PDA

View Full Version : US Elections 2008: Debate the Issues


Pages : [1] 2

Netto Azure
September 2nd, 2008, 05:39 PM
For after Election Day coverage: US Elections 2008: The Results, Voting Experience and Consequences (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=158550)

Thank you for those who contributed to this thread. It has been my most successful one thus far. I respect your opinions now, you know mines...No hard feelings okay? No offense if I hurt your feelings, I apologize to those who feel hurt. I'll continue contributing but I believe we have said what we could say...You guys are very nice and I admire you for defending your positions. Thank you PC and Administrators for giving me the Opportunity to do this. Even without a blog I was able to keep a record of my opinions in this Historic Election and Moment in our Worlds history. Remember to Vote on November 4, 2008 (or early Vote)

May the American People choose wisely, and God help us all in the problems ahead in our World. "We are all in the same boat no matter our Political disposition." ^_^
------------------------------------

Call me an unusual teenager for liking computers, debates, and politics but we must help our fellow fence-sitters here in PC make an informed decision on the 2008 US Elections. Some would say the Elections don't matter but as we have seen after the 2000 Elections...IT DOES MATTER Just think of a straight line moved slightly...It adds up! the direction changes!
Remember don't let the stupid campaign distraction affect you! (Such as McCain being old and Obama drawing crowds)

Now we know the line up: Obama/Biden for the Democrats and McCain/Palin for the Republicans...Also the third parties if you're for that...Remember Congressional Seats are also up for grabs!!!(Where third parties have better chances...:D)

In anticipation to the Prez and Vice-Prez debates: Show your opinions, debate issues from foreign policy (Foreigners this affects YOU! You are invited to discuss the topics!), to Climate Change (Energy Independence and what-not), to true Universal Healthcare!

Rules & Regulations: All PC rules apply...Please don't name call...be rational...bring evidence (links, summarize them since not everyone is going there) and understand the person on the other side.
(Read this: A lesson in Kindness: http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=151476)

Options on posting: Question & Answer form (Question on top, answer bottom)
Show your candidates opinions on the issues. (As you see it)

Thanks for Participating!!! I might edit this for aesthetic appeal than the wall of text I currently have...

Thread Starter: Should we start drilling for oil offshore?
My Opinion: Not really, I don't see the feasibility of it since it's still the oil companies that will control it. And it's 7 years at least till we see a drop of oil from there.

Cassino
September 2nd, 2008, 09:13 PM
Foreign policy? Wot-wot, where can I find this information?

And yes, drill for oil. Rigs won't blow up the world or anything... Well, they'd best make sure there actually is oil there first.

Megera
September 2nd, 2008, 09:19 PM
Don't know who I'm voting for yet.

Also, there is no reason to not drill for oil. Oil has no other use that we know of, so we might as well use it.

revelp8
September 2nd, 2008, 09:30 PM
im totally against oil rigging off coasts, seeing as I live in near the coast in cali. i mean, i care about my great-children in the year 2099, but by then, i hope, there would be a newer, reusable energy source.

All it does now, would be polluting our ocean with oil with more oil spills and accidents that decimate our local ecology.

Netto Azure
September 3rd, 2008, 06:33 AM
im totally against oil rigging off coasts, seeing as I live in near the coast in cali. i mean, i care about my great-children in the year 2099, but by then, i hope, there would be a newer, reusable energy source.

All it does now, would be polluting our ocean with oil with more oil spills and accidents that decimate our local ecology.

I live near San Pedro (South LA) so I'm right beside the Oil Refinaries...I hate the Oil Companies dumping all those chemicals into the air that I'm breathing...so I'm against anything that profits Big Oil...

the bitter end.
September 4th, 2008, 04:50 AM
The Republicans of course! Don't worry, your never too young to get into politics.

Cassino
September 4th, 2008, 06:34 AM
Hey, may I also ask what the point of the republican party in the US is? Said country is already a republic with the sort of ideals a republican party would promote anyway.

Oh and so my other question isn't left in the dust: again, what're the foreign policies they're touting?

Netto Azure
September 4th, 2008, 04:40 PM
Hey, may I also ask what the point of the republican party in the US is? Said country is already a republic with the sort of ideals a republican party would promote anyway.

Oh and so my other question isn't left in the dust: again, what're the foreign policies they're touting?

