and the people that wouldn't choose it won't choose it.

That's unfair to both sides. It should be in this state you can get an abortion, but over in this state you cannot. It's just more fair in my opinion.

Explain how it's more fair to decide based on location in the state. If they said no abortions in Pennsylvania, but yes abortions in Jersey, then what about the people right there in Philly? They're really close to New Jersey, so are they allowed to go get one? If not, why not? If so, why have the law in the first place?


Three words. The Second Amendment. Right to bare arms. If I want to have a gun in my house to defend against intruders it in my opinion is not the government's job to go against the second amendment.

Assault rifles in the inner city aren't in the spirit of the law.



It's not our job to kiss the butt of nations doing wrong. A lot of the world doesn't like us because they are jelous of all the accomplishments, how generous we are, how we pulled countires out of 2 worlds wars, how we've spread freedom so quickly, How about how we're hypocritical and imperialistic? It is our job to live together in peace with the other humans on the Earth.

They think we are bullies because of our power. Without us Hilter would rule, comunism would be throughtout the world, and freedom would be little.


This is the problem with America today. Arrogance.


We need a wall. We have the right to defend our borders.
We need a working immigration system.

And I believe when you come in you learn English. It's the language of the land. When you go into another country and plan to live there in my opinion you should learn their language.

Thanks, Devon:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/national_language.jpg

Go through the process to become a U.S. citizin And pay the taxes. The rest of us have to.

Some are trying. It's not as simple as you imply.

So you don't care that America is often seen as a bullying, imperialistic menace by many in the world at large?

It makes me sad to be an American sometimes.


What country are you from. Without us you'd be speaking German.

:rolleyes:

_EW_

El Sitherino
09-03-2008, 08:27 PM
You guys are all forgetting one thing, McCain and party will re-label contraception as abortion, effectively removing any insurance company from covering any percentage of it.

No more condoms, no more birth control.

Have fun with that, I'm getting ready for Europe.

Edit:


Additional fact, McCain opposes a current attempt to get all insurance companies to provide coverage for birth control. Not only does it prevent conception for the most part but many of these medications have the ability to relieve problematic symptoms of the menstrual cycle. Obama and Biden have both voted for this to pass, as well as Hillary Clinton (it was one of her largest topics with women when she was campaigning, and one of her policies I greatly agreed with).
The fact that even low level insurance (medicare) will cover for viagra but at best 15%, after paying the entire cost up front giving back the 13% in check-through-mail, on birth control is disgraceful and shows the lack of concern.

EnderWiggin
09-03-2008, 08:48 PM
You guys are all forgetting one thing, McCain and party will re-label contraception as abortion, effectively removing any insurance company from covering any percentage of it.

No more condoms, no more birth control.

Have fun with that, I'm getting ready for Europe.


I'm coming, Siffeh, wait for me.

as well as Hillary Clinton (it was one of her largest topics with women when she was campaigning, and one of her policies I greatly agreed with).
Agreed.

_EW_

Litofsky
09-03-2008, 08:56 PM
You guys are all forgetting one thing, McCain and party will re-label contraception as abortion, effectively removing any insurance company from covering any percentage of it.

No more condoms, no more birth control.

Have fun with that, I'm getting ready for Europe.
My mom's already said that we'll move out of America if McCain is elected. While she was joking, I think I'll start packing my bags- just in case.


Additional fact, McCain opposes a current attempt to get all insurance companies to provide coverage for birth control. Not only does it prevent conception for the most part but many of these medications have the ability to relieve problematic symptoms of the menstrual cycle. Obama and Biden have both voted for this to pass, as well as Hillary Clinton (it was one of her largest topics with women when she was campaigning, and one of her policies I greatly agreed with).
The fact that even low level insurance (medicare) will cover for viagra but at best 15%, after paying the entire cost up front giving back the 13% in check-through-mail, on birth control is disgraceful and shows the lack of concern.

Another reason to vote Obama. I don't think that he'll accomplish everything he accomplished, but Obama is definitely a smarter, more logical choice than McCain.

El Sitherino
09-03-2008, 09:02 PM
I'm already understanding that Obama will be extremely neutered in what he can do in office, not only because he's the first black president, but also because he'd be a very publicized change. People will be all over him because of the mess created by Bush.
I also have my disagreements with his policy, but by and large I know the faulty ideas will be met with opposition of more favorable ideas.

People seem to think that like McCain, Obama is unwilling to listen to another person.

Litofsky
09-03-2008, 09:09 PM
I'm already understanding that Obama will be extremely neutered in what he can do in office, not only because he's the first black president, but also because he'd be a very publicized change. People will be all over him because of the mess created by Bush.
I also have my disagreements with his policy, but by and large I know the faulty ideas will be met with opposition of more favorable ideas.
Quote for truth. Obama may not be perfect, but I prefer him over McCain (by a long shot). Even just willing to sit down and talk with other nations makes more sense then what McCain is offering.

People seem to think that like McCain, Obama is unwilling to listen to another person.
An anti-American stereotype, perhaps?

El Sitherino
09-03-2008, 09:14 PM
An anti-American stereotype, perhaps?

As in Obama is anti-American or the phrase?

I personally think it's just neo-conservative people acting as though McCain is above judgment because he represents their ideals. Which are obviously the correct ones. :rolleyes:

Litofsky
09-03-2008, 09:19 PM
"Because I think that actually talking to our enemies is stupid, anyone who supports said ideal is automatically stupid." :carms:

I believe we call it "ignorance?"

El Sitherino
09-03-2008, 09:36 PM
Did anyone hear Huckabee just talking about how he's Republican not because he's rich and how he's rich because he didn't sit around waiting for the government to give him money?

But we keep hearing about the tax return policies of McCain. That's money from the government people, so I call bull****.

Litofsky
09-03-2008, 09:40 PM
Did anyone hear Huckabee just talking about how he's Republican not because he's rich and how he's rich because he didn't sit around waiting for the government to give him money?

But we keep hearing about the tax return policies of McCain. That's money from the government people, so I call bull****.

I did. Something about showers, and lava? :xp:

Either way, I nearly laughed myself silly. I thought his gay-bashing was quite funny. Something about how marriage only meant "men-women." It amazes me how illogical some people can be... Personally, I think that what you do and who you do it with is between you and that person. Why should the government interfere?

But that's an opinion now, isn't it?

mimartin
09-03-2008, 09:42 PM
The fact that even low level insurance (medicare) will cover for viagra but at best 15%, after paying the entire cost up front giving back the 13% in check-through-mail, on birth control is disgraceful and shows the lack of concern. Iím not doubting you El Sitherino, but do you have source for this information? I have been trying to find it, but all the information I see says it is up to the individual states. I did find where it was estimated in 2002 about 17 million women were in need of publicly funded contraceptive coverage. It also said, every $1.00 spent on family planning including birth control saves Medicaid $3.00 in prenatal and newborn care cost. So of course, the Republicans will be against Medicaid funded birth control, it saves money.

Druganator
09-03-2008, 09:44 PM
The difference is one of those holes we should be sat in... And the other we shouldn't be in - it would also seem to me Afghanistan needs more attention than Iraq these days anyways.
i dont deny Afghanistan is more worthy of our resources i was simply stating that Obama wouldnt be removing our troops from harms way. I'm for Obama by the by

El Sitherino
09-03-2008, 09:48 PM
I’m not doubting you El Sitherino, but do you have source for this information? I have been trying to find it, but all the information I see says it is up to the individual states. I did find where it was estimated in 2002 about 17 million women were in need of publicly funded contraceptive coverage. It also said, every $1.00 spent on family planning including birth control saves Medicaid $3.00 in prenatal and newborn care cost. So of course, the Republicans will be against Medicaid funded birth control, it saves money.

I'm afraid I must confess my source on this is actually from being in clinics and observing what happens when people actually go to obtain their birth control (or attempt to). As for publicly released information by companies and particular groups observations of this I must say remain short, as far as I'm aware of no one has made an actual attempt to look into this issue.

I chalk it up to people not having concern about this topic, but there is however great concern for countering erectile dysfunction.

i dont deny Afghanistan is more worthy of our resources i was simply stating that Obama wouldnt be removing our troops from harms way. I'm for Obama by the by

This is true, however much of Obama's staff is supportive of the idea about cycling our troops and actually allowing the down time and recovery these military personnel were promised. Unlike the treatment they currently get from the government that sends them out to fight in it's name.

mimartin
09-03-2008, 10:08 PM
I'm afraid I must confess my source on this is actually from being in clinics and observing what happens when people actually go to obtain their birth control (or attempt to). As for publicly released information by companies and particular groups observations of this I must say remain short, as far as I'm aware of no one has made an actual attempt to look into this issue. Thanks. Then it may be on state-by-state basics. While I am all for state rights and leaving certain rules of government up to the individual states, this is one of my concerns where it crosses the line between individual rights. Why should the state someone lives in be the determining factor in deciding the quality of health care an American citizen receives?

I have no clue to why there is not more information on this. Imagine if this was being done by a private insurance provider.

The people that complain about low-income women having more children should complain to their state legislators instead of being mad at the women for doing what comes natural.

Litofsky
09-03-2008, 10:16 PM
Is anyone else listening to Giuliani speaking? It's pretty funny- he basically said that McCain, as POTUS, will reduce the government and unnecessary spending.

"We need John McCain to save our economy." :lol:

Besides that, it's a bunch of Democrat bashing. Nothing productive, truth be told. Wouldn't it be great if both parties could work together for the country's benefit? [/pseudo-optimism]

El Sitherino
09-03-2008, 10:27 PM
Imagine if this was being done by a private insurance provider.
Well, my health insurance only covers 4% and send you this by check after you pay the upfront cost which includes additional cost, the 4% does not include additional fees.

I have pretty high-end health insurance, I can get viagra at no cost to me, because that's what I as a 21 year old am concerned about.

Private insurance is the biggest fiend in the contraception battle, emergency contraception is usually not covered (this includes emergency contraception when dealing with rape).
And while I can't say this is exactly how it is all over, I can say that the fact it's happening and happening very often should make people feel ashamed at the quality of health in this nation and how the government values this.

Is anyone else listening to Giuliani speaking? It's pretty funny- he basically said that McCain, as POTUS, will reduce the government and unnecessary spending.

"We need John McCain to save our economy." :lol:

Besides that, it's a bunch of Democrat bashing. Nothing productive, truth be told. Wouldn't it be great if both parties could work together for the country's benefit? [/pseudo-optimism]
I've been noticing every night, not a single one of the average joe spearkers is actually talking about anything of value. It's all just "I'm proud to be an American. I know John McCain will do good because Obama is..."

While the DNC had it's fair share of mindless drivel, the RNC is nothing but attacks. It's like watching the high school debate when someone couldn't think of an actual counter so they cried out "At least I'm not a tacky dresser".

Q
09-03-2008, 10:29 PM
Did anyone hear Huckabee just talking about how he's Republican not because he's rich and how he's rich because he didn't sit around waiting for the government to give him money?

But we keep hearing about the tax return policies of McCain. That's money from the government people, so I call bull****.
You're talking about it like it's the government's money in the first place. I respectfully beg to differ. It's ours.

While I think that tax cuts in the face of unbridled spending is foolhardy, I can't honestly say that I'm in favor of giving the government yet more of our money to waste. No matter who it's coming from, we'll all end up paying for it one way or another in the form of more expensive goods and services. How that money is spent is the real issue here. Until the rather unlikely event that this problem is addressed, increasing taxes would only be like pouring gas on a fire, IMO.

I see too many people here swallowing and then spouting the same dogma that the Democrats have been using for decades like it's gospel. It reeks of "Let's stick it to the man!" and it's a complete farce. I hate to tell you this, folks, but the Democrats are every bit as much "the man" as the Republicans, and I distrust the motives and dogma of both parties intensely.

And for those of you talking about democracy: democracy has not existed in this country for at least 75 years, and shows no sign of returning until the corrupt two-party system is either reformed or eliminated. Neither outcome is very likely, however.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming (i.e., the delusion of democracy). :p

Litofsky
09-03-2008, 10:37 PM
I hate to tell you this, folks, but the Democrats are every bit as much "the man" as the Republicans, and I distrust the motives and dogma of both parties intensely.

And for those of you talking about democracy: democracy has not existed in this country for at least 75 years, and shows no sign of returning until the corrupt two-party system is either reformed or eliminated. Neither outcome is very likely, however.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming (i.e., the delusion of democracy). :p

After I read The Jungle, I'd tend to agree with you. In fact, I still do. However, the Democrats seem slightly more capable (and more logical) then the Republicans. Therefore, my hope lies with them.

Now, one might say that hope is a delusion: a way for the Power to continue controlling you and me. You might be right, and you might not. There's no way to know for sure. In the end, does it really matter which is true?

...which brings us back to, "Does your vote count?"
I've been noticing every night, not a single one of the average joe spearkers is actually talking about anything of value. It's all just "I'm proud to be an American. I know John McCain will do good because Obama is..."

While the DNC had it's fair share of mindless drivel, the RNC is nothing but attacks. It's like watching the high school debate when someone couldn't think of an actual counter so they cried out "At least I'm not a tacky dresser".
Agreed. Again, I dislike both parties to an extent, but I believe that the Democrats stand more chance of doing good then the Republicans.

El Sitherino
09-03-2008, 10:50 PM
You're talking about it like it's the government's money in the first place. I respectfully beg to differ. It's ours.


It's tax money. Taxes are how we pay the government (the body that runs the nation) so that they can do things that governments do.

If you don't like taxes, you should recommend a better way to fund our nation as an entirety as opposed to each individual person.

On topic of the RNC:
I find it confusing that Palin is claiming the Republicans are the only ones that are going to do anything to help our energy issue.

Q
09-03-2008, 10:51 PM
Now, one might say that hope is a delusion: a way for the Power to continue controlling you and me. You might be right, and you might not. There's no way to know for sure. In the end, does it really matter which is true?It does to me. "Above all, to thine own self be true," and all that. It may be distasteful and downright ugly at times, but the search for truth is the most important aspect of the human condition, IMO, and without it life is pretty much pointless.

...which brings us back to, "Does your vote count?"It is my sad belief that, presently, it does not. :(

It's tax money. Taxes are how we pay the government (the body that runs the nation) so that they can do things that governments do.

If you don't like taxes, you should recommend a better way to fund our nation as an entirety as opposed to each individual person.
Oh, I'm not saying that we should eliminate them; I'm saying that better methods of spending what is already being procured (extorted, really :p) would make any increase unnecessary.

Litofsky
09-03-2008, 10:56 PM
It does to me. "Above all, to thine own self be true," and all that. It may be distasteful and downright ugly at times, but the search for truth is the most important aspect of the human condition, IMO, and without it life is pretty much pointless.
No one ever said the truth was pretty. In fact, the truth sucks most of the time. Which is why we sugarcoat it in little things, and manipulate it. Sounds a bit like Kreia... :xp:

It is my sad belief that, presently, it does not. :(
To me, I hope our votes count, but I tend to agree. Which is rather sad.

Arcesious
09-03-2008, 11:27 PM
Well I just listened to all the speeches the GOP just had (I started by hearing Guiliani)...

Guiliani is plain out attacking the Dems... He's so annoyingly negative!
Palin is a very nice, and much more positive, but she still wasn't makign much sense about how Mccain would solve things. Just more typical GOP tactics, avoiding the real solutions and pursuing the appealing ones. Typical flock-herding tactics. They talka bout energy independence and victory in Iraq... I'm sorry but that's just crazy. Their energy plans are not effective. And there is no dishonor in withdrawing from war.

El Sitherino
09-03-2008, 11:29 PM
Palin contradicted herself and has effectively neutralized what the Republicans were using as her experience and justification.

She solved the economic problem by raising taxes and heavily taxing the oil businesses in Alaska and they saw a huge increase. Now she's stating the McCain plan is best.

Jae Onasi
09-03-2008, 11:39 PM
Well I just listened to all the speeches the GOP just had (I started by hearing Guiliani)...

Guiliani is plain out attacking the Dems... He's so annoyingly negative!
You didn't hear the same thing out of the Dems? I heard the same attacks on McCain as I've heard on Obama. This is typical of every single convention I've watched in the last 25 years. I would have been surprised if either party had said _nothing_ about the other party.

Palin is a very nice, and much more positive, but she still wasn't makign much sense about how Mccain would solve things. Just more typical GOP tactics, avoiding the real solutions and pursuing the appealing ones. Typical flock-herding tactics.Welcome to politics, Arcesious. Neither party talked about the reality that we're going to see tax increases no matter who's in office to pay for the deficit and any increase in social programs. No one wants to say that, though.

They talka bout energy independence and victory in Iraq... I'm sorry but that's just crazy. Their energy plans are not effective. And there is no dishonor in withdrawing from war.Why do you think that?