Ok...just to make an example of Canada (Hey...hey!!! YOU GUYS ARE VOTING TOO!!! SNAP ELECTIONS ARE BEING HINTED BY PM STEPHEN HARPER!!! TO BREAK YOUR POLITICAL DEADLOCK...WHAT A COINCIDENCE eh?) There are the two major Political parties Liberal and Conservative. (Their names essentially give their positions yet I think the Canadian Conservative party is more liberal than the Democrats.) The two major Political Parties use the names Republican (or GOP Grand Old Party) and Democrat since it has been formalized about 100 years ago to differentiate themselves (and I think because it's neutral sounding.) And anyways people in the US wouldn't really want the name Liberal for the Democrats and Conservative for Republicans. And yes this is technically already a Republic and a Democracy.

Oh...Their "Official" Foreign Policy: It's too long I'll just link it up...(Remember Google is your friend) :D and it's too long to post here.

Barack Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm
Third Parties: Google it up...to lazy to do so...

SpartanPatriot
September 4th, 2008, 04:54 PM
Obama is probably going to win. I honestly want Obama to win because he is highly intelligent, young and the best of the two candidates. I say that with the upmost respect. One of the issues that is important to me is getting the troops out of Iraq. The war is needless. McCain supports the war and Obama does not and that is one thing that makes me very happy. On the Death penalty Obama does not support it but he does not want it abolished even though "it does little to deter crimes". Mccain supprts the death penalty. On Guantanemo bay both cadidates do not like it and want it gone. And the last thing I really care about at the moment (all I can really think of) is civil libertys and rights.

Just look here and I believe you will see why I favor Barack Obama.

http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-civil-liberties.php

These are just my opinions so please do not flame me. You can surely disagree but please do not say "idiot! obama is a terroorrizt! obama = osama!"

Netto Azure
September 4th, 2008, 05:00 PM
New Topic:

Should we get out of Iraq? (Even though George Bush is already going in that direction)

I think so...Iraq was essentially a "blunder" and another imperialistic war for us here in the US (See now we look like a bunch of Hypocrites when Russia "invaded" Georgia)

But then again my Dad's line of thought is "If we get out of Iraq the terrorists comes back in and then we have to go back in AGAIN..." That does make me a little wary...

Alakazam17
September 4th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Wow, I'm the only one who picked the last choice. XD

Being an anarchist myself, I think America would be better off without a leader. But seeing as I don't see this happening for another few years, I'd vote Liberal.

Zennerick
September 4th, 2008, 05:33 PM
New Topic:

[S-HIGHLIGHT]Should we get out of Iraq? (Even though George Bush is already going in that direction)[/S-HIGHLIGHT]

I think so...Iraq was essentially a "blunder" and another imperialistic war for us here in the US (See now we look like a bunch of Hypocrites when Russia "invaded" Georgia)

But then again my Dad's line of thought is [S-HIGHLIGHT]"If we get out of Iraq the terrorists comes back in and then we have to go back in AGAIN..."[/S-HIGHLIGHT] That does make me a little wary...
Terroists arn't even in Iraq. Therrorists are in Afganistan.
Staying in Iraq was pronounced usless as soon as Sadam lost power.
Sadam is gone, and there is no WMDs.

Being an anarchist myself, I think America would be better off without a leader. But seeing as I don't see this happening for another few years, I'd vote Liberal.

I know it's your opinion, I respect that. However, I do beileve that a real government needs laws and a leader (One who is not a moron).
Some anarchies have rules, but they are not enforced.
Laws are way more effective than rules.

SpartanPatriot
September 4th, 2008, 05:41 PM
I am an American and I like this country but sometimes the congress and presidents are idiots. Plain and simple. We think we need to be world police and keep everything in order and that is ridiculous. Saddam Husein was right to be punished but to be killed? He was an awful man but he did not deserve to be killed. How would Americans like it if the, let's say, Chinese government came here accusing us of having WMD's, took our leader and hung him? Even though ALOT of people may hate Bush he has no reason to be killed.

We had absolutely no right to go into Iraq and try to change everything. It is not our country and by this happening it has severly hurt our economy. I know if the Chinese government or some other government came into this country with soldiers, false accusations and intent to change our way of life I would be pretty pissed. The war is unnecessary and it crap.

Zennerick
September 4th, 2008, 05:59 PM
I am an American and I like this country but sometimes the congress and presidents are idiots. Plain and simple. We think we need to be world police and keep everything in order and that is ridiculous. Saddam Husein was right to be punished but to be killed? He was an awful man but he did not deserve to be killed. How would Americans like it if the, let's say, Chinese government came here accusing us of having WMD's, took our leader and hung him? Even though ALOT of people may hate Bush he has no reason to be killed.

We had absolutely no right to go into Iraq and try to change everything. It is not our country and by this happening it has severly hurt our economy. I know if the Chinese government or some other government came into this country with soldiers, false accusations and intent to change our way of life I would be pretty pissed. The war is unnecessary and it crap.

I agree. Sure, we could help other countries. That would be great.
Unfortunately, The government feels like it has spent too much time and money to just leave Iraq alone. It wants to control it and its oil.

America has vast resources of oil and natural gas – enough oil to power more than 60 million cars for the next six decades and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years, according to government estimates. We may have considerably more resources, since the government conducted their last true inventory in the early 1980s using old data from now-outdated seismic equipment.

The Republicans of course! Don't worry, your never too young to get into politics.
McCain is way too self-centered. All he does is talk about himself and his life stories constantly; Making himself sound superior to the world.
It's sickening. I can't stand it!

Allstories
September 4th, 2008, 06:36 PM
I hope we can get the ball rolling on universal health care already. It's pretty disgusting and frankly embarassing that we don't have it yet.

Netto Azure
September 4th, 2008, 09:19 PM
I hope we can get the ball rolling on universal health care already. It's pretty disgusting and frankly embarassing that we don't have it yet.

It's 10:30 PM (again) here in Wilmington so I'll have a short reply for now...Don't worry I'll address the issues brought up later...(Tomorrow)

Yes I was part of the Harbor-UCLA Summer Youth Health Program here in Wilmington...Our studies this summer was crucial because of the proposed closing of county haspitals in LA (DURING an economic downturn!!!)...We watched "Sicko" and it's sickening on how the Insurance companies and Government treats US Citizens...That is why it's one of my goals to promote TRUE Universal Health-care here in the USA (Lucky, Canada)

Also Allstories I thought you were Republican...(Sorry...I misunderstood you...)

Arshiki
September 5th, 2008, 06:15 AM
I am a registered independent. I simply believe in what I believe in and do not side with any particular party. However, I do lean mostly to the left.

I will be voting for Ralph Nader, as he holds many of my views and looks as though he would be a competent leader for our country.

I do not trust Barack Obama due to the fact that he has left his half-brother to rot in Africa and apparently has strong Islamic ties. He also lacks the experience necessary to lead our country.

As for John McCain, my sig should sum up what I think of the man. Our country does not need another ultra conservative in office. I am also tired of hearing him tell stories of his days as a POW and trying to get people to feel empathy for him. It sickens me.

Megera
September 5th, 2008, 06:40 AM
Except he is not ultra conservative. Notice they needed Palin to balance him out.

Also, for third party voters, way to waste your vote.

Netto Azure
September 5th, 2008, 06:51 AM
Terroists arn't even in Iraq. Terrorists are in Afganistan.
Staying in Iraq was pronounced usless as soon as Sadam lost power.
Sadam is gone, and there is no WMDs.

Yes...I know that the terrorists are NOT in Iraq...There in the Tribal Pakistani Territories. But by going into Iraq and spending all that money the US Government made the Middle East a worse place because as my dad's line of thought goes...Iraq is too weak to handle it's own security (They are at a political deadlock and their military isn't organized enough to handle the terrorists who would probably try to wrestle control of the country from the "Democratic" Government.)


I agree. Sure, we could help other countries. That would be great.
Unfortunately, The government feels like it has spent too much time and money to just leave Iraq alone. It wants to control it and its oil.

America has vast resources of oil and natural gas – enough oil to power more than 60 million cars for the next six decades and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years, according to government estimates. We may have considerably more resources, since the government conducted their last true inventory in the early 1980s using old data from now-outdated seismic equipment.


McCain is way too self-centered. All he does is talk about himself and his life stories constantly; Making himself sound superior to the world.
It's sickening. I can't stand it!

That is true the Government DOES feel that way...Spent too much resources and manpower to abandon "it" now.

Yes John McCain is relatively self-centered I mean (sorry..) I've heard his POW story a lot of times already and to keep forcing that to our mouths ON EVERY CAMPAIN STOP just to "show" his Patriotism is just too much. I mean don't question someone elses Patriotism just because he wasn't a Veteran like yourself. If you want the betterment of your fellow citizen YOUR A PATRIOT. And not enough Flag-Waving and singing of the national anthem can top that.