She solved the economic problem by raising taxesNeither candidate will be able to avoid raising taxes, unfortunately. The question is if people in the Gen X/Gen Y will be able to make it through with the same prosperity our Baby Boomer predecessors enjoyed.

Tommycat
09-03-2008, 11:49 PM
Meh, McCain listens to Democrats. How many Republican speakers were there for Obama?

If you think that McCain won't listen to other people, you're a fool. He's gone against party lines on quite a few issues. He had to bring in Palin for her strong pro-life stance because he has been more pro-choice. So claiming he'll make contraceprion the same as abortion is just silly. Saying he'll appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade is silly and borderline dishonest. I understand you want your guy to win, but he isn't that bad. Besides, we've seen how congress can keep those judges out.

Honestly I think the best government is when you have a dem congress and a republican pres, or the other way around. That way they keep eachother in check. it just doesn't seem like a good idea to have a republican pres and republican congress or dem with dem as that kinda defeats the whole checks and balances thing...

Also if you think assault rifles should be banned, keep in mind the framers realized that the gun was the way the common man could defend himself from his government. The gun isn't just for defending against criminals. It's also to defend against a criminal government.

SD Nihil
09-03-2008, 11:49 PM
Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska, but did work to curtail their influence on state government. At this she was a very effective advocate for fair use and charges of a resource that really belongs to us all.

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-03-2008, 11:51 PM
Neither candidate will be able to avoid raising taxes, unfortunately. The question is if people in the Gen X/Gen Y will be able to make it through with the same prosperity our Baby Boomer predecessors enjoyed.Well I figure we can do it the way the Baby Boomers did it and just take whatever we want without regard for anyone else and **** **** up then just pass the mess along like a ****ing hot potato.

mimartin
09-04-2008, 12:09 AM
Also if you think assault rifles should be banned, keep in mind the framers realized that the gun was the way the common man could defend himself from his government. The gun isn't just for defending against criminals. It's also to defend against a criminal government.
:lol: I believe their guns would still be bigger.
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/_/images12/us_terror_state_/us_militarism_tank.jpe

Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska, Really Now. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html) Explain this away.

El Sitherino
09-04-2008, 12:10 AM
Meh, McCain listens to Democrats. How many Republican speakers were there for Obama?

If you think that McCain won't listen to other people, you're a fool. He's gone against party lines on quite a few issues. He had to bring in Palin for her strong pro-life stance because he has been more pro-choice. So claiming he'll make contraceprion the same as abortion is just silly. Saying he'll appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade is silly and borderline dishonest. I understand you want your guy to win, but he isn't that bad. Besides, we've seen how congress can keep those judges out.
Clearly you're unaware of what has taken place on the senate floor. And yeah, he is attempting to place contraception on the same terms as abortion.

Just because he used to be a person of integrity in the passed doesn't mean he is that person now. Infact he's pretty much countered his former stance entirely.

Totenkopf
09-04-2008, 12:40 AM
Keep something in mind. Overturning Roe v Wade is not the same as outlawing abortion nationwide. That would require a whole new series of rulings. It would be punted back to the states, where it was in the first place. Since abortion is an elective procedure, all that crap about it's unfair that one state regulate it while another does nothing at all and that the "horror of back alley abortions" would be the law of the land, is just that, crap. There are 50 states (57 if you support Obama, I guess :D ) and if you couldn't it done in one, you could still go to another. The only way you might get screwed is if you're in HI.......lot of ocean till you see another state.

@Sithy--it's not the govt's money, unless you mean we are the govt and it's our money. Tax cuts are recognition by the govt that it extorted more than its fair share (perhaps to the point of being conterproductive) and that it's essentially giving you your money back. The problem with dems is that they don't know how to do anything other than tax. If they actually put the money down on what the taxes were supposed to be used for (paying down debt, repairing/building infrastructure, etc...), people would be less averse to paying the taxes*. Nobody likes paying taxes, but nobody likes seeing their money put to use fraudulently either (dumped into the general fund for pork and other "discretionary" items). Also, a lot of things go to the floor of the Senate......and stay there. Your new avi threw me for a second. Initially looked like a somewhat stylized pic of Stallone till I took a 2nd look and recognized Colbert.

*FTR, I don't support tax heavily and spend profigately, nor do I support tax and spend and borrow to cover spending you didn't raise enough $$ for in the first place either.

Tommycat
09-04-2008, 02:29 AM
Bah, my personal opinion is it won't be much change either way. We either get tax and spend Dems, or Deficit and spend Reps. You want real change, we need a candidate that will tell congress, not to spend any more of our money.

Universal Healthcare? I think it's a great idea on paper, but the reality is it will be abused. Much like the welfare system and SSI, people will find ways to exploit it. It'll create a new government entity that will balloon out of control and become a huge mess. It'll hurt the average citizen in the long run. Much as Social Security has hurt us now. Social security was not meant to be a retirement fund. That's what it's being used as now. And chances are it will be gone before I get a chance to use it.

Knowing the way the government works what will probably end up happening is when I really need it, I'll be denied because I made too much money the previous month. Or they'll look at my prior year's tax statement and say that I made too much the previous year. Meanwhile someone that has never paid into the system will get great care because they already know how to work the system. I'll end up with huge medical bills for my ailments because I won't match up with some limited criteria, because they won't have enough funding to provide care to everyone.

You want universal health care, join the military. Then at least you're providing service to your country.

What happened to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Guess the same thing that happened to Republicans that believed in smaller government....

Astor
09-04-2008, 04:28 AM
So i've just been catching up on the last few hours (i've been asleep) and I've been looking at the events at the Republican Convention. So let's see:

Mitt Romney has said that McCain is the best choice to 'destroy radical Islam'. Way to make friends, Mitt. :dozey:

Sarah Palin has been attacking everyone who disagrees with her, and seems quite desperate to prove that she is a good choice. It's unimportant, but she doesn't seem to be a natural speaker - her voice throughout is dull and uninspiring - almost like my dad's satnav.

I did laugh when she talks about her husband's work as an Oil production operator. She then goes on to talk about getting oil by 'American Ingenuity'. Did she mention her husband works for British Petroleum? (I know it's inconsequential, but it made me laugh).

Oh, and this gem from the BBC's transcript of her speech:

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay...

Did she actually say it like that?

It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.

Okay, we get it, he's been in a war.

And it's mostly the usual sort of blether i've come to expect from most (especially American) politicians.

EDIT: Also, she barely seems confident of her party's position. Unlike the Democrats, who use the term "When we are elected", she seems to mostly use "If we are elected".

I understand she's nervous, but surely she thinks they'll win?

Tommycat
09-04-2008, 06:40 AM
Mitt Romney has said that McCain is the best choice to 'destroy radical Islam'. Way to make friends, Mitt. :dozey:
The key being RADICAL. We're never going to make friends with the RADICAL islamists. because they are RADICALS.

Sarah Palin has been attacking everyone who disagrees with her, and seems quite desperate to prove that she is a good choice. It's unimportant, but she doesn't seem to be a natural speaker - her voice throughout is dull and uninspiring - almost like my dad's satnav.
well with all the talk of how she's not the best choice from the talking heads in teh media, kinda hard not to want to come out swinging. Of course I would rather not have someone who is a natural speaker... generally they can lie a lot easier...

I did laugh when she talks about her husband's work as an Oil production operator. She then goes on to talk about getting oil by 'American Ingenuity'. Did she mention her husband works for British Petroleum? (I know it's inconsequential, but it made me laugh).
Still American workers... American subcontractors... and while it may be BP, still a lot of room for American Ingenuity..

Did she actually say it like that?
Better than saying Nukyular isn't it?

Okay, we get it, he's been in a war.
Haha at least they can't say his daddy(the Admiral) was able to keep him out of Vietnam like they did with Bush.
EDIT: Also, she barely seems confident of her party's position. Unlike the Democrats, who use the term "When we are elected", she seems to mostly use "If we are elected".

I understand she's nervous, but surely she thinks they'll win?
It's called being humble. Maybe even a realist. Maybe she really didn't want to come off as a presumptuous arrogant egomaniacal twit? Of course it could also be because the current administration isn't exactly sitting real high in the opinion polls, and they really have a big hill to climb.

Astor
09-04-2008, 07:28 AM
The key being RADICAL. We're never going to make friends with the RADICAL islamists. because they are RADICALS.

Unsurprisingly, I did understand that - but to many in the rest of the world (the Middle-East especially) there seems to be little distinction between 'Islam' and RADICAL (as you put it) Islam.

It's called being humble. Maybe even a realist. Maybe she really didn't want to come off as a presumptuous arrogant egomaniacal twit? Of course it could also be because the current administration isn't exactly sitting real high in the opinion polls, and they really have a big hill to climb.

You're right, but i'd expect someone in her position to at least indulge a little bit of fantasy.

And I thought that all politicians were presumtuous, arrogant, egomanical twits?

Arcesious
09-04-2008, 08:34 AM
You didn't hear the same thing out of the Dems? I heard the same attacks on McCain as I've heard on Obama. This is typical of every single convention I've watched in the last 25 years. I would have been surprised if either party had said _nothing_ about the other party.

Indeed, but at least Obama said that Mccain was a good person who wants what's best for his country. (And then talked about why mcain's plans would not work.)


Welcome to politics, Arcesious. Neither party talked about the reality that we're going to see tax increases no matter who's in office to pay for the deficit and any increase in social programs. No one wants to say that, though.

Indeed. This is true. But you have to raise taxes if you want to get soemthing done. As for Obama, he wants to raise taxes for the big corporations, and lower them for the middle and lower class.


Why do you think that?
Their energy plans are not enviromentally efficient. More drilling and nuclear power plants. More fossil fuels. And only who knows how long after that would they start focusing on the efficeint power solutions. Let's face it- we're not the only country in the world. Drilling kills the underwater ecosystem. More oil means more carbon emissions. Building refineries on land also does. It is a temorary solution that only hurts us in the longrun.

Withdrawing from a war is not shameful- it would show that the country is smart enough to withdraw if it isn't working. This country needs to let go of it's military ego and start being smart about war.

Totenkopf
09-04-2008, 09:11 AM
@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe. Perhaps the transcript was misspelled or they wanted her to avoid saying nucular, which members of both parties have fallen into over the past 3 decades (Carter and W come to mind).

@Arc--lets wait and see what McCain says about Obama before trying to set BO up as someone that doesn't "resort to cheap shots". Part of Palin's shots at BO are rooted in the man's own condescension and take on reality. Also, if BO doesn't understand that "corporate taxes" are really taxes on the population at large....perhaps he needs to go back to school. Higher taxes have a tendency to drive businesses to other areas where the govt isn't so regressive. Also, you don't go to war and then run w/your tail betwixt your legs at the first sign of trouble. If we'd taken that tack in WW2, where we were plagued with a lot of setbacks early on, the end would have been different. Vietnam taught us that leaving prematurely has negative consequences.....both for self image and international reputation. The mendacious and self defeating nature of the "mainstream press" does not reccomend it as reputable or believable. One could almost say that if no new news is coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan, then things are probably going mostly well. Reason being that most of the reporting is sensationalist in nature and not truly a dependable yardstick for measuring progress. ce le vie/ ce le guerre.

In general, BO and the dems in general remind me of the saying...if you try to please everyone....you end up pleasing no one. Also, I don't believe that McCain will be that much better (if at all) than BO on the illegal immigration issue.

@Tommy--at least under Reagan, we had a tax and spend and borrow Dem congress that spent $1.37 for every $ of revenue the administration brought in to the coffers. But the fact is, regardless of party, that for over 200+ years most federal budgets have been in the red. The problem w/"tax and spend" is that those people actually have a tendency to overtax and still overspend. The luxury tax back in the 80s/90s was a key example. Make those "dirty rich white guys" pay more for their toys. Taxes went up, purchases went down and the toymakers lost revenue and had to put people out of work. Way to go.....tax till your base is gone and then raise everyone else's taxes to make up for the apparent misstake.

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-04-2008, 09:52 AM
Their energy plans are not enviromentally efficient. More drilling and nuclear power plants. More fossil fuels. And only who knows how long after that would they start focusing on the efficeint power solutions. Let's face it- we're not the only country in the world. Drilling kills the underwater ecosystem. More oil means more carbon emissions. Building refineries on land also does. It is a temorary solution that only hurts us in the longrun.Nuclear power is clean and can produce a massive amount of electricity compared to other more environmentally safe options.

@Tommy--at least under Reagan, we had a tax and spend and borrow Dem congress that spent $1.37 for every $ of revenue the administration brought in to the coffers. But the fact is, regardless of party, that for over 200+ years most federal budgets have been in the red. The problem w/"tax and spend" is that those people actually have a tendency to overtax and still overspend. The luxury tax back in the 80s/90s was a key example. Make those "dirty rich white guys" pay more for their toys. Taxes went up, purchases went down and the toymakers lost revenue and had to put people out of work. Way to go.....tax till your base is gone and then raise everyone else's taxes to make up for the apparent misstake.I'd rather have the luxury tax from back then if that meant we could trade our economy now for the one back then, because if you haven't noticed, the policies you're endorsing don't seem to work as well as the ones you're critiquing.

SD Nihil
09-04-2008, 11:10 AM
Astor
Mitt Romney has said that McCain is the best choice to 'destroy radical Islam'. Way to make friends, Mitt.

Sarah Palin has been attacking everyone who disagrees with her, and seems quite desperate to prove that she is a good choice. It's unimportant, but she doesn't seem to be a natural speaker - her voice throughout is dull and uninspiring - almost like my dad's satnav.

I did laugh when she talks about her husband's work as an Oil production operator. She then goes on to talk about getting oil by 'American Ingenuity'. Did she mention her husband works for British Petroleum? (I know it's inconsequential, but it made me laugh).


To the winning over friends remark I think he (Romni) doesn't care about making everyone feel good or kiss everyone's tails. I think he believes that we are not here to (we meaning us concervatives) to say what's popular. We are here to say what we think.

Sarah has every right to defend herself after all the attacks she had been given over her creditinals and other things. I believe she made good contrasts against Oboma, and answered a lot of the democrate's comments with her rebut. I believe she did very well.

Yes people had attacked her and so last night she defended herself. And quite well I might add.

tolenkopt
@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe. Perhaps the transcript was misspelled or they wanted her to avoid saying nucular, which members of both parties have fallen into over the past 3 decades (Carter and W come to mind).[/QUOTE

In my opinion that's nit picky. So what she refered to McCain as the next president. They want that to become fact so..guys this is your defense against Sarah's speech last night. She must have done better than I thought.

[QUOTE]Did she actually say it like that?

Well if you can find a transcript I'm sure it would answer that and help to better the discussion on her speech by having the words right with us.

Okay, we get it, he's been in a war.

Exactly. And BO hasn't. And by that alone that makes McCain able to speak with more atthority and from first hand experience and how to fight a war and since he's delt with Putin. If you don't like attacks and contrast then I don't know this is just off the top of my head, but maybe people should now stop with the ridiclous attacks on Sarah. I mean she really defended herself well in my opinion.

mimartin
[QUOTE]Really Now. Explain this away.[]QUOTE]

I'd be happy to explain it to you and everyone. The oil companies were looking to increase their profit margin through increased tax credits. This would have had merit if the money were to go to lower gas prices or to infrastructure improvement but it in fact would be used to increase the salaries of management.A comment was made concerning BP Oil that Gov Palin's husband works for you must understand that it's a "world market" that we deal with like it or not. You would be hard pressed to find any products in Walmart or Sears that say made in the USA on them Thats something to worry about much more then who is to be the next vice president

Astor
09-04-2008, 11:22 AM
Exactly. And BO hasn't. And by that alone that makes McCain able to speak with more atthority and from first hand experience and how to fight a war and since he's delt with Putin.

If memory serves, wasn't he captured?

Simply having been in a war doesn't automatically give one the knowledge of how to fight and win a war.

From an outsider's point of view, I think he's still too attached to the Navy. He's letting his attachment to the military (and the two ongoing wars) overshadow his other policies and important matters in favour of expressing support for what has become a pretty unpopular war.

If you don't like attacks and contrast then I don't know this is just off the top of my head, but maybe people should now stop with the ridiclous attacks on Sarah.

I haven't made any attacks against Mrs. Palin. Aside from commenting that she didn't sound all too confident, and like she was reading from a script, I haven't said a single thing that could be construed as an attack.

mimartin
09-04-2008, 12:06 PM
I'd be happy to explain it to you I'm still waiting for you to explain away the tax increase (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html).
Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.
Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.
Just in case we are having a miscommunication about what Taxes are: A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state
So let us review. El Sitherino wrote:She solved the economic problem by raising taxes and heavily taxing the oil businesses in Alaska and they saw a huge increase. Now she's stating the McCain plan is best.
To which you replied: Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska,
So please explain where the 6 billion dollar increase in the state's revenue came from and where the $6 billion dollar added expense to the Oil and Gas Industry in Alaska came from. I may not have a Doctorate degree in Finance, but I know the difference between a Tax and a Tax Credit and obviously so does El Sitherino.

KinchyB
09-04-2008, 12:11 PM
Well if you can find a transcript I'm sure it would answer that and help to better the discussion on her speech by having the words right with us.


This look about right...? Didn't listen so want to check the accuracy...

Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94258995)

Web Rider
09-04-2008, 12:12 PM
You would be hard pressed to find any products in Walmart or Sears that say made in the USA on them Thats something to worry about much more then who is to be the next vice president

Most ladders and rope are made in the US. Along with nails, various metal parts for houses, and most lumber. Of course, you won't find lumber at WalMart. Yeah I just wanted to throw that out there.

I don't think fighting in a war makes you better prepared to lead one. I'll give you that you're probably more aware of what happens when you send some guys in unprepared to do a job, but there's a huge matter of "big picture" strategy that the average soldier is not dealing with on a daily basis. And even the ones who are really paying attention, leading a democratic country is NOT the same as leading an army.

Even though our President can serve these dual roles, being good at one does not automatically make him better at the other.

*FTR, I don't support tax heavily and spend profigately, nor do I support tax and spend and borrow to cover spending you didn't raise enough $$ for in the first place either.

I just wanted to grab on this little note here and ask: would you support higher taxes combined with more frugal spending, at least in order to balance the budget?

tk102
09-04-2008, 12:33 PM
Universal Healthcare? I think it's a great idea on paper, but the reality is it will be abused. Much like the welfare system and SSI, people will find ways to exploit it. It'll create a new government entity that will balloon out of control and become a huge mess. It'll hurt the average citizen in the long run.
You say this as if this is an untested program (looks at Canada, UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, etc etc etc). It works for other industrialized nations. We just have this American Dream thing that people are accountable for their own condition. I disagree with that when it comes to health -- anyone can be struck down with a malady. I would also point out that administrative costs for the private sector amount to approximately 14% of private payments made into it (source (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/nhe2004.zip))whereas Medicare, the model program for which most UHC plans intend to expand has 2% admin costs (source (www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2006.pdf)).


Knowing the way the government works what will probably end up happening is when I really need it, I'll be denied because I made too much money the previous month. Or they'll look at my prior year's tax statement and say that I made too much the previous year. Meanwhile someone that has never paid into the system will get great care because they already know how to work the system. I'll end up with huge medical bills for my ailments because I won't match up with some limited criteria, because they won't have enough funding to provide care to everyone.If the health care plan is based on need, it's not a Universal Health Care plan. The UNCs proposed either require everyone to sign on to governmental provided health insurance (making private coverage supplemental) or be guaranteed the option to use public health insurance if private was not available. Your income would not be factor.

EnderWiggin
09-04-2008, 12:33 PM
You didn't hear the same thing out of the Dems?

Honestly? I thought that the DNC was a bit more civil than that of previous years. Even FoxNews was a bit surprised about that after Obama's speech last week.

Meh, McCain listens to Democrats.

Suuure he does. He listens, but does he act?

If you think that McCain won't listen to other people, you're a fool.

Please explain this flame.

So claiming he'll make contraceprion the same as abortion is just silly. Saying he'll appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade is silly and borderline dishonest.

Silly, and yet true.


Honestly I think the best government is when you have a dem congress and a republican pres, or the other way around. That way they keep eachother in check.

Yes, it's the best way to get absolutely nothing done.


Also if you think assault rifles should be banned, keep in mind the framers realized that the gun was the way the common man could defend himself from his government. The gun isn't just for defending against criminals. It's also to defend against a criminal government.

Yeah, well. Go look at the gun control thread here in Kavar's. That's what the original Right to Bear Arms was for, but now, allowing assault rifles would not protect the commonfolk from a "criminal government," and it's pretty obvious it's not good for the many who die each year that the guns are used for a purpose not intended by the constitution.

Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska
This is just plain wrong.

Bah, my personal opinion is it won't be much change either way. We either get tax and spend Dems, or Deficit and spend Reps. You want real change, we need a candidate that will tell congress, not to spend any more of our money.

You're right. They shouldn't spend any money at all. Let's disband the military. And the education system. And the post offices. And the police and the fire departments. (I trust you get my point?)

Knowing the way the government works what will probably end up happening is when I really need it, I'll be denied because I made too much money the previous month. Or they'll look at my prior year's tax statement and say that I made too much the previous year. Meanwhile someone that has never paid into the system will get great care because they already know how to work the system. I'll end up with huge medical bills for my ailments because I won't match up with some limited criteria, because they won't have enough funding to provide care to everyone.

You do realize the idea of universal healthcare is that you receive medical treatment regardless of income?


You want universal health care, join the military. Then at least you're providing service to your country.

Yeah, because the US Government is doing a great job taking care of our veterans. 12.1% of all civilians are veterans, and yet veterans make up over 25% of the homeless population.

Of course I would rather not have someone who is a natural speaker... generally they can lie a lot easier...

...So? So what if they can lie a lot easier? Luckily there's more than one person running our country, so it's not all that easy to lie to everyone. Plus, she's the damn vice presidential candidate, not the presidential one.


Still American workers... American subcontractors... and while it may be BP, still a lot of room for American Ingenuity..

Irrelevant.

Better than saying Nukyular isn't it?

You know what would be great? If the people leading our country were able to read on a fourth grade level! Then they could just say Nuclear like the rest of us educated folk.


It's called being humble. Maybe even a realist. Maybe she really didn't want to come off as a presumptuous arrogant egomaniacal twit? Of course it could also be because the current administration isn't exactly sitting real high in the opinion polls, and they really have a big hill to climb.
Bull****. It's called confident when they call Obama the next president of the United States. Plus, we're just arguing semantics now.
@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe.

You sound real confident.

Also, you don't go to war and then run w/your tail betwixt your legs at the first sign of trouble.

What? You're calling now as the first sign of trouble in Iraq? You're kidding me.


at least under Reagan, we had a tax and spend and borrow Dem congress that spent $1.37 for every $ of revenue the administration brought in to the coffers.

You do know how we won the cold war, right?

Nuclear power is clean and can produce a massive amount of electricity compared to other more environmentally safe options.

:)

I'd rather have the luxury tax from back then if that meant we could trade our economy now for the one back then, because if you haven't noticed, the policies you're endorsing don't seem to work as well as the ones you're critiquing.
QFE.


To the winning over friends remark I think he (Romni) doesn't care about making everyone feel good or kiss everyone's tails. I think he believes that we are not here to (we meaning us concervatives) to say what's popular. We are here to say what we think.


Why are you unable to spell crucial words such as "Romney" or "Conservative"?

Also, your point has nothing to do with what Astor was saying.


Yes people had attacked her and so last night she defended herself. And quite well I might add.

I would be inclined to disagree.


In my opinion that's nit picky. So what she refered to McCain as the next president. They want that to become fact so..guys this is your defense against Sarah's speech last night. She must have done better than I thought.


That's the point, friend. She didn't do that.


Exactly. And BO hasn't. And by that alone that makes McCain able to speak with more atthority and from first hand experience and how to fight a war and since he's delt with Putin.

First of all, being a POW (even though it's a sad and a heroic thing) does not qualify you to fight a war or to lead a country.

If you don't like attacks and contrast then I don't know this is just off the top of my head, but maybe people should now stop with the ridiclous attacks on Sarah. I mean she really defended herself well in my opinion.

Well, in my opinion she was a bad choice for John McCain. So if I want to attack her politics, I think I'll do so.

We'll see in November.


I'd be happy to explain it to you and everyone. The oil companies were looking to increase their profit margin through increased tax credits. This would have had merit if the money were to go to lower gas prices or to infrastructure improvement but it in fact would be used to increase the salaries of management.A comment was made concerning BP Oil that Gov Palin's husband works for you must understand that it's a "world market" that we deal with like it or not. You would be hard pressed to find any products in Walmart or Sears that say made in the USA on them Thats something to worry about much more then who is to be the next vice president


I don't think that this rant proves your point.

If memory serves, wasn't he captured?

Simply having been in a war doesn't automatically give one the knowledge of how to fight and win a war.

You are correct, sir.

Captured who? And it certinally doesn't hurt. Oboma sure hasn't.

What the **** is this? Obviously, McCain was captured. And it's "certainly" and "OBAMA".

As to your point? It doesn't hurt, sure. But then they can't use it as a reason for why he should be the next President or why he's able to win a war.



I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about those in the democrate party, the media, and the bloggers who have.

Cry about it.


But you're still not grasping what i'm saying. Military experience isn't necessary to be able to fight a war, yes it would help, but lack of experience isn't important.

At least, not if you're a good diplomat and negotiator.

Point.

_EW_

So please explain where the 6 billion dollar increase in the state's revenue came from and where the $6 billion dollar added expense to the Oil and Gas Industry in Alaska came from. I may not have a Doctorate degree in Finance, but I know the difference between a Tax and a Tax Credit and obviously so does El Sitherino.
:)

Jae Onasi
09-04-2008, 12:54 PM
Note to everyone:
1. Cut the swearing.
2. Cut the flaming.
3. Cut the sarcastic attitudes.
4. SD Nihil: Use a spell checker, please.
5. Everyone else: Not everyone has been blessed to have been taught by Ms. Tenuta (or a reasonable facsimile) in 8th grade English, so they don't always spell perfectly. Some people have dyslexia and have extreme trouble with spelling that a spellchecker doesn't always help. Deal with it and be a little more tolerant. I'm going to infract anyone from now on who gripes at someone about the spelling because discussion of spelling is completely off-topic and is just another excuse to give someone a hard time.

Congratulations, this thread is now on a very tight leash because I made the mistake of assuming everyone could discuss this subject with some reasonable level of consideration and courtesy. If you earn infractions from now on because of your own behavior, don't be surprised, and certainly don't come running to me to complain.

Astor
09-04-2008, 12:59 PM
Well, in my opinion she was a bad choice for John McCain. So if I want to attack her politics, I think I'll do so.

I find a few of her policies and beliefs a bit unnerving. She's apparently gone on record as saying that she won't judge homosexual people, and she doesn't have a problem with their personal choices.

But then, she votes against health benefits for same-sex couples. Hypocrisy?

Also, I don't have an opinion on abortion, but I don't think that making it illegal in all cases (even for rape or sexual abuse cases) is right.

jonathan7
09-04-2008, 01:02 PM
Note to everyone:
1. Cut the swearing.
2. Cut the flaming.
3. Cut the sarcastic attitudes.
4. SD Nihil: Use a spell checker, please.
5. Everyone else: Not everyone has been blessed to have been taught by Ms. Tenuta (or a reasonable facsimile) in 8th grade English, so they don't always spell perfectly. Some people have dyslexia and have extreme trouble with spelling that a spellchecker doesn't always help. Deal with it and be a little more tolerant. I'm going to infract anyone from now on who gripes at someone about the spelling because discussion of spelling is completely off-topic and is just another excuse to give someone a hard time.

Congratulations, this thread is now on a very tight leash because I made the mistake of assuming everyone could discuss this subject with some reasonable level of consideration and courtesy. If you earn infractions from now on because of your own behavior, don't be surprised, and certainly don't come running to me to complain.

Would now be a good time to me to point people towards this thread again? - http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=191081

Totenkopf
09-04-2008, 01:15 PM
I'd rather have the luxury tax from back then if that meant we could trade our economy now for the one back then, because if you haven't noticed, the policies you're endorsing don't seem to work as well as the ones you're critiquing.


Which specific policies am I endorsing? Try to refrain from inferring words into my mouth.

tolenkopt
@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe. Perhaps the transcript was misspelled or they wanted her to avoid saying nucular, which members of both parties have fallen into over the past 3 decades (Carter and W come to mind).

In my opinion that's nit picky. So what she refered to McCain as the next president. They want that to become fact so..guys this is your defense against Sarah's speech last night. She must have done better than I thought.

Not sure how much of the speech you watched. She stated at one point that when a McCain/Palinm administration went to Washington in January in talking about energy policy. Hardly nit picky. What dif it makes in the end I'm not sure. Should a candidate feel it's their entitlement to be president?

Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska,

So please explain where the 6 billion dollar increase in the state's revenue came from and where the $6 billion dollar added expense to the Oil and Gas Industry in Alaska came from. I may not have a Doctorate degree in Finance, but I know the difference between a Tax and a Tax Credit and obviously so does El Sitherino.

As I recall, she sent everyone in a AK a huge check (>$1200) from this windfall. If she could do that for the rest of the country......


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
*FTR, I don't support tax heavily and spend profigately, nor do I support tax and spend and borrow to cover spending you didn't raise enough $$ for in the first place either.


I just wanted to grab on this little note here and ask: would you support higher taxes combined with more frugal spending, at least in order to balance the budget?

If the feds actually put the money to where it was supposed to go, I'm guessing people would grumble, but not so much as the way they've been spending it for decades.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe.

You sound real confident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Also, you don't go to war and then run w/your tail betwixt your legs at the first sign of trouble.

What? You're calling now as the first sign of trouble in Iraq? You're kidding me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
at least under Reagan, we had a tax and spend and borrow Dem congress that spent $1.37 for every $ of revenue the administration brought in to the coffers.

You do know how we won the cold war, right?

To your 1st shot EW, I wasn't aware I had to sound anything. Was only pointing out the factual incorrectness of someone else's observation. To your second point, :rofl: as you're clearly reaching w/your "point" (to be generous). On your last observation, we've always outspent the USSR in terms of $$ as our economy has always been larger (and more successful) than theirs. So, what exactly is your point again? ;)

Whats really been funny has been the reaction of some people to this pick, the most notable being Sean Combs and his incoherent rant about the lack of blacks, crime and cokeheads in AK. Makes me wonder what ever happened to the UNCF and the saying "better the world think you a fool than you open your mouth and dispel all doubt". :D

El Sitherino
09-04-2008, 01:20 PM
As I recall, she sent everyone in a AK a huge check (>$1200) from this windfall. If she could do that for the rest of the country......

Except that's not what the McCain/Palin campaigns economic plan is.

PS: I has dyslexia

mimartin
09-04-2008, 01:36 PM
As I recall, she sent everyone in a AK a huge check (>$1200) from this windfall. If she could do that for the rest of the country......QFT

But the windfall came from a tax increase on the Oil and Gas industry.

It is funny what happens when you tax everyone and not just the little man. I could deal with her kind of trickledown economics.

No matter how we spin it, the fact of the matter is Sara Palin raised taxes. I am not arguing that she was wrong or right to do so. Iím just saying it is a fact.

EnderWiggin
09-04-2008, 02:06 PM
I find a few of her policies and beliefs a bit unnerving. She's apparently gone on record as saying that she won't judge homosexual people, and she doesn't have a problem with their personal choices.

But then, she votes against health benefits for same-sex couples. Hypocrisy?

Also, I don't have an opinion on abortion, but I don't think that making it illegal in all cases (even for rape or sexual abuse cases) is right.

Agreed.


As I recall, she sent everyone in a AK a huge check (>$1200) from this windfall. If she could do that for the rest of the country......

Except now she's endorsing a completely different policy.


To your 1st shot EW, I wasn't aware I had to sound anything. Was only pointing out the factual incorrectness of someone else's observation.

One doesn't usually use the word "maybe" when arguing with someone. ;)

To your second point, :rofl: as you're clearly reaching w/your "point" (to be generous).

:confused:

Are you saying that the war in Iraq has been lollipops and puppydog tails so far? Because I believe you said that we'd be "running with our tails betwixt our legs at the first sign of trouble." I'm not reaching when I assert that the war has been trouble before today.


On your last observation, we've always outspent the USSR in terms of $$ as our economy has always been larger (and more successful) than theirs. So, what exactly is your point again? ;)

That it's a bit more understandable that Reagan spent more than he was making. And yet the economy wasn't as bad as you seem to make it out to have been.

_EW_

Totenkopf
09-04-2008, 04:53 PM
Except that's not what the McCain/Palin campaigns economic plan is.

PS: I has dyslexia

Never said it was........
btw, if you're really going on vacation, have a good one.


But the windfall came from a tax increase on the Oil and Gas industry.
It is funny what happens when you tax everyone and not just the little man. I could deal with her kind of trickledown economics.
No matter how we spin it, the fact of the matter is Sara Palin raised taxes. I am not arguing that she was wrong or right to do so. Iím just saying it is a fact.

You know, if the dems took the windfall profits taxes they plan to hit big businesses with and gave everyone "rebate checks" from the total the amount of the windfall (ie, didn't use it for the general fund) I might be able to get behind that too. ;) Would probably only cancel out/offset the subsequent likely price increases from those businesses, though. Since I never argued that any taxation was inherently bad/wrong.......not sure what you guys are driving at in the end.