And yes John McCain is somewhat like Cotton Hill.

Arshiki
September 5th, 2008, 06:58 AM
Except he is not ultra conservative. Notice they needed Palin to balance him out.
It is clear that he only nominated Palin as his VP to get the female vote. Many women are angry at Obama for nominating Joe Biden as his VP instead of Hillary Clinton. Therefore, by nominating Palin, McCain will get many women to vote for him, since he (unlike Obama) chose a woman as his running mate. Pretty clever tactic, if I do say so myself.

Also, if you knew anything about his history, you would know that he is quite the slimy philanderer.

Megera
September 5th, 2008, 07:09 AM
Except that Palin, unlike Hillary supporters, is pro-life. Not going to garner that much support. Palin was nominated so that she could garner the evangelical vote (frankly, those retards have too much power than they should in the Republican party).

Allstories
September 5th, 2008, 07:41 AM
I do not trust Barack Obama due to the fact that he has left his half-brother to rot in Africa and apparently has strong Islamic ties. He also lacks the experience necessary to lead our country.

1. He barely knows this brother. Why does he owe anything to this brother that he doesn't know, who doesn't seem to care much about him either, and who is just living as people in Kenya live?
2. Obama is not a muslim.
3. He was a community organizer in Chicago, a college law professor, a civil rights attorney, President of Harvard Law Review, he was in the Illinois senate for eight years, and the US senate for four. That sounds pretty experienced to me. What the hell else do you want?

Netto Azure
September 5th, 2008, 10:03 AM
1. He barely knows this brother. Why does he owe anything to this brother that he doesn't know, who doesn't seem to care much about him either, and who is just living as people in Kenya live?
2. Obama is not a muslim.
3. He was a community organizer in Chicago, a college law professor, a civil rights attorney, President of Harvard Law Review, he was in the Illinois senate for eight years, and the US senate for four. That sounds pretty experienced to me. What the hell else do you want?

That is true (# 1 & 2)...Those are just rumors sent out by the conservative right (Old "normal" politics) to cast doubt on Obama...And they SAY they won't go into the negative and start partisan politics...Such hypocrytical rhetoric...

txteclipse
September 5th, 2008, 10:30 AM
How would Americans like it if the, let's say, Chinese government came here accusing us of having WMD's, took our leader and hung him?

They wouldn't, because we wouldn't crash planes into their buildings.

Iraq is a tricky business. There's simply a lot of unknowns. I agree that it's been going on for a long time, but I seriously doubt we can simply leave without there being at least some negative consequences. Pulling out slowly seems the best idea at the moment.

It is clear that he only nominated Palin as his VP to get the female vote.

And because she's freaking awesome. One of the major (and few) reasons I'm voting for McCain because I want her to be VP. That said (and in explanation of why I said "few"), I don't really like any of the current candidates. Obama is the changing wizard of changing change, and McCain is the warmonger.

EDIT: and about that Obama-McCain comparison site. I'd love to point out a few things.

http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-cuba.php

People love to say that Democrats wouldn't impose U.S. policy on other places. Well, look at the last bullet on Obama's list.

http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-budget.php

McCain is much more in-depth. And holy crap...look at that first bullet on McCain's side.

http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-business-labor.php

Again, McCain is more developed. And he has a plan for the future. Look what he's saying there about staying competitive in the world economy.

http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-deficit.php

I had to laugh.

http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-economy.php

This one is half and half for me. Obama wants to help a lot of people, but I have no idea where he's going to find all that money. McCain wants to invest in future technology (new energy sources, without doubt, being among these). That means some people won't be helped, but if we save a lot of money by changing to new technology, we could potentially help more people in the end.

http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-education-issue.php

Obama has some good stuff here, but I love how McCain wants student-centric education. He wants students to learn and be inspired, not just coast through classes.

http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-energy.php

This is kinda "meh" for me. Clean nuclear power would be a godsend, so I'll give McCain credit for that, but I don't like the offshore drilling thing. Obama is misdirected, on the other hand: biofuel #1 is almost as expensive as regular gasoline and #2 uses crops, which will drive the price of food up. Which would you rather pay more for: food or gas?

THis is getting lengthy, and I'm getting tired, so I'll stop now. Might do the rest later, might not.