@EW--
One doesn't usually use the word "maybe" when arguing with someone.
Only a sith deals in absolutes. :D Seriously, not sure what you're trying to say here. Is it that every she should have said "when" in every circumstance when discussing her hoped for future or something else? Also, one can use maybe when arguing with someone depending on the nature of the argument.

Are you saying that the war in Iraq has been lollipops and puppydog tails so far? Because I believe you said that we'd be "running with our tails betwixt our legs at the first sign of trouble." I'm not reaching when I assert that the war has been trouble before today.
Saying that quitting, much like hope, isn't a strategy. If you mean to imply that I think this administration has done everything perfectly, you'll not find anything like that said by me anywhere in these forums. That's what I meant by reaching. All wars are trouble from the getgo, whether you win or (especially if) you lose.
That it's a bit more understandable that Reagan spent more than he was making. And yet the economy wasn't as bad as you seem to make it out to have been.
Again, never contended the economy was bad in the first place. Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Merely asserted that congress has had a habit of deficit spending and used the Reagan years as but an example.

El Sitherino
09-04-2008, 05:50 PM
I don't think anyone is talking about quitting the war. Effectively the mission is complete, it is however not correctly done. If you paid attention you'd realize that what is being presented by Obama is a systematic withdrawal of forces. Meaning through a determined short frame of time troops will be removed from Iraq.

Also I'd advise you to look into the economic plan the Democratic party is currently invested in. Apparently you haven't.

SD Nihil
09-04-2008, 07:25 PM
El what about the commanders on the ground? Don't you think they should be involved in that withdrawal decision making process? After all, they and the soldiers are the ones fighting the war. They can make their recommendations of when to withdraw and what rate to leave based on what they see with their two eyes on their experience on how things on the ground are going. Soldiers fight wars not the government. From what I've heard though things are doing well things are still fragile. Meaning if we leave too quickly we could very well undo some of what we've accomplished.

El Sitherino
09-04-2008, 07:30 PM
El what about the commanders on the ground? Don't you think they should be involved in that withdrawal decision making process?

Did you not hear Obama? He's stated that he will conference with the military leaders and co-council on the timeframe.

And considering many favor the idea, we'll be sure to see great progress.

Totenkopf
09-04-2008, 07:37 PM
The Dem leadership has been screaming for near complete withdrawl (and not necessarily "orderly" at that) for several years now. Don't know what you've been watching. The Dem economic plan is pretty much what it always is......taxes, taxes and more taxes. Oh, and dramatic cuts in defense if they can get away with it. The only thing I've heard BO say that makes much sense is that perhaps the income cap on FICA should be removed so that most (not all, given the $100k gap or so between current limit and limit he was considering). If we're gonna keep SS, it's gonna need a lot of reforms. Means testing is one consideration that should be seriously weighed. Also, plans are only that, plans. It's an election year and like all pols, they'll say what they want to get elected.

Problem with phased withdrawls, which is essentially what you're referring to, is the artificially accelerated timeline it's being subjected to rather than the situation in theatre. BO's emphasis is on a timeline (like the dems in general), rather than circumstances. If both can be made to dovetail....great. Still, it's about as inspiring a position as saying he'll meet with our enemies with no preconditions and take force off the table as a negotiating ploy. If he's serious (should we take him at his word?), he's too naive to be POTUS.

El Sitherino
09-04-2008, 07:53 PM
The Dem leadership has been screaming for near complete withdrawl (and not necessarily "orderly" at that) for several years now.

Some have, the others that are intelligent have been asking for timeframes on when we planned to start pulling troops back.

Logical thing to do when you, you know, have some concern about the troops.

Don't know what you've been watching.

The politicians.

The Dem economic plan is pretty much what it always is......taxes, taxes and more taxes.

Both parties will have to increase taxes. To ignore this fact is foolish and ignorant. You can't spend government funds if there aren't any, hence why we effectively owe China.

How's that for keeping it American.

Oh, and dramatic cuts in defense if they can get away with it.

You also realize the military has lots of money pits, right? If you pay attention to what is stated budgeting will be put in place that increases effectiveness in the military on top of efficiency.

Problem with phased withdrawls, which is essentially what you're referring to, is the artificially accelerated timeline it's being subjected to rather than the situation in theatre.

Right, okay. I'll keep that in mind.

Arcesious
09-04-2008, 08:27 PM
Nuclear power is clean and can produce a massive amount of electricity compared to other more environmentally safe options.


You're right, I shoudl have given Nuclear Power more consideration. It is very effective, but I think it should be done in moderation. After awhile though, the problem becomes where to safely store all the radioactive waste when nuclear power is no longer needed.

However, if there is a safe way to store nuclear waste, then that's great. I haven't heard of any good way to permanently dispose of it yet, but if there is, please tell me.

Achilles
09-04-2008, 08:31 PM
Not to mention that fissile materials aren't renewable either. Would hate to think that we would trade in scarce source of energy for another.

Q
09-04-2008, 08:52 PM
I would like to think that ~200 years worth of uranium would provide us with enough time to find something better. Like fusion, perhaps?

As for disposal, the waste can be recycled to the point that the final amount is much less, and this can be stored until we have the technology to send all of it into the sun.

El Sitherino
09-04-2008, 08:55 PM
Or we can use it to power Gundams, but that's an entirely different topic.

Web Rider
09-04-2008, 08:56 PM
Not to mention that fissile materials aren't renewable either. Would hate to think that we would trade in scarce source of energy for another.

Well, if we're going THAT route, nothing is renewable. With climate change, windy/sunny places may become rainy and not windy(respectively), geothermal has already shown to wear down in effectiveness over time. Tides are dependent on ocean currents and the moon, changes to those will make tidal where it's been built ineffective. Rivers can dry up and make hydroelectric useless, and hey, in a few billion years, the sun will burn out.

All sources of energy are finite, there is no argument there, so we cannot simply say "no" to any energy source with a life expectancy of less than 1000 years. Nuclear fuels are estimated to last several hundred years. In 500 years we have gone from not having electricity to space travel. In another 100 we could have developed tech to clean the air.

Nuclear isn't supposed to last forever, it's just supposed to last significantly long enough to get us off oil. If, through use of nuclear, we can get off oil in 100 years, then we can transition to something that will last even longer after that.

That's just the way it's gonna have to go. One source lasts 100, the next lasts 200, the next 400, the next 800. Given that no resource is infinite...

Totenkopf
09-04-2008, 09:45 PM
Some have, the others that are intelligent have been asking for timeframes on when we planned to start pulling troops back.

Gee, I'm so glad that they vocally pushed "so gently" for a point of info and not to create pressure aimed at undermining the war effort.

Logical thing to do when you, you know, have some concern about the troops.
I wish I could believe that's what is was and not salivating over what they wanted to do with all the $$ that would no longer be "wasted" on the war.


Both parties will have to increase taxes. To ignore this fact is foolish and ignorant. You can't spend government funds if there aren't any, hence why we effectively owe China.

As I already pointed out that I recognize that the money has to come from somewhere and that not all taxation was inherently "evil", your point here comes across as nothing more than you being snarky. ;) Problem isn't should taxes be raised but can you trust the govt to use the $$ responsibly. You clearly have more faith in BO and company than I think is justified.


How's that for keeping it American.

If all those proposed taxes are used to rebuild the infrastructure (roads and bridges, etc..) and pay down the national debt, then it's as American as apple pie and hotel porn. :D Anything else and it's just biz as usual.


You also realize the military has lots of money pits, right? If you pay attention to what is stated budgeting will be put in place that increases effectiveness in the military on top of efficiency.

Heresy! :D Honestly, can you really point to any big govt program that's not plagued by misspent funds? Talk is cheap. Does it specify what efficiencies are being put in place or is that too much change to ask for from the lord high BO, bringer of change?



Right, okay. I'll keep that in mind.

Your sarcasm aside ( :xp: ), you also realize that the military has to take it's lead from its political masters and that the higher you get in the military, the more political it gets?

El Sitherino
09-04-2008, 09:51 PM
So far the only person here that's been proven wrong is you. If you want to continue to believe all Democrats inherently waste money then that is your issue, however I will ask that you cease mucking up this thread further than you and others already have.

As well the McCain side has yet to post it's personal priorities and how they relate to their candidate.

Litofsky
09-04-2008, 09:56 PM
I hate to distract from the current topic, but this is still related to the election. I'm currently listening to Cindy McCain speak. However, it seems very insincere. I'm not sure how to explain it other than, "The type of pre-prepared speech that makes one seem that she's lying. Utterly lying."

Anyways, what are your thoughts on this matter? I'm getting sick of this Convention, which rapidly devolved into a sniping fest. Not that the Democrats were better by bounds and leaps, but at least they made sense.

Opinions, opinions, opinions. Where would the world be without them?*

*Probably a much safer, happier place. :xp:

Tommycat
09-04-2008, 10:11 PM
And I thought that all politicians were presumtuous, arrogant, egomanical twits?
They are, it's just whether she wants to appear that way.

EnderWiggin
09-04-2008, 10:14 PM
your point here comes across as nothing more than you being snarky. ;) Problem isn't should taxes be raised but can you trust the govt to use the $$ responsibly. You clearly have more faith in BO and company than I think is justified.

Wait, what? He has more faith in BHO than justified why? Because he thinks that he will responsibly spend the money collected by taxes?

He's not snarky, he's right.

What justifies your disdain for the next president of the United States? :)

_EW_

Tommycat
09-04-2008, 10:59 PM
What justifies your disdain for the next president of the United States? :)

_EW_
Dang the election's over already? That's part of the reason I don't like Obama. Too many people assuming he's going to win.

Ok, Since it's been asked, My reason's for supporting McCain.

1) He's not telling me that he's going to raise taxes. He may have to, but at least he's not telling me he intends to raise taxes.
2) I feel that prior military service gives one a better perspective on a military involvement. Plus, maybe a bit of it is that I used to be in the Navy, so there might be a bit of Navy Pride involved.
3) He's been a POW, been tortured, and in fact opposed the Bush Admin on the issue of Gitmo.
4) McCain/Feingold Bill
5) Not pretending that getting out of Iraq will be easy or quick. Regardless of your opinion of the war, assuming that it is even possible is wrong.
6) I think Congress will remain Democratic. Actually I hope it does. That way the White House and Congress HAVE to put aside differences to get anything done. If not, then I want them both to have a very hard time getting anything done.
7) Having my mother who lived in Japan and couldn't get her broken back worked on in Japan actually come back to the US to get proper medical care kinda colors my vision of Universal Health Care. Having several friends who live in AZ but moved FROM Canada because of the health care system there adds to that.
8) I like that McCain has in the past went AGAINST party lines. I hate pure party lines.

I have a few more, but those are the ones I see as my reasons.

El Sitherino
09-04-2008, 11:34 PM
Dang the election's over already? That's part of the reason I don't like McCain. Too many people assuming he's going to win.

Oh snap, politics.



1) He's not telling me that he's going to raise taxes. He may have to, but at least he's not telling me he intends to raise taxes.

So you feel Obama is unfit to lead this country because he tells you what is going to happen?

2) I feel that prior military service gives one a better perspective on a military involvement.

I don't, I do however think someone that has seen brutality take place is better suited to understand the severity of combat.

3) He's been a POW, been tortured, and in fact opposed the Bush Admin on the issue of Gitmo.

Which he now opposes his previous opposition to the Bush admin.

4) McCain/Feingold Bill

Which McCain now does not quite uphold.

5) Not pretending that getting out of Iraq will be easy or quick. Regardless of your opinion of the war, assuming that it is even possible is wrong.

You're assuming Obama has said it will be easy or quick. He hasn't, infact he's said it won't. Again you're stating something that is wildly untrue. While I don't think he'll hold up to everything, at least what he speaks about is intelligent and a move towards progress.

6) I think Congress will remain Democratic. Actually I hope it does. That way the White House and Congress HAVE to put aside differences to get anything done. If not, then I want them both to have a very hard time getting anything done.

Because that's change. On top of that, that is not how you progress a nation, because progression by it's very nature requires change.

7) Having my mother who lived in Japan and couldn't get her broken back worked on in Japan actually come back to the US to get proper medical care kinda colors my vision of Universal Health Care. Having several friends who live in AZ but moved FROM Canada because of the health care system there adds to that.

Excuse me, you lost me somewhere in your emotional anecdote. I believe you had a point about McCain and Universal Healthcare?

8) I like that McCain has in the past went AGAINST party lines. I hate pure party lines.

And yet now he's 100% pure Republican puppet.

I have a few more, but those are the ones I see as my reasons.
Cool.

Tommycat
09-04-2008, 11:52 PM
Oh snap, politics.
no need to be rude. Hey it's just that people are talking like Obama's already won.

As for UHC, the point is that I have a family member that actually experienced a need for UHC in one of the countries that has UHC, and she(my mother) was not given that proper health care. I don't trust our government to do a better job than them. I don't support UHC, and don't want my tax dollars to go to it. If you believe it's all wonderful and all, great. I just have a bit more distrust for the government to handle it properly.

And I really don't think he's really 100% republican puppet. But if so, then so be it. I tend to agree more with the Republican side than the Democrat side anyway.

El Sitherino
09-04-2008, 11:59 PM
no need to be rude.

I didn't mean to be rude, I simply wanted to point out that this is a message from all sides. There isn't a need to try pointing fingers, to be fair that in itself is a bit rude.

Especially misdirected pointed fingers.

Totenkopf
09-05-2008, 12:11 AM
So far the only person here that's been proven wrong is you. If you want to continue to believe all Democrats inherently waste money then that is your issue, however I will ask that you cease mucking up this thread further than you and others already have.

As well the McCain side has yet to post it's personal priorities and how they relate to their candidate.


You've sadly proven nothing except your own intolerance for differing opinions and positions. Ce le vie. Wasn't aware this was a BO pep rally. ;)

El Sitherino
09-05-2008, 12:33 AM
As for UHC, the point is that I have a family member that actually experienced a need for UHC in one of the countries that has UHC, and she(my mother) was not given that proper health care. I don't trust our government to do a better job than them. I don't support UHC, and don't want my tax dollars to go to it. If you believe it's all wonderful and all, great. I just have a bit more distrust for the government to handle it properly.

I don't have blind faith in any administration getting it right. I do however support enforcing fair treatment with private insurance agencies.

As well simply stating one "I happened to know" story does not add up specifically to a faulty system. There could be any number of reasons she wasn't treated where she visited for her check. They may not have had the equipment to care for her. All hospitals encounter these issues.
They likely directed her to other facilities. Sometimes they need the best treatment and sometimes that happens to be here in the US.

Just to clarify medical facilities and such. That may not be the case, she may have been royally ****ed over. That **** can happen, that's why you speak up to make sure it's corrected. That's why we elect our representatives and write to them, they represent us in the government.

You've sadly proven nothing except your own intolerance for differing opinions and positions. Ce le vie. Wasn't aware this was a BO pep rally. ;)I wasn't aware of this either. Perhaps you'd like to PM me your evidence of this claim?


I apologize for people talking like Obama's already won annoys you. To be fair it annoys me too.

Same with people saying McCain or Nader.

Tommycat
09-05-2008, 01:02 AM
Ya know one thing that always bugs me about "homeless statistics" is I'm not sure how that data is collected. How much fact checking is done, and the reason they aren't still in the service. I think that last one may be the most important one.

Honorable discharge: They left for their own reasons after completing their service.
Dishonorable Discharge: They were forced out for doing something bad.
Other than honorable(yes it's different than Dishonorable): Did something bad, but not bad enough to get the dishonorable. These are usually the ones that have a harder time getting a job.
Administrative: Left for their own reasons PRIOR to completing their terms of service. Note you can also get one of these for drug use. Often times it looks bad for future employment.
Medical: Had some medical problem which prevented you from either doing your designated rate, or sompleting your service. This is generally considdered one of the better ones, as it allows you to receive benefits, but you can still work.
Psyhiatric: Pretty self explanitory. But again you also receive full benefits, so you might be better off. Depending on the reason for the psych discharge.

With many of those, it would be understandable why an employer might look harshly at the person that is no longer in the servce. In some cases it may even bee reason enough to go with someone else.

Considdering that around 10%(and I'm rounding down for simplicity) of the total US population has prior military service, the numbers may look a bit better. If the majority of those homeless vets had a discharge other than an honorable, that could give insight into why they are homeless. Keep in mind also that the majority of the service comes from poor families.

Might give a better view of the service when you look at it with all of that in mind.

Achilles
09-05-2008, 01:06 AM
I would like to think that ~200 years worth of uranium would provide us with enough time to find something better. Like fusion, perhaps?