Aurafire
September 5th, 2008, 12:03 PM
1. He barely knows this brother. Why does he owe anything to this brother that he doesn't know, who doesn't seem to care much about him either, and who is just living as people in Kenya live?
2. Obama is not a muslim.
3. He was a community organizer in Chicago, a college law professor, a civil rights attorney, President of Harvard Law Review, he was in the Illinois senate for eight years, and the US senate for four. That sounds pretty experienced to me. What the hell else do you want?

Not very experienced when you take into account that he voted "present" over 100 times instead of simply saying yes or no....not getting you much experience if you don't actually participate. Though it's not surprising he's voted "present" that many times, since our useless congress doesn't do a thing anyway.

Look, he has some political experience. Compared to McCain though, it's laughable. For those of you that actually took the time to watch McCain's speech last night (not many I'm assuming), you would have seen his determination, resolve, and love for America. You would have seen a man ready to lead.

Let me tell you all a little something about Barack Obama: he's absolutely the most liberal politician ever to be elected. You may ask "So what?" Well I'll tell you what.

You think his massive tax increase is going to be good for America? False. The large corporations and wealthy entrepreneurs that drive this country's economy will be handcuffed with taxes. What does that mean? You're job is gone, and that company will move overseas. The people with the highest income will stop investing. Small business owners will be smothered with no room for growth. Essentially, the economy gets worse than it already is.

What about healthcare? Universal looks good on paper, but get ready for some crappy coverage. Without competition, quality of care goes down the toilet. You can't "socialize" medicine. Why do you think people become doctors? Competitive salaries. If healthcare is socialized, they have no more incentive. Why should one doctor work harder than another doctor if they're getting paid exactly the same salary? Sure, doctors are very caring and they want to help, but that six figure check in their wallet doesn't look too bad either. Now, I’m not stupid, I know our system needs reforming to help everyone out. People genuinely cannot afford health care, but socialization is NOT the way to do it.

Even on the War in Iraq, Obama has no “real” stance. He’s been an anti-war democrat for his entire career in the Senate, voted against the surge, and now, since most of the country believes that the surge is working, he says “Well...Iraq was still a mistake, the real fight is in Afganistan.” Anyone with half a brain could tell you that there are terrorists both in Afghanistan AND Iraq. Iraq may have been mismanaged, but don’t tell me that there was no threat there. Iraq was a haven for terrorism, and you really are flat out blind if you can’t see it. John McCain knows that, Obama doesn’t. He’s using the public’s discontent with the war to get him votes. It’s pandering at it’s absolute worst. He goes to wherever the votes go...which is why he has practically no personal stance on any issue.

His strategy is so simple, but people are too dumb to see it (not anyone here, just people in general). Every one of his policies looks great on paper, and he’s great at delivering his message. “Vote for me, and I will heal America”. I ask everyone to look just a bit closer at what he really wants, because if you’re young and blindly follow whatever you hear, you’re playing right into his strategy. He’s relying on you to not inform yourself about what he really wants. He hides behind his uplifting message and his “too good to be true” plan to heal America, and the everyday American, frustrated with the way our country is going, becomes infatuated with him. What he really wants is to move our country towards socialism, make it so that everyone can win and no one loses. Well people, life has winners and losers, and no amount of political skill can change that.

You might call me stubborn, stupid, ignorant, cruel, uncaring, crazy or anything else you might feel about me. All I can tell you is that I care about America, and so does John McCain. Under all the flowery and dressed up nonsense that Obama calls “policies” , what he really cares about is himself and getting elected. Again, use any of those words above to describe me, but don’t you dare fault me for caring about my country. I don’t pretend to be “enlightened” or “above” anyone else, and apologize if I come off that way. But I do call myself informed, and truth be told, most Americans are not.

I don’t mind if you support Obama. I do mind if you blindly support him and don’t know what he stands for. And you may not agree with me, but based on what he says and what he believes in, you’d be doing yourself a great dishonor if you didn’t take a closer look. I’m not jumping down anyone’s throats or anything.

And I’m not saying “If you vote for Obama, you’re stupid.” I just want people to be informed. Don’t believe everything you hear, because if Obama does get elected, there’s no way he can live up to all the hype he’s created.

Arshiki
September 5th, 2008, 12:23 PM
Except that Palin, unlike Hillary supporters, is pro-life. Not going to garner that much support. Palin was nominated so that she could garner the evangelical vote (frankly, those retards have too much power than they should in the Republican party).
Many women have disregarded that Palin is pro-life and have jumped on the McCain voting bandwagon. A prime example of this is the formation of PUMA (or Party Unity My Ass). The women apart of the organization have stated that they are more than one issue voters and Palin being against abortion is not of concern to them.