As for disposal, the waste can be recycled to the point that the final amount is much less, and this can be stored until we have the technology to send all of it into the sun.Assuming your numbers are correct. Also assuming that it's only used for that, that energy demands don't increase, and that only the U.S. is using it. At least that's what I'm assuming that you're assuming. If you're actually assuming something else, please feel free to set me straight. :)

Tommycat
09-05-2008, 01:53 AM
Assuming your numbers are correct. Also assuming that it's only used for that, that energy demands don't increase, and that only the U.S. is using it. At least that's what I'm assuming that you're assuming. If you're actually assuming something else, please feel free to set me straight. :)

Even with around 100 years worth(basing it on the rough percentage of the US using around 50% or the uranium), that would still be a good alternative to what we use now for power generation. Coal and Oil are used to a greater degree. If we could move to more Uranium based power plants, we get more power generation, and decrease the use of the fossil fuels. So while it may not be a permanent solution, it is a better solution. It's a bit like saying that we shouldn't use a hybrid car until we get cars that run on renewable fuels.

Wind power has a lot of problems. The main one being the inconsistency of wind itself. It also takes a great deal of maintenance to keep it effective. Of course the biggest problem is the NIMBY's. Lets face it, very few people like having the noisy wind turbines near their homes(yes they are noisy). They require a lot of land, wind and of course a whole lot of turbines.

Solar is an excelent source of power generation, IF you live in an area like Southern Arizona. Not so great if you live in an area like Seattle. But then each area should come up with the best solution for their area.

At any rate... back to the topic. I heard McCain's speech today(yesterday). Sounded pretty good. Said what I liked to hear. Talked about cutting congressional spending. I hope I can believe it. Spoke about change... very common theme... and Hope... another popular theme. anyone really believe there will be any change? Seemed pretty humble through the whole thing(well most of it).

Astor
09-05-2008, 05:04 AM
So McCain made his speech last night, and 'Change is Coming', apparently.

He once again congratulated and praised Senator Obama, and declared that they aren't so different.

He did actually did declare that he will win the election. That's the first time i've properly heard anyone actually say that. Now, as I don't know enough about the domestic issues of America (not being from there) I won't focus on that. So I'll just pick up on things like foreign policy.

Today, the prospect of a better world remains within our reach. But we must see the threats to peace and liberty in our time clearly and face them, as Americans before us did, with confidence, wisdom and resolve.

That's all well and good, but does it really have to mean marching into other countries?

We have dealt a serious blow to al Qaeda in recent years. But they are not defeated, and they'll strike us again if they can. Iran remains the chief state sponsor of terrorism and on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons.

In Iran by 2010, anyone?

Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power.

As President I will work to establish good relations with Russia so we need not fear a return of the Cold War. But we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people.

If he wants to establish good relations, it might be an idea to lay off the insults. All I see here is a bit of saber-rattling.

I hate war. It is terrible beyond imagination.

Then why does he continue to support war? And even possibly threaten people with it?

Can't see much change on the foreign relations aspect.

SD Nihil
09-05-2008, 08:34 AM
Astr
So McCain made his speech last night, and 'Change is Coming', apparently.

He once again congratulated and praised Senator Obama, and declared that they aren't so different.

He did actually did declare that he will win the election. That's the first time I've properly heard anyone actually say that. Now, as I don't know enough about the domestic issues of America (not being from there) I won't focus on that. So I'll just pick up on things like foreign policy.


I've always heard at these things them say and the next president of the united sates. They sometimes say and we will win. Buddy I've always heard candidates say that because they want to win.

He congratulates Obama because that's called being gracious. It's saying you are for this country and he thanks him for what he's done, but at the same time saying in his opinion (McCain's) he thinks he can do it better.

In Iran by 2010, anyone?

Well hey, if they get nukes and sanctions and all fails then yes we will go in. But that's the last thing we want to do. That's why you try to do all else before the last resort.

Then why does he continue to support war? And even possibly threaten people with it?

Can't see much change on the foreign relations aspect.

Meaning good relations after we get Russia to stop their taking back of their old empire. And if McCain is elected I'm sure well do everything short of military action. But if the again end result is war then to not take action at that point would be foolish.

We're not to kiss Russia's butt and say we want good relations with you even though your doing what your doing. Like McCain said he thinks we should stop giving money to countries who don't like us very much. I mean hey it's not like it's going to make them like us any less and if it does who cares. No skin off our nose. We are a generous, past wars have defended the world, and have spread freedom.

So if they don't like us for our power, our generosity, our freedom, and the fact we're helping them out then okay we don't have to give you money then thankless country.

To those here that are not from the U.S. if your not a U.S. citizen you won't be voting anyway.

Totenkopf
09-05-2008, 08:39 AM
I apologize for people talking like Obama's already won annoys you. To be fair it annoys me too.

Same with people saying McCain or Nader.

It doesn't bother me at all that people talk like they think he's already won, people have a right to believe whatever they like. Afterall, it's only politics. :)
Btw, just who's saying Nader? :rolleyes: I appreciate that people have strong feelings about their choice of candidate, but that seems borderline delusional. Now, if only I could find someone to feel strongly about......:lol:

Astor
09-05-2008, 10:01 AM
Well hey, if they get nukes and sanctions and all fails then yes we will go in. But that's the last thing we want to do. That's why you try to do all else before the last resort.

Well when his supporters have said that he will 'destroy radical Islam', it doesn't sound like diplomacy is the first thing on everybodies minds.

Meaning good relations after we get Russia to stop their taking back of their old empire. And if McCain is elected I'm sure well do everything short of military action. But if the again end result is war then to not take action at that point would be foolish.

Who says that America has to take action? Why not just keep its mind on it's own issues, and not everyone else's. Russia feels threatened because of the American Missile defense system that's being set up in Europe.

If I were Russia, i'd probably be feeling the same.

I mean hey it's not like it's going to make them like us any less and if it does who cares.

That's a great foreign policy right there.

No skin off our nose. We are a generous, past wars have defended the world, and have spread freedom.

So if they don't like us for our power, our generosity, our freedom, and the fact we're helping them out then okay we don't have to give you money then thankless country.

Words like freedom and generosity mean squat when you just march into other people's countries and 'liberate' them because you feel you can.

To those here that are not from the U.S. if your not a U.S. citizen you won't be voting anyway.

That doesn't mean we (non-americans, that is) can't comment, as whoever becomes President is likely to affect the rest of the world as well.

EnderWiggin
09-05-2008, 10:21 AM
Dang the election's over already? That's part of the reason I don't like Obama. Too many people assuming he's going to win.


Honestly, I don't think that. I was just saying it because I was annoyed and I wanted to be a prick. :)


1) He's not telling me that he's going to raise taxes. He may have to, but at least he's not telling me he intends to raise taxes.
Read: I vote for the candidate that lies to me, because I'm a tool.

2) I feel that prior military service gives one a better perspective on a military involvement. Plus, maybe a bit of it is that I used to be in the Navy, so there might be a bit of Navy Pride involved.

A nice little old boy network.

3) He's been a POW, been tortured, and in fact opposed the Bush Admin on the issue of Gitmo.

Please elaborate as to how being tortured qualifies you to be president of a world superpower. Obama is also against torture and is in favor of closing Guantanamo as well, so the only thing that you could be possibly basing this point on is the fact that he was a prisoner. I don't see the connection.


5) Not pretending that getting out of Iraq will be easy or quick. Regardless of your opinion of the war, assuming that it is even possible is wrong.
Source on where BHO said that it would be easy or quick? Otherwise, you're blowing smoke, friend.

6) I think Congress will remain Democratic. Actually I hope it does. That way the White House and Congress HAVE to put aside differences to get anything done. If not, then I want them both to have a very hard time getting anything done.

I don't understand how that is a reason as to why you want to vote Republican.


Ya know one thing that always bugs me about "homeless statistics" is I'm not sure how that data is collected. How much fact checking is done, and the reason they aren't still in the service. I think that last one may be the most important one. {snip}

So our government shouldn't take care of those vets discharged with PTSD? I mean, just because war screwed them up doesn't mean they deserve to be homeless.

I mean hey it's not like it's going to make them like us any less and if it does who cares. No skin off our nose. We are a generous, past wars have defended the world, and have spread freedom.

This makes me want to move to Canada. Problem #1 with America today: this mindset.

So if they don't like us for our power, our generosity, our freedom, and the fact we're helping them out then okay we don't have to give you money then thankless country.

If you could for one second stop spouting praises for America you might be able to see that some countries don't want our "help".

To those here that are not from the U.S. if your not a U.S. citizen you won't be voting anyway.

I'm pretty sure they've figured this out, but thanks for your revelation. Guess what? They can still have an opinion on foreign policy (and etc), which that will affect them depending on who we elect.


Btw, just who's saying Nader? :rolleyes:

Bob Barr 2008! :lol:

Words like freedom and generosity mean squat when you just march into other people's countries and 'liberate' them because you feel you can.


And words like imperialism become much more important.

_EW_

Jae Onasi
09-05-2008, 10:28 AM
I'm not sure how to explain it other than, "The type of pre-prepared speech that makes one seem that she's lying. Utterly lying."I saw a nervous woman trying hard to make sure she didn't screw up when giving a speech to not only thousands in a crowd but millions on TV. It was clearly not her element, but accusing her of dishonesty is completely unfair, particularly when you have zero evidence of any untruth on her part. Have you given a speech to more than a classroom full of people? Have you given one on TV to millions? Can you honestly say you weren't nervous when you gave any speeches you've given?

So far the only person here that's been proven wrong is you. If you want to continue to believe all Democrats inherently waste money then that is your issue.

You obviously haven't experienced Chicago Democratic politics, or IL politics for that matter. IL is in debt up to its eyeballs because of wasteful spending. The bigger the gov't, the more likely we are to see waste--not necessarily intentional, but due to different departments duplicating services, inefficient delivery of services, and so forth. Sometimes it is intentional--politicians sending projects to a community that doesn't really need it (e.g. earmarks for new buildings or unnecessary services, etc.) in order to make some constituents happy. The more gov't you have, the more room there is for misuse and even abuse to happen.

So you feel Obama is unfit to lead this country because he tells you what is going to happen? I don't think saying he's going to raise taxes makes him unfit. However, expecting everyone to love that idea is unrealistic. If someone told me s/he was going to raise my taxes to 67% of my income, I'd vote for the opposing candidate because I don't want my taxes raised that high, not because of a fitness issue. Anyone who thinks that his raising taxes on corporations and big business won't somehow transfer to individuals is naive. The tax costs will get passed on to consumers via higher costs for goods and services. The question a lot of people will be asking the next couple months is if Obama's proposed programs make it worth that increase that we'll all experience.

On another note, yes, it slightly annoys me when both candidates act like they've already one, but in any competition, we see that. Look at any football team in the playoffs and they'll talk with that same kind of confidence/bravado. It's part of the game.

That's all well and good, but does it really have to mean marching into other countries?I never heard McCain say anything to that effect.
If he wants to establish good relations, it might be an idea to lay off the insults. All I see here is a bit of saber-rattling.What insult? What saber rattling? All I'm seeing there is that he's letting the world know we're not going to be wimps.

Then why does he continue to support war? And even possibly threaten people with it?He supports the war right now because he knows that failure in that region is not an option. We screwed up going into Iraq, but we need to fix it. Waving good-bye to the Iraqis as they tear themselves apart because of our screw-up is a bad option. In fact, the US turned back over al-Anbar province to Iraqi control last week, so progress is happening.

I saw no overt threats to any specific country of going to war with them.

Wasn't aware this was a BO pep rally.No surprise to see that here since the demographic of LFers tends to be younger, and younger people are more likely to be Dems. There is a certain level of Obama fan-boyism here, to be sure. Unless something bizarre happens in the next few months I'm more likely to vote for Obama myself since the issues I'm particularly concerned about I think he'd handle better. However, I also understand McCain is going to be a formidable opponent, and I like him a lot for how he's reached out to Democrats in defiance of his party at times and gotten things done. I want to give both candidates a fair hearing, and comments about whether he said he was going to be Pres or not, and was that offensive, don't address the issues.

@Tommycat--I think I'd rather have a Republican congress and Democratic President at this point--Pelosi as speaker of the house has been an utter disaster. I've never seen so many moves done strictly for political party maneuvering to the detriment of actually getting something done as I have in this Congress, and I'm quite disappointed with the conduct on both sides of the aisle. They waste time with petty bickering about whether the lights and microphones should be on for people to speak over the summer recess instead of doing something constructive with the taxes that I send them to spend. Pelosi is not acting like the leader of the party she could be and should be in facilitating negotiations.

Astor
09-05-2008, 10:37 AM
I never heard McCain say anything to that effect.

Apologies, that was a little presumptuous on my part.

What insult? What saber rattling? All I'm seeing there is that he's letting the world know we're not going to be wimps.

I don't think he needs to let the world know, as most already know that. I don't have a problem with standing up for oneself, but calling the Russian Government a bunch of corrupt thugs isn't the way i'd go about it.

EnderWiggin
09-05-2008, 10:46 AM
Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power.

I believe Medvedev would take that as an insult, Jae ;)

_EW_

tk102
09-05-2008, 01:53 PM
I have to agree with this blog (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/shorter-rnc-day-three-dea_n_123798.html) when it came to Guilliani's and Palin's critique of Obama' community organizer credential. Somehow at the convention, the term "community organizer" became a laughing point in and of itself. Maybe I just don't get the joke.

Web Rider
09-05-2008, 02:57 PM
I was watching the Colbet Report(in before: the Colbet Report, that's your problem), and he brought up that line as well. Jokingly pointing out that a community organizer helps keep kids off drugs and that's obviously so hilarious.

It's why I really didn't care to watch any of the RNC speeches, it's all just making fun of Obama. You underestimate the enemy, and you LOSE. End of story. The GOP has yeat to grasp this.

mimartin
09-05-2008, 03:01 PM
Maybe I just don't get the joke. I don't either, but I get why some may want to ridicule community organizers. Why, if I'm not mistaken, they even make sure that voters can get to the polls on those odd Tuesdays in November.
Here's a little bit of delicious irony. It's been pointed out to me tonight that on September 11, Senators McCain and Obama will appear in New York City, participating in a forum for Service Nation. The topic? Community service and volunteerism.:lol:

I really donít understand these attacks. Donít these people know that not all community organizers are left winged wackos? Every community organizers I personally know are actually from a religious background.

El Sitherino
09-05-2008, 03:52 PM
You obviously haven't experienced Chicago Democratic politics, or IL politics for that matter.

I'm afraid I was never made aware that Illinois is the building block of our nations financial state. Or that it was the model for the Democratic party.


PS: Thread has been cleaned up. If anyone has problems with this then perhaps you should re-read over the thread title. Also I will be handing out heavy marks on any members that break this off topic again.

Litofsky
09-05-2008, 04:14 PM
I saw a nervous woman trying hard to make sure she didn't screw up when giving a speech to not only thousands in a crowd but millions on TV. It was clearly not her element, but accusing her of dishonesty is completely unfair, particularly when you have zero evidence of any untruth on her part. Have you given a speech to more than a classroom full of people? Have you given one on TV to millions? Can you honestly say you weren't nervous when you gave any speeches you've given?
I guess it was just my impression. I realize that giving speeches is incredibly difficult. However, I was just noting that it didn't seem to be coming from the heart (which is where I would have expected it to come from). And, truthfully, I've never given a speech in front of more than thirty people. However, I was extremely nervous. Though, for me, once I get into the groove of something (in this case, once I've been speaking for a minute or so), it usually sounds more natural. When I was listening to Mrs. McCain, I didn't hear that.

To recap, I'm not saying that she was dishonest, only that her speech seemed to be a tad insincere.

Jae Onasi
09-05-2008, 06:00 PM
I'm afraid I was never made aware that Illinois is the building block of our nations financial state. Or that it was the model for the Democratic party.

Let's see--3rd largest city in the country, heavily Democratic, one of the key states for Democrats to win and thus heavily involved in national politics, economic center of the entire Midwest.
removed sassy TX comment. Sorry, Sithy. --Jae

Totenkopf
09-05-2008, 06:01 PM
Well, given that not everyone is comfortable talking in front of large crowds, that likely could account for her apparent inability to sound sincere to you. Perhaps it was visual cues as well that contributed to that impression. If you look at presidential debates, Nixon is believed to have won the debate he had with Kennedy by those listening to the radio. Kennedy appeared the victor to many watching it on tv.

Given how close the last 2 elections were, and that most serious pundits and analysts would give neither side an obvious edge right now (most polls have them running neck and neck w/in the probability of error), how will people here react if your candidate doesn't win in November?

El Sitherino
09-05-2008, 06:02 PM
I don't think saying he's going to raise taxes makes him unfit. However, expecting everyone to love that idea is unrealistic. If someone told me s/he was going to raise my taxes to 67% of my income, I'd vote for the opposing candidate because I don't want my taxes raised that high, not because of a fitness issue. Anyone who thinks that his raising taxes on corporations and big business won't somehow transfer to individuals is naive. The tax costs will get passed on to consumers via higher costs for goods and services.

I understand this, I just hardly see where any of the high concern/hate is coming from.

As of yet we have to see a comprehensive overview of Obama's economic plan, we are already aware of what McCain/Palin plan to do, therefore judgement is getting passed. Whether you agree with the judgement or not.

I also find it odd that the things people are claiming their support and bolstering McCain for, are the things they used to condemn him for.

What I ask of people is to post actual facts, support their claims that Obama's plan will ruin the country because so far what we know of is rather sound (See Biden's suggestions for economic recovery)


The question a lot of people will be asking the next couple months is if Obama's proposed programs make it worth that increase that we'll all experience.

Indeed, and I think these questions are expected.

However people claiming to already know what Obama's campaign will be doing seem to be unwilling to listen.



The point of this discussion is to show why your candidate is more qualified. Simply saying "omgobamasucks" "commie/marxist/socialist" as arguing points does not make a debate.

I understand very well Obama's known ideas and plans aren't all great, however he has my trust that he'll listen to others. After all, he actually went on O'Reilly. Obviously he's willing to listen.
I don't think he's the best or some holy bringing, but I do have more faith in his ideals than I do McCain's as I have seen little from McCain other than completely backtracking his prior good efforts and deeds in Washington.

El Sitherino
09-05-2008, 06:06 PM
Let's see--3rd largest city in the country, heavily Democratic, one of the key states for Democrats to win and thus heavily involved in national politics, economic center of the entire Midwest.

So does that mean since they also have one of the largest American museums that all American Museums under same organizational funding are subject to the same standards as the Chicago Museums?
No.

Again I have to ask how what happens in Chicago dictates what all Democrats will do. I'll agree they're corrupt, everyone knows this, but to lump all Democrats into the category of dirty money thieves simply because of particular people doesn't make sense.

Does that mean all Christians support right to life even if a woman is raped?

Tommycat
09-05-2008, 10:17 PM
Read: I vote for the candidate that lies to me, because I'm a tool.
Negative. And an ad hominem. Nice! I vote for the candidate that would rather NOT raise taxes. See Obama has no problem with raising taxes. He's saying it right from the get go. McCain knows what happened to the last president that said "No New Taxes" and raised taxes. So being a person with more than two brain cells he would know that raising taxes after the promise would be political suicide. So I'd rather have someone that doesn't want to and may have to than someone who guarantees that he will raise taxes.

A nice little old boy network.
Yeah didn't work to change my opinion of Carter even though, like me, he was on Subs.

Please elaborate as to how being tortured qualifies you to be president of a world superpower. Obama is also against torture and is in favor of closing Guantanamo as well, so the only thing that you could be possibly basing this point on is the fact that he was a prisoner. I don't see the connection.
He's seen the worst part of war. the inhumanity forced on people. Knowing first hand the ugly side of something tends to give you a better perspective. I'd rather have someone that saw real combat lead the country. Clinton didn't and we went into several countries. GW Bush didn't and we went to war. Perhaps it's time to have someone that DOESN'T like war to lead the country.

Source on where BHO said that it would be easy or quick? Otherwise, you're blowing smoke, friend.
My bad, all of the talk of him getting our troops out now made me miss the qualifier he put on there. He did say that he would give that decision to the commanders in the field.. Which is exactly the same thing W says, as well as McCain. He just starts it out prettier.

I don't understand how that is a reason as to why you want to vote Republican.
Vote republican on the pres ticket and dem on the contressional side. Until they get rid of the parties altogether, I won't vote for the same on both tickets. I want the two parties to quit dealing in partisan politics and start dealing with the real issues the US has.

So our government shouldn't take care of those vets discharged with PTSD? I mean, just because war screwed them up doesn't mean they deserve to be homeless.
Um... WHAT? That falls under Psych discharge. They do get full benefits. They also get full medical, and a check monthly. Not to mention they can still work. And quite a few actually do. Considdering there's roughly 25 million veterans and around 200k(up to around 400k through the year) of them are homeless, that means that a majority of our veterans are working.

This makes me want to move to Canada. Problem #1 with America today: this mindset.

Not to be rude, but, "Bye! Bring a thicker coat"

@Tommycat--I think I'd rather have a Republican congress and Democratic President at this point--Pelosi as speaker of the house has been an utter disaster. I've never seen so many moves done strictly for political party maneuvering to the detriment of actually getting something done as I have in this Congress, and I'm quite disappointed with the conduct on both sides of the aisle. They waste time with petty bickering about whether the lights and microphones should be on for people to speak over the summer recess instead of doing something constructive with the taxes that I send them to spend. Pelosi is not acting like the leader of the party she could be and should be in facilitating negotiations.
If I really believed the Republicans had a shot at retaking congress, I'd vote for Obama. As for the taxes we send them... I would really like to see CAGW get the federal budget and be able to trim out the fat(and pork) before it even sees the white house. All that wasteful spending has got to stop...

I guess it was just my impression. I realize that giving speeches is incredibly difficult. However, I was just noting that it didn't seem to be coming from the heart (which is where I would have expected it to come from). And, truthfully, I've never given a speech in front of more than thirty people. However, I was extremely nervous. Though, for me, once I get into the groove of something (in this case, once I've been speaking for a minute or so), it usually sounds more natural. When I was listening to Mrs. McCain, I didn't hear that.

To recap, I'm not saying that she was dishonest, only that her speech seemed to be a tad insincere.

Just as a head's up, there were some issues with the teleprompters. Ever give a speech where your notes would randomly dissappear haha...

I remember my first time on stage when I was performing at a show. There were only about 300 people there, but it was my first show ever. The lights were on me and I had my big solo(neat for a bass player to get a solo haha). Just before the part I jumped into the solo, I completely lost it. Couldn't remember a thing. So I had to make it up on the spot. I had practiced it for almost a month to get it right, and in the end it turned into a jumbled mess.

Web Rider
09-06-2008, 12:10 AM
Just as a head's up, there were some issues with the teleprompters. Ever give a speech where your notes would randomly dissappear haha...

Which is kinda interesting, how dependant should a president or VP be on notes and telepromting? I know every speech I gave was so memorized as to what I wanted to say all I needed was one 3x5 note card.

I mean, this goes for any president or candidate, but this makes an interesting situation, personally, I'd rather trust pen and paper and my own brain than a teleprompter to tell me what I need to say.

Also, Huckabee once more impressed me in his interview with Colbert today. Ah, if the GOP wanted a conservative christian republican, why couldn't they have gone with him?

Jae Onasi
09-06-2008, 01:01 AM
Sarah Palin's teleprompter went off for a while.

Ever try to memorize an hour long speech? You're talking probably about 15 page's worth of material to go through, if not more.

I think the line-up of Thompson-Giuliani-Palin was quite a bit better than Graham-Mrs. McCain-Sen. McCain. Graham is not a very dynamic speaker.

Achilles
09-06-2008, 01:12 AM
I don't know how much I trust the source I heard this from, but one of the local talk radio guys said that he was in the press box and while the timing of the teleprompter was off a little in some places, it wasn't that far ahead and it was never off.

If it was liberal talk radio, I would cynically wonder if he had an agenda, but this was the #1 conservative station (in McCain's home state). *shrugs*

EDIT: P.S. I'm pretty sure that people gave speeches before the teleprompter was invented. Difficult to memorize? No doubt. Probably unnecessary in this day and age? Possibly. Using "too hard" as an excuse? Not wise, IMHO.

Jae Onasi
09-06-2008, 01:22 AM
I heard about the problem with Palin's teleprompter from the local political analyst Paul Green who is arguably a Dem, but he's so fair about politics he's very reliable. He happened to be in a position to be able to see Palin's teleprompter--how he pulled strings to get there I don't know, but he did. It's on WGN radio's website--you might be able to pick up the podcast for Paul Green or Spike O'Dell. It was on Thursday morning's show sometime after 7am if you want to hear what Paul said. I didn't hear anything about Thur night problems, but I missed a lot of the morning programming where Paul was talking.

I wouldn't say 'too hard', but if you're expecting the teleprompter to be on and it suddenly goes on the fritz, and you're not used to giving speeches as I suspect is Cindy McCain's case, I can see where she'd get a bit flustered. Palin never missed a beat, but she's used to giving speeches, obviously.

Tommycat
09-06-2008, 01:28 AM
I don't know how much I trust the source I heard this from, but one of the local talk radio guys said that he was in the press box and while the timing of the teleprompter was off a little in some places, it wasn't that far ahead and it was never off.

If it was liberal talk radio, I would cynically wonder if he had an agenda, but this was the #1 conservative station (in McCain's home state). *shrugs*

EDIT: P.S. I'm pretty sure that people gave speeches before the teleprompter was invented. Difficult to memorize? No doubt. Probably unnecessary in this day and age? Possibly. Using "too hard" as an excuse? Not wise, IMHO.

Nah Palin did her speech pretty well. I'm saying that it can be difficult when you're worrying about the notes you have going to go away. It throws off your concentration. The person people are talking about in this case is Cindy McCain. She's not used to giving speeches, and not expecting to have her notes be on the fritz.

As for speeches, before the teleprompter there were sheets of paper. The teleprompters are so you can appear to be maintaining eye contact... it makes people feel better.

PS I'm also in AZ, what station?

Yar-El
09-14-2008, 12:23 PM
I have a few questions for the Obama supporters.

Obama Raises Record Amounts of Cash (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/14/1395606.aspx?p=1) Where is he getting his money from? Who is he getting his money from?

200,000 Gather in Germany to Hear Obama (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/24/some-200000-gather-to-hear-obama-in-germany/) Are you sure you want to hire someone who can gather a mess of people into one location? Without doing anything to deserve such recognition? Are you sure that you want to hire someone who pleases other nations?

Are you sure you want to hire a guy who has this in his iPod? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnglbGr6g-k)

Are you sure you want to hire someone who calls successful females pigs wearing lipstick?

Democrat compares Obama to Jesus, and Palin To Pontius Pilate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmnbTBCktoM)

Obama didn't distance himself from Rev. Wright until the pressure was on. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=reverend+wright&search_type=&aq=2&oq=Reverend+)


I just want to hear the other side.

Achilles
09-14-2008, 12:40 PM
Obama Raises Record Amounts of Cash (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/14/1395606.aspx?p=1) Where is he getting his money from? Who is he getting his money from? Link (http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=)

200,000 Gather in Germany to Hear Obama (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/24/some-200000-gather-to-hear-obama-in-germany/) Are you sure you want to hire someone who can gather a mess of people into one location? Huh?

Without doing anything to deserve such recognition? Value judgment?

Are you sure that you want to hire someone who pleases other nations?Non sequitur, but yes, I'm quite certain that I someone in office that will help us regain, I don't know, allies.

Are you sure you want to hire a guy who has this in his iPod? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnglbGr6g-k)Am I sure I want to elect someone that listens to Ludacris? Please help me understand the relevance of the question. Thanks in advance.

I just want to hear the other side.Fair enough. Let me know when you're ready to discuss "character" and "the issues" too.

Yar-El
09-14-2008, 12:46 PM
What do you think about McCain?

Achilles
09-14-2008, 01:02 PM
Not sure what my opinions about McCain have to do with the discussion that you wanted to have regarding Obama. I believe I asked some questions in my reply? Perhaps you'd be willing to address those before changing the subject?

Thanks.

El Sitherino
09-14-2008, 01:20 PM
What do you think about McCain?

I think he's sold out his morals and principles and his largest cross-the-board supporters. He's magically changed his stance on support for Roe v. Wade and is willing to include contraception in the definition of abortion and in overturning the ruling of abortion being constitutional he will have birth control medication and even condoms covered under the prohibition.

His gun control laws are laughable and make no sense, he (like I) has always been a firm believer in the right to possess guns, however he now wishes to retain people's ability to own an assault rifle under the purposes of home defense and hunting. This is not only illogical, but it is unreasonable. As someone very familiar with weaponry I can tell you that you do not need an m16, ak-47, or aug "civilian" model to defend your home or hunt. I can support a civilian m1, but a gun that can be easily converted into auto-fire is sheer idiocy.

You can stop any intruder just as easily with a simple .45, I've seen it happen. I've made it happen.

I'm also opposed to Neo-McCain's economic plan of making the Bush tax cuts permanent and using the middle class to continue poor financial decisions when said middle class is already dwindling.

Not to mention his reformed maverick stance will further alienate our country from the global theatre. While you may not think it's reasonable to respect others around the world, I think doing so increases their respect for us.

I like John McCain, but this new person is not him, this is someone desperate to please his party so that he can finally get where he should have been 8 years ago.

Astor
09-14-2008, 01:23 PM
What did people think of Sarah Palin's TV interview?

I didn't like how she avoided the interviewer's question about her foreign policy and experience as commander of the National Guard by talking about energy.

Also, I don't think that travelling to Canada could really count as an 'overseas visit'. (I know it's a separate country, but i'm sure you get what I mean).

She seems desperate to attack other, more experienced politicians repeatedly, which seems more out of jealousy than anything else.

Onto actually talking about Russia, she talked to Saakashvili, and gave him her commitment. A little early for that, isn't it? She wants to keep an eye on Russia, which isn't a problem in itself, and she thinks that they're evil for an 'unprovoked' (allegedly) attack on Georgia. And, apparently, being able to see Russia from the Alaskan coast is important when talking about the Georgia situation and her foreign policies. :dozey:

Onto to Iran, she doesn't think that 'eye-ran' should have 'nukular' weapons, and seems to support an Israeli military response to such an event (she didn't actually say it, but it was hinted at, I think).

She also said that she agrees with pre-emptive strikes against any country who is going to attack them, so long as there is legitimate and credible intelligence. Oops.

So, what did it tell us? Not much, other than what we already knew - it didn't set the world alight, and it still hasn't convinced me she would be a good option. (although, as an outsider, I have no say in the matter - but the woman scares me).

Thow in some buzz-words like 'democracy' and 'freedom' a few hundred times, avoid most of the questions with vague answers, and you have a television interview. :lol:

El Sitherino
09-14-2008, 01:35 PM
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." Thank you to J7 for showing me the passage

I feel there is no better way to describe the shallow behavior of the current neo-Conservative movement than, it is using it's own idea of attachment to control the citizenry. The holy texts these people spout as their mandate or rule identifies them as heretics and they must be recognized as such.

Not only are they a betrayer to their country, they are a betrayer to the God they claim to support. Removing the divinity of free-will is spit in God's face.

I may not be a believer, but at least I'm not egotistical enough to think I can use something respected to wrangle support.

I'll support someone I know is unashamed of their humanity.

Jae Onasi
09-14-2008, 02:02 PM
Thow in some buzz-words like 'democracy' and 'freedom' a few hundred times, avoid most of the questions with vague answers, and you have a television interview. :lol:

How much of that is her not answering the questions and the interview getting edited? Gibson spent I believe a day and a half there--obviously not everything was included. I'm so disenchanted with the way all of the news media have covered this election with such obvious bias (either pro-Obama or McCain, depending on news channel) that I don't know how much of it I can trust anymore.

Sithy--there's much ado about the separation of church and state. People complain when they bring religion into the mix, but I think this is the first time I've heard a complaint on this board about them not being religious enough.

Astor
09-14-2008, 02:19 PM
How much of that is her not answering the questions and the interview getting edited? Gibson spent I believe a day and a half there--obviously not everything was included. I'm so disenchanted with the way all of the news media have covered this election with such obvious bias (either pro-Obama or McCain, depending on news channel) that I don't know how much of it I can trust anymore.

I did notice that it was heavily edited, which was something that struck me as a way for whatever network who recorded it to show their bias - is ABC known for a particular bias?

But, that said, she still skirted around several questions - such as the ones I alluded to above, but that may be out of a fear of looking more inexperienced, I guess.

But on the bias issue, it's pretty hard to find anywhere without one now - the only American channel that I can get in the UK is Fox (note how I left 'news' out of the title), and they always seem to support the Republicans, especially O'Reilly (who I gather is viewed with some contempt in the US).

Achilles
09-14-2008, 02:35 PM
I'll see if I can find the source again, but I recall reading something stating that part of the agreement was that Palin got substantial say in the final cut. If there's any truth to that, then I wouldn't be so quick as to point fingers at the media for blatant editing.

El Sitherino
09-14-2008, 02:51 PM
Sithy--there's much ado about the separation of church and state. People complain when they bring religion into the mix, but I think this is the first time I've heard a complaint on this board about them not being religious enough.

I like to mix it up a bit. :) <3

ET Warrior
09-15-2008, 02:35 AM
Are you sure you want to hire someone who calls successful females pigs wearing lipstick?A little fact checking will help to prevent you from perpetuating falsehoods. Ta-daaaaa (http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/10/pigs-and-pit-bulls/)

Totenkopf
09-15-2008, 06:15 AM
It's all about timing, ET. Enough of a pregnant pause to suggest that he was poking fun at her as well as the plan. But, so what. It's politics and you have to expect that either side will look for ways to tweak the other. I'd have more respect for BO if he admitted the "cheap shot" rather than say he wants to put all this behind him, but then go on to Letterman and elsewhere to drag it out. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the McCain camp is even upset about the so called cheap shot, but are using dems own tactics of distraction against them. What I actually find pathetic, though, is Gov Patterson's attempt to use the race card vis-a-vis the "community organizer" label.