1. He barely knows this brother. Why does he owe anything to this brother that he doesn't know, who doesn't seem to care much about him either, and who is just living as people in Kenya live?
2. Obama is not a muslim.
3. He was a community organizer in Chicago, a college law professor, a civil rights attorney, President of Harvard Law Review, he was in the Illinois senate for eight years, and the US senate for four. That sounds pretty experienced to me. What the hell else do you want?

1. He is still his half-brother. Do you not think it is wrong that Obama has not attempted to get to know or provide for him? Even one of his half-brother's neighbors has stated in an interview that Obama should pay more attention to his half-brother and help him. If I was Obama, I would visit him occasionally and help provide for him.

To abandon a dissolute family member is low. Personally, I would hate to have someone like that in office.

2. I never claimed Obama is Islamic. I stated that he has ties with Islamics. He is associated with Malik Obama, his half-brother, and Raila Odinga, his cousin. Both Malik and Odinga believe in Sharia Law, which is a strict interpretation of Islam. They each seek to make Kenya entirely Islamic. Despite this, Obama has strong connections with them both. During his early campaigns, he even consulted Odinga, who sought his advice during his own campaign for prime minister of Kenya.

That said, I have a difficult time placing my trust in a man who is aware that the family members he associates with are Islamic extremists.

3. Others who have run for president have had substantially more experience than Obama. Compared to their resumes, his is very slim.

Merzbau
September 5th, 2008, 12:49 PM
I think it's about time I interjected a little life into this thread, so I will do so now:

I don't care what all of you say, I'd still be voting for George Carlin.

Allstories
September 5th, 2008, 12:50 PM
What about healthcare? Universal looks good on paper, but get ready for some crappy coverage. Without competition, quality of care goes down the toilet. You can't "socialize" medicine. Why do you think people become doctors? Competitive salaries. If healthcare is socialized, they have no more incentive. Why should one doctor work harder than another doctor if they're getting paid exactly the same salary? Sure, doctors are very caring and they want to help, but that six figure check in their wallet doesn't look too bad either. Now, I’m not stupid, I know our system needs reforming to help everyone out. People genuinely cannot afford health care, but socialization is NOT the way to do it.

What on earth are you talking about. Practically every country in the developed world has universal health care except for us. I mean, people still have to pay for dentists and prescriptions and all that other junk, but at least they can see regular doctors for free so that can retain their right to, y'know, not die in a gutter. UHC isn't some system where men hold doctors at gunpoint and make them perform surgeries without pay. It's basically just an insurance provider. A government insurance provider that you pay for through taxes instead of some cripplingly expensive, blood-sucking middleman. Tell me, how would YOU have us pay for health care?

Netto Azure
September 5th, 2008, 12:51 PM
I currently do not have the time to dissect this wall of text in a 5-minute time-frame (Sorry) But skimming through it I can say a couple of things...

*Yes the average American isn't informed enough to make an informed decision (So this thread was born...)

Red1530
September 5th, 2008, 02:33 PM
I plan to vote Senator McCain as president because I agree with him on all my key concerns like the war in Iraq, the economy, and energy independence. Also Governor Palin in her sixteen years in politics has accomplished more than Senator Obama.

Megera
September 5th, 2008, 03:33 PM
I really wish McCain had made a better decision with his VP choice. I really like her as a person, just like I like Bush as a person, but, like Bush (and Obama), she doesn't have much experience. Bush made some good decisions (and while I think we should've just nuked the whole Middle East and am very confused about why we're occupying Iraq rather than Afghaneuihtnuhkxmbhtnjh), but he's NOT a very good president. I believe his intentions are good, just as I believe Palin's are, but I'm afraid if McCain were to die and she became president without much experience as VP.

As VP, I think Palin is fine, but I'm unsure of her as president. So do I take the chance and vote McCain and hope he doesn't die (hey, his mom's still living), or do I waste my first presidential vote on Obama and let a Democrat prove that they can ruin the country (possibly permanently) just like a Republican?

Xairmo
September 5th, 2008, 05:05 PM
I, unfortunately, can't vote. But if I could, I would definitely vote for Obama. I just don't like McCain, moreover I hate Palin. I'm gay and Palin is one of the people trying to make it so gay marriage will never happen. Obama probably has the entire gay vote, at least from what I've seen. I generally