ET Warrior
09-15-2008, 12:33 PM
That is really reaching. The phrase has been a part of the common vernacular for as long as I have been alive, which means a minimum of 23+ years. I find is disingenuous at best to assume that in the middle of his talk about McCain's policies he felt the need for a dig at Palin.

The pause seems like nothing more than a dramatic emphasis.

Totenkopf
09-15-2008, 01:08 PM
That is really reaching. The phrase has been a part of the common vernacular for as long as I have been alive, which means a minimum of 23+ years. I find is disingenuous at best to assume that in the middle of his talk about McCain's policies he felt the need for a dig at Palin.

The pause seems like nothing more than a dramatic emphasis.

C'mon, ET, tell me you're not really that naive`. BO is clever enough to try and deliver a 2x entendre of sorts, especially in light of the fact of all the supposed cheap shots he feels he's been on the end of over the whole "community organizer" comments. I think it's really reaching and equally disingenuous to claim that he's as virtuous as you contend, given that this is political theatre. Frankly, the whole thing is a non controversy, as is the flap about community organizer.

El Sitherino
09-15-2008, 03:05 PM
Over-reacting sissy, nancy emo-bawwwing. That's all this pig-lipstick thing is.

It's been an expression in our nation since the 30's that I know of, I've heard my Oma use it. Not to mention John McCain used the same expression about Obama a couple months ago. Maybe Obama was cracking a referencial joke to Palin's Pitbull lipstick thing, however that does not render it a sexist comment.

Talk about the god damn issues.

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-15-2008, 03:28 PM
Obama Raises Record Amounts of Cash (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/14/1395606.aspx?p=1) Where is he getting his money from? Who is he getting his money from?he summoned it

200,000 Gather in Germany to Hear Obama (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/24/some-200000-gather-to-hear-obama-in-germany/) Are you sure you want to hire someone who can gather a mess of people into one location? Without doing anything to deserve such recognition? Are you sure that you want to hire someone who pleases other nations?all night long :cool:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/Yulia_Tymoshenko_press_conference.jpg

Are you sure you want to hire a guy who has this in his iPod? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnglbGr6g-k)chyeah ****'s off the chain man

Are you sure you want to hire someone who calls successful females pigs wearing lipstick?even if he meant it as an insult a) i don't care and b) it wasn't directed at "successful females"

Astor
09-15-2008, 03:49 PM
200,000 Gather in Germany to Hear Obama Are you sure you want to hire someone who can gather a mess of people into one location? Without doing anything to deserve such recognition? Are you sure that you want to hire someone who pleases other nations?

So are you saying that America shouldn't try and pursue good relations with other nations?

ForeverNight
09-15-2008, 04:04 PM
So are you saying that America shouldn't try and pursue good relations with other nations?

That's not -at least as I interpet it- what Yar El's spirit of the post was. As I read it, I take it as much as: "This guy really hasn't done much to earn recognition aside from running for POTUS. Plus, look at the turn out he's getting in Europe, are you sure you want more MODERN European values in our nation? Not only that, but a man who appears to have the makings of an appeaser?"

Now, I can't say I clicked the link and read the article, so I'm not going to pretend that what I posted above is the truth, but from everything I've seen -admittedly not much, but High School's really tough, even this early in the school year- those statements have a grounding in reality.

So, it's not that he thinks America shouldn't try to pursue good relations, but that he doesn't agree with the method Obama seems to follow.

I think

Yar-El
09-15-2008, 04:46 PM
^^^^
You hit it on the nail man!

Totenkopf
09-15-2008, 04:59 PM
Over-reacting sissy, nancy emo-bawwwing. That's all this pig-lipstick thing is.

It's been an expression in our nation since the 30's that I know of, I've heard my Oma use it. Not to mention John McCain used the same expression about Obama a couple months ago. Maybe Obama was cracking a referencial joke to Palin's Pitbull lipstick thing, however that does not render it a sexist comment.


A bit over the top, there, Sithy, but the same is also true of the community organizer controversy, too. I initially wondered what relevance BO's claim to being a "community organizer" had re fitness to be president. Having seen that he claims this activity to be something he did out of school, meaning he was basically a foot soldier and not leader in this activity, he might as well as have said he helped build houses w/Habitat for Humanity, worked as a candy striper, etc... All noble enough on the face of it, but hardly grounds for claiming fitness to run for an executive office.

And what's up w/Biden, the Ted Baxter of politics? Could he not see that the state senator in question couldn't stand or walk (he was right next to him afterall)? Not sure if he thinks that saying HC was more qualified than he for VP is a very reassuring comment about his faith in BO's judgement. I'm sure these two would make quite the impression on Putin....:rolleyes: Between Biden choking on his own two feet and BO stating he won't lay down any preconditions to talk to, apparently, anyone...... :D

Keep one other thing in mind, the issues aren't merely about what do candidates propose to do about this or that problem, but also the candidates themselves. Unfortunate, maybe, but true.

Achilles
09-15-2008, 05:14 PM
^^^^
You hit it on the nail man!:dozey:

Sorry, not buyin' it.

Web Rider
09-15-2008, 06:45 PM
I have a few questions for the Obama supporters.

200,000 Gather in Germany to Hear Obama (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/24/some-200000-gather-to-hear-obama-in-germany/) Are you sure you want to hire someone who can gather a mess of people into one location?
Most political figures, good or bad, can do this in a heartbeat.

Without doing anything to deserve such recognition?
define "deserving". Besides, it's up to the Germans to decide who they want to praise.

Are you sure that you want to hire someone who pleases other nations?
yes.

Are you sure you want to hire a guy who has this in his iPod? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnglbGr6g-k)
GW had "my sharona" on his iPod. I really don't care if they listen to grunge metal or the old Crooners.

Are you sure you want to hire someone who calls successful females pigs wearing lipstick?
he wasn't talking about Plain, this has been explained.

Democrat compares Obama to Jesus, and Palin To Pontius Pilate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmnbTBCktoM)
Yeah and? Some people do that kind of stuff for candidates. I bet there's somebody who did the same for McCain

Obama didn't distance himself from Rev. Wright until the pressure was on. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=reverend+wright&search_type=&aq=2&oq=Reverend+)
And McCain never distanced himself from John Hagee, who is far more terrifying in ideology than Wright.

I just want to hear the other side.
Do you? Or do you just want the other side to hear what you think is wrong with Obama?

Yar-El
09-16-2008, 08:10 AM
Okay, I'm going to give it a shot in defending myself and McCain.
Most political figures, good or bad, can do this in a heartbeat.
I have never seen it in my lifetime. Could Palin, McCain, Powel, or George Bush do this? I don't think they can.

he wasn't talking about Plain, this has been explained. Obama's lipstick comment was made right after Palin's speach. The crowd even picked up on the comment. Watch the youtube video again. It's all about timing. They knew where he was going.

Yeah and? Some people do that kind of stuff for candidates. I bet there's somebody who did the same for McCain I have to check up on that one. That I have to admit was a stretch on my behalf.

And McCain never distanced himself from John Hagee, who is far more terrifying in ideology than Wright. John Hagee was endorsing McCain. McCain didn't go to his church for 30 years. McCain didn't endorse or support John Hagee. Obama went to Rev. Wright's church for 30 years, he called him uncle, he was married by the guy, and his kids were baptised by the guy. They are two different things.

Do you? Or do you just want the other side to hear what you think is wrong with Obama? I'm genuinly curious. Between the two canidates, Obama has the most controversy surrounding him. I just wanted to know what his supporters were thinking.

El Sitherino
09-16-2008, 11:03 AM
Okay, I'm going to give it a shot in defending myself and McCain.

How about you address my post since I actually talked about the issues and not some bull**** pundit crap. Who cares who knows these people, it's about who will be a good and effective leader.

2. The claim that McCain can't send an email in an attempt to make it look like he doesn't know about modern technology. I found this ad extraordinarily insensitive to the physically impaired community. That's like blaming a blind person for not seeing the street signals. McCain has trouble using his arms and hands, so he dictates and his staff does the typing for him.
I have a feeling this has more to do with his age than his physical impairment. After all, he can lift them high enough to shake a hand and give thumbs up, they make desks capable for people with limited reach like McCain has.
While it's a pointless critique, I don't think it's meant to be that disrespectful.

El Sitherino
09-16-2008, 11:11 AM
I have never seen it in my lifetime.
Others have. Ever hear of John F. Kennedy?

How about someone that isn't even a political leader, Martin Luther King Jr.

Ghandi?

Yar-El
09-16-2008, 11:19 AM
Others have. Ever hear of John F. Kennedy?
How about someone that isn't even a political leader, Martin Luther King Jr.
Ghandi? You got me with Ghandi, but the others were not from my lifetime. :lol:

I'm going to go over your posts, so I can answer your questions more intellectually.

Astor
09-16-2008, 12:01 PM
Others have. Ever hear of John F. Kennedy?

How about someone that isn't even a political leader, Martin Luther King Jr.

Ghandi?

Not on the same scale, I know, but Reagan spoke to almost 50,000 Germans when he asked Gorbachev to 'tear down this wall'.

And, as you say, there was JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech before that.

Germans seem to like American Politicians.

El Sitherino
09-16-2008, 12:34 PM
Germans seem to like American Politicians.

Possibly because for a while they had a lot of ****ty ones.

So here come ones talking about hope and change, lots of progress talk.

El Sitherino
09-16-2008, 01:46 PM
I know Obama is supportive of choice for American citizens to live their lives by their moral guidelines be it from religion or simple basics of right and wrong. He believe everyone should have the choice of getting an abortion if needed or not, should they decide to bring the child to birth.
Obama is supportive of finally standardizing coverage for birth control on insurance companies at the same rate they offer coverage for viagra at minimum.

Obama has a tax plan that in short term will cost, but will have much payback after earnings can be brought back and placed into the system, resulting it re-averaged taxes and paying off debt. While I do not know the specifics myself this is his intention and Biden supports this. Infact I'm willing to bet they're using Biden's model, and for someone that has the finances he has I'm sure willing to bet he knows how to balance a budget.
Granted that's based mostly on character analysis, but I still believe in this idea on the issue, making any character influence moot.

Obama plans to listen to military personell and commanders on the ground about a systematic removal of troops and establishing higher security protocol in Iraq. I, like many, support this. It won't be quick and easy, but it's a step toward getting things settled. Things will be messy in Iraq for a while, but between us occassionally and UN patrol forces, it shouldn't be too much of a problem after the Iraq police force is built up and establishes order again.

I believe Obama may not follow through entirely on all things, but I understand that as not everyone wants such changes. But I feel he'll be our best step toward progress in what he will succeed in. And to me, that is what is most important, establishing this country back to glory. To be the respected world entity that we rightfully are.

El Sitherino
09-16-2008, 02:41 PM
This thread is about issues. Not pointless pundit arguments. If you don't agree with them or think they're worth listening to, stop talking about them.

It sounds hypocritical, and this goes for both sides of the debate.

-
http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=194&pictureid=1915

Split off posts about political ads and analysis of how the campaigns are doing in the election. --Jae

Yar-El
09-17-2008, 08:45 PM
I'm dumbfounded about some stuff.

Why is experience not an issue? Two of the most important things we face are the economy and war. People in the media compare Obama to Palin. Television says, "Palin doesn't have the experience to be president." - and - Radio says, "Obama doesn't have the experience to be president." Television complains when Obama's experience is questioned, but then they react to a Vice President who doesn't have experience. It is a double edged sword. Why compare Obama to Palin in experience? One is running for the seat of Presidency, and the other is running for the Vice Presidency. Two different jobs right? Wouldn't people want someone who has experience in policy making? How about someone who knows about foreign policies and afairs?

Why is war experience not an important requirement? McCain has extensive experience fighting for us and the soldiers who fight in wars. Why should we ignore McCain's war experiences? He fought on and off the field. McCain paid the price for his country. Why ignore that? Obama says war experience is not important in a time of war.

Why is a canadate's ability to impress, cater, and rally a foreign country important? Why is it so important for us to please foreign countries? This is an issue right? Why is it an important requirement for a president to please other nations? Obama says that Americans are decent people, but we just get confussed. He was talking to another country right?

Why is not talking down to your own nation not an issue? John Kennedy didn't look down on his fellow Americans. He challanged our way of life, for Kennedy knew Americans can pull through in harsh times. Why not question Obama's downtalking? Why it is not an issue? The American Spirit = Push hard and roll up your sleves.

Why is questioning one's company not an issue? We want a president who is creditble. Why do we not question the company that a canadate surounds him or herself with? Doesn't a person's chracter get defined by those he keeps in bed? Change is an issue right? Sorounding yourself with people who are not currupt would be important. This would be an issue right?

I don't get it.

--- Response to other posts here. ---
Obama is supportive of finally standardizing coverage for birth control on insurance companies at the same rate they offer coverage for viagra at minimum. I thought a package of condoms were cheaper than Viagera?


Obama has a tax plan that in short term will cost, but will have much payback after earnings can be brought back and placed into the system, resulting it re-averaged taxes and paying off debt. While I do not know the specifics myself this is his intention and Biden supports this. Infact I'm willing to bet they're using Biden's model, and for someone that has the finances he has I'm sure willing to bet he knows how to balance a budget.
Granted that's based mostly on character analysis, but I still believe in this idea on the issue, making any character influence moot. Why not cut government spending? That won't cost us anything. Cut earmarks? Or, cut other socialistic spending? Let me guess. Universal healthcare that everyone has to pay for through taxes. That's great Obama. Socialism here we come. Not only is this a socialistic issue, but it is also more spending during a deficit. Just what we need.

Obama plans to listen to military personell and commanders on the ground about a systematic removal of troops and establishing higher security protocol in Iraq. I, like many, support this. It won't be quick and easy, but it's a step toward getting things settled. Things will be messy in Iraq for a while, but between us occassionally and UN patrol forces, it shouldn't be too much of a problem after the Iraq police force is built up and establishes order again. Obama originally said he would start taking people out right away. McCain said he would keep troops in for fifty to a hundred years. I think they are both wrong. I support someone who says, "We messed this one up, and we are going to fix it." Obama is too busy saying, "We messed up, and we have to leave. Now!" We made the problem. Why not fix it? McCain has been and will allways listen to our men and women in the military. McCain has a plan for a casual drawback of troops, so that terrorism doesn't suddenly explode in Iraq. McCain also supports more military troops in Afghanistan.

Achilles
09-17-2008, 09:46 PM
Why is experience not an issue?
Two things:
1) What do you mean by "experience"? Please be specific.
2) Please show me where the "experience" requirement is in the Constitution.

I'll address the rest of your comments once we've clarified those two things. Thanks in advance for your response.

El Sitherino
09-17-2008, 11:50 PM
I thought a package of condoms were cheaper than Viagera?

Condoms are not birth control medication. Which also does more than simply prevent contraception, it can also make that time of the month a lot more pleasant for women whom suffer much more painful cramping, etc.

Why not cut government spending? That won't cost us anything. Cut earmarks?

Yeah, that's part of the plan.

Or, cut other socialistic spending?

Bias politics is pointless politics. How about going with something because it works, not because of it's label?

Universal healthcare that everyone has to pay for through taxes.

You clearly don't understand what Universal healthcare is about. It's more than a national program (Which we already have) it's about equal standards and reasonable standards for all insurance companies, including private. So say you have premium on your plan, but it only offers the same coverage as a bottom line bs plan on another company, but they cost the same. You should probably only pay the same as what you get, infact that's exactly what you should pay. Paying for what you get is from my understanding an American sort of tradition.
There's much more to it, but I doubt you're overly concerned with proper healthcare that creates jobs, eases the ailing healthcare system especially nursing and doctor staff.

That's great Obama. Socialism here we come. Not only is this a socialistic issue, but it is also more spending during a deficit. Just what we need.

Go to an economics class. Also if you support Palin for VP because of what she did in Alaska, you shouldn't be talking. What she did is pretty much exactly what Obama has been discussing.

Obama originally said he would start taking people out right away.

Wrong.

I support someone who says, "We messed this one up, and we are going to fix it."

Oh snap, Obama said that. Even said it to troops who gave him a warm round of applause.

McCain also supports more military troops in Afghanistan.

Both support going back to Afghanistan. However only one will actually provide it, I can assure you it's not McCain, seeing as the people financing his campaign would lose money leaving Iraq just now and going to Iraq.

Jae Onasi
09-17-2008, 11:59 PM
Nationalized healthcare=more taxes. Period. If anyone thinks that we can pay for universal healthcare without increasing taxes, they are mistaken. The question people have to ask themselves is if universal healthcare is worth the tax hit--I think it'll solve more problems in the long run than it could theoretically create.

Achilles
09-18-2008, 12:09 AM
The question people have to ask themselves is if universal healthcare is worth the tax hit--I think it'll solve more problems in the long run than it could theoretically create.Spot on.

This reminds me of a lunch I had with some associates a few months back. After our business was concluded the discussion turned to politics and one of the guys pointed out, "yeah, these programs cost money", and another shot back "And the war in Iraq doesn't?".

We won't pay more taxes for schools or health care, but we say nothing when our money is being used to bomb the bejesus out of some brown people that we don't like or give it away willingly it if means our favorite sports team gets a new stadium, etc. I think it's safe to say our culture's priorities are complete out of whack (but that's just my crazy "liberal" opinion).

Yar-El
09-18-2008, 12:20 AM
First, I want to thank everyone for their response. I will edit this post to reply.

Two things:
1) What do you mean by "experience"? Please be specific.
2) Please show me where the "experience" requirement is in the Constitution.

I'll address the rest of your comments once we've clarified those two things. Thanks in advance for your response. Experience is not in the Consitution; however, our first president was an experienced war general. Experience I was refering to covers anything from military, economics, to passing laws. The questions I brought up were focused on any experience in either politics, war, policy making, or global relations.

--On another note.--

Socialism Definition I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
Socialism Definition II (http://www.ask.com/web?q=what+is+communism&o=2832&ef_id=1370:3:s_34428aed1088973934b600222dc88247_12 76007785:y25LudBkHWMAABT@XYEAAAAC:20080918041235)

Anything that is regulated by the government is a form of socialism. Universal healthcare (nationalized healthcare) is a form of socialism. Forcing people to have healthcare, having them pay for another person's healthcare, and penalizing them for not having it is a form of socialism. Extreme left and right are both guilty of such acts. The more things are regulated -- the more you loose your freedoms.

Nationalized healthcare=more taxes. Period. If anyone thinks that we can pay for universal healthcare without increasing taxes, they are mistaken. The question people have to ask themselves is if universal healthcare is worth the tax hit--I think it'll solve more problems in the long run than it could theoretically create.

I would ask, "Do I loose the freedom to choose between paying or not paying for someone else's healthcare?" I'm not saying that your wrong. I'm just stating the type of question I would ask. How far will healthcare regulation go? Will we be penalized for not taking health insurance? Will we be thrown in jail for refusing to pay for someone else's healthcare? How much taxes will be taken out? We allready pay 40% to 50% of our gross income to the state and federal government. How much more? We also live in a time of economic importance. Will the tax burden be too heavy, and will it prevent me from putting food on my family's plate? Will it cut into my car payments?

Actually I think I just agreed with you, but I also asked about the consequences of loosing some important freedoms. Lol...

El Sitherino
09-18-2008, 12:29 AM
You're mistaken thinking Universal healthcare and a national healthcare plan are synonymous.
You also may wish to read over the proposed plan. As far as I'm aware of our personal taxes pay for our personal national healthcare plan coverage. Almost like Social Security.

Basically, if you can't get accepted on a private insurance model, the national one has the same standards and whatever you decide to pay, you get.

Inyri
09-18-2008, 12:34 AM
We allready pay 40% to 50% of our gross income to the state and federal government. How much more?Where are you working that you pay 50% of your gross income in taxes? I have never paid nearly that much. I think you're grossly exaggerating.

Achilles
09-18-2008, 12:40 AM
Experience is not in the ConsitutionOk, so there is no "experience requirement" in the Constitution. Therefore, Obama fully meets the requirements for office set forth by the Constitution.

Experience I was refering to covers anything from military, economics, to passing laws. That's still pretty vague.

None of this tells me why we shouldn't consider Obama's experience as President of the Harvard Law Review, his years managing staff as a community organizer in Chicago, his years in the Illinois State Senate, or his time in Congress.

Your implication seems to be that Obama's experience = 0, however this isn't true. Yes McCain's "experience" = 26 years (I think that's about right), however 1) that's not a whole lot more than Obama's and 2) what does McCain have to show for his 26 years?

The questions I brought up were focused on any experience in either politics, war, policy making, or global relations. Ok. So what's your point then?

Anything that is regulated by the government is a form of socialism. Universal healthcare (nationalized healthcare) is a form of socialism. Forcing people to have healthcare, having them pay for another person's healthcare, and penalizing them for not having it is a form of socialism. Extreme left and right are both guilty of such acts. The more things are regulated -- the more you loose your freedoms.So what are your thoughts regarding police, fire, other emergency services, the postal service, libraries, etc?

Yar-El
09-18-2008, 12:59 AM
You're mistaken thinking Universal healthcare and a national healthcare plan are synonymous.
You also may wish to read over the proposed plan. As far as I'm aware of our personal taxes pay for our personal national healthcare plan coverage. Almost like Social Security.

Basically, if you can't get accepted on a private insurance model, the national one has the same standards and whatever you decide to pay, you get. This is what I looked at: Obama's Plan (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/)
This is also what I found: Opinion Writter on Obama's Plan (http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/opinion/columns/article/obamas_crazy_healthcare_plan/13607/)

Obama's plan is the same one that some of the states are attempting. Government involvement is a necessary element to make it work. Socialism in its purest form. Obama also wants to open a new department, The Exchange, which would also depend upon more tax payer's dollars. At a time where we need to cut back, Obama wants to keep spending more money. The Exchange will regulate the healthcare system, and make sure some private buisnesses pay for the healthcare of others. He even contridicts himself when talking about small buisnesses. Obama's plan is a socialist plan. He doesn't even go into detail about the types of numbers he is looking at. What premiums are he referencing?

Astor
09-18-2008, 02:18 AM
Why is war experience not an important requirement? McCain has extensive experience fighting for us and the soldiers who fight in wars. Why should we ignore McCain's war experiences? He fought on and off the field. McCain paid the price for his country. Why ignore that? Obama says war experience is not important in a time of war.

As i've said before, fighting in a war, and then commanding a war are two very different things.

Just because McCain fought to uphold his country's honour doesn't mean he automatically knows how to run a war.

For instance, would Sergeant John Doe, of his Majesty's Royal Fusiliers know how to lead an invasion if he was so asked?

Flying a fighter plane and sending men to war are two very different things.

Achilles
09-18-2008, 02:35 AM
This is also what I found: Opinion Writter on Obama's Plan (http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/opinion/columns/article/obamas_crazy_healthcare_plan/13607/) Are you posting this because it reflects your views (fallacies and all)? Yar-El at some point it would be really helpful if you stopped pointing us to what other people's opinions are and start arguing your own. Just because someone says something contrary to one opinion doesn't mean that their position is better. Sometime people take opposing positions for bad reasons (like getting more hits on their "controversial" website).

Obama's plan is the same one that some of the states are attempting. Which states? Is it working? Why or why not?
You're not telling me anything useful here.

Government involvement is a necessary element to make it work. Socialism in its purest form. Please see my earlier comments regarding other government-run (or "socialist") programs that we have here in the U.S.

Obama also wants to open a new department, The Exchange, which would also depend upon more tax payer's dollars. Too much SW:KotOR for you :)

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

At a time where we need to cut back, Obama wants to keep spending more money.Gross oversimplification. Spending less money on some things (like a war in Iraq) means that you can spend money on other things. And if you spend less money on the new thing than you were on the old thing, then that difference would be a savings.

The Exchange will regulate the healthcare system, and make sure some private buisnesses pay for the healthcare of others. Please see Obama quote above.

He even contridicts himself when talking about small buisnesses. Obama's plan is a socialist plan. He doesn't even go into detail about the types of numbers he is looking at. What premiums are he referencing?Better yet, what are you referencing?

Yar-El
09-18-2008, 08:09 AM
Achilles I just saw through your posts. Your a pretty good debater. Lol... I allmost got caught. I'm presenting fact based upon what I have read on Obama's site and the media coverage. You are a damn good debater. :) I presented to you facts and arguements. I even gave you a newspaper analysis, and you didn't bother to look at the evidence. Lol... Some of those articles were connected to facts. I like you. :)

New York Post: Obama Tried to Stall GIS Iraq Withdrawal (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m?page=2).

New York Post: Arguement and Evidence (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm?&page=0)

After deniying it, he then admits it: Obama camp confirms troop pullout delay plan.

He is also claiming victory before any vote has been casted. Read the articles.

This is too rich to pass up on Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html). That is just weird. That is just insane. What is wrong with him? People do know that the human brain is not fully developed until the late teens. Right? I think some people around here talked about this yesterday. He is unethical or insane.

I have to be fair now. McCain Changes his mind on AIG bailout (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/5050/story?id=5821886&page=1). I think McCain's problem is that he changes sides too quickly. I do understand his reasons, and they are based upon morals. I would have let the company sink, but allowed the honest people a chance to save their investments.

"I didn't want to do that. And I don't think anybody I know wanted to do that. But there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here," the Republican presidential nominee told ABC News' Robin Roberts, sounding somewhat accepting of the Fed's action on AIG.

I have nothing against you people. I'm glad that we can have a casual debate here. I may not be writting line after line, but I do enjoy the topic at hand.

El Sitherino
09-18-2008, 11:17 AM
We've already been over this and it's been disproven, Yar-El, please post something with merit on the topic and not more rhetoric.

Also, this thread is about discussion of the issues and what matters in the election. You want to post pundit garbage and political rhetoric, take it to the campaign ads thread.

Also you have yet to post why McCain is qualified and why his policy issues are an improvement for America. Or why you feel he is best qualified in a post without pundit garbage and rhetoric slandering (via libel) Obama. I show the courtesy of not calling McCain a sicko, you and others can do the same by not labeling Obama.

Anyway, as Achilles pointed out, spending less somewhere else means more is able to be spent where it needs to be. As well, Universal health care is not just a national healthcare program, it means equal standards on all insurance plans. This is something the healthcare system drastically needs. Again at my age I should not be completely covered for viagra, yet my fiancee can't even get 4% coverage on her birth control medication. I should not have to make sure my insurance plan will cover a necessary treatment before making plans to get the operation. Establishing a healthcare system without bias will prevent a lot of needless death and illness in this nation. If you want to argue rhetoric, I'll propose that a number of robberies and such occur due to neccesity to gain money for something medical.

But regardless of that, people should not be denied coverage simply because they're already sick. That should be even more reason for them to be covered, terminally ill cancer victims should not be told "Better luck elsewhere" and then get hung up on or shown the door at an insurance office, but it does. This is why universal healthcare is needed.

You claim socialist programs are anti-american, yet many of them have existed in our nation for a long time and have been established and supported by our greatest leaders.
I'll point out public education systems, public healthcare facilities, the police, firefighters, etc.

I'll await your reply to both Achillies and myself as well as your explaination as to why you want to vote McCain.

Jae Onasi
09-18-2008, 12:51 PM
I would ask, "Do I loose the freedom to choose between paying or not paying for someone else's healthcare?"
We lose that freedom anyway when a mother who can't afford prenatal care develops massive health problems during pregnancy that put her on disability, or put her child damaged by those problems on disability permanently. We lose that freedom when someone loses a job and can't afford the asthma medications for his child, and the child ends up in the ER. We lose that freedom when someone needs massive treatment for advanced stage breast cancer because she couldn't afford a mammogram that could have found the tumor in a much smaller stage that would have required much less treatment. My uninsured best friend who had AIDS could have gotten treatment for it if he had had access to healthcare, and it might have saved the states of PA and OH the massive hospital bills they ended up paying when he developed fungal meningitis from his untreated AIDS--Medicaid ended up paying $100,000 for that hospital stay alone, not including the follow up care for months after.

We all pay for those kinds of situations, when people's health becomes so bad from lack of treatment that they end up on disability and Medicaid/Medicare--we pay for disability, Medicaid, and Medicare through our taxes. Universal health care would allow preventative care that would cost us all less in the long run.

Achilles
09-18-2008, 01:51 PM
Lol... I allmost got caught. No, you did get "caught". We know this because rather than answer my questions and address my points, you offer up an insinuation that I'm somehow being sneaky or underhanded as a distraction. If you had an argument, we'd be discussing that right now.

I even gave you a newspaper analysis, and you didn't bother to look at the evidence. I did look at them. Sithy looked at them too and was also able to tell that they are bunk.

Here's a protip for you: If someone goes out of their way to post sources that only support the position that they are arguing for, that's called cherry-picking. A couple of things you can determine pretty quickly when you see someone cherry-picking:

1) They're smart enough to know that sources matter.
2) That means that "Gee, don't look at me, I'm not that smart" defensive strategies won't work.
3) That they went out of their way to ignore sources that disagreed with their position, which means that they are at least aware of the counter argument.
4) Which means they aren't interested in having an honest exchange of ideas in good faith.
5) Which means that if they try to tell you that they want to have an honest exchange of ideas in good faith, they aren't being truthful.

These are just some of the things you can determine automatically from cherry-picked sources. I hope that helps.

El Sitherino
09-18-2008, 04:55 PM
I know my posts are based on fact, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time posting.
After all I didn't make it to being a moderator by making a fool of myself on the forums.

Again, show us what makes the proposed plan of universal healthcare irresponsible and bad in general. So far Yar-El, or Totenkopf for that matter, you have yet to show why it will be a bad decision.

I'm not ever sure what happened to Nihil, however he also never disputed what I have said. And by dispute I don't simply mean argue with "I disagree", my meaning is that of "Show me why I'm wrong."

Yar-El
09-18-2008, 06:13 PM
I know my posts are based on fact, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time posting.
After all I didn't make it to being a moderator by making a fool of myself on the forums.

Again, show us what makes the proposed plan of universal healthcare irresponsible and bad in general. So far Yar-El, or Totenkopf for that matter, you have yet to show why it will be a bad decision.

I'm not ever sure what happened to Nihil, however he also never disputed what I have said. And by dispute I don't simply mean argue with "I disagree", my meaning is that of "Show me why I'm wrong."

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public. Regulating universal health care is socialistic in nature, and it will cost American tax payers deeply in the long run. One of the consequences of living in New England is high taxes. We are also in an unstable economic atmosphere that requires careful spending. Adding a newly regulated group to the mix will put more stress on the taxpayer. People such as myself also don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare. Taxpayers are now responsible for the reckless buisness practices of mortage lenders and banks. Eventually the system will crush both the wealthy and middle class. I also don't like the idea of being told, "You now have to pay for someone else's medical bills." Being responsible for a person's medical bills while they are job capable is foolish. I can understand a loan for those people, but the tax payers need to be paid back. Afordable health insurance is a great idea, but it must come from making more options available. We must not force people or buisnesses into paying for other people's expenses.

Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, and will receive a new Small Business Health Tax Credit that helps reduce health care costs for small businesses. What will eventually happen is that employers will pass the cost of healthcare onto the workers. Wages will also be cut to accomidate the loss. Our country's price of life is allready at extreme standards. People who should be making $16 to $18 dollars an hour are being paid $11 to $12 an hour. We allready have a serious problem with getting employers to pay for skilled labor. (Immigration maybe an issue here as well.)

Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama and Biden will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama and Biden will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans. Between the ages of 22 and 23, young adults are finished with college. Why should parents cover the cost for young adults? They should have a job of their own by 23. I can see an off-shoot plan that will allow a young adult to pay for their own healthcare, but not one that would put them into in a dependancy crisis.

Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. Yeah. I can buy into that idea. People with AIDS, HIV, and Dimensia have problems obtaining health insurance.

Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. I would like to know the numbers. What does he consider affordable?

Some of the stuff he wants to do is ambitious. Several of the things he talks about have been expressed by many potential presidents. Bush, McCain, Clintons, and others have attempted such changes. While working in the senate, has Obama tried to build on anything like this before?

(Time to look at McCain's healthcare plans. I will be back with an edit or post.)

-- Edit --

John McCain time!

John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care. I agree with this 100%. More control in the family's hands is important. Allowing families to control where they want their money to be spent is important. Telling people where to spend the money is dictatorship.

John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines. Both John McCain and Obama see eye to eye. Don't let them know that. :)

John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts. McCain and Obama agree again; however, I dissagree with this idea. We seem to be on a tax-credit answer for all of our problems. Democrats have just attempted to pass another tax-credit. If anyone has been following the news, you would have learned that part of our problem was the tax-credits. How can you give some of their taxes back and not cut spending. Example -- Congress has a $100 bill to pay, they give a tax-credit that only leaves $50 behind. You now have a $50 deficit. The math doesn't work. We need to cut spending somewhere, so the tax-credit cost doesn't hurt the economy. I do like the idea of families getting a choice. More control into the family unit breeds freedom to choose.

Most of the ideologies McCain makes available are similar to Obama's. They agree almost most of the time. Repeating what I said about Obama's plan but for McCain would be horrible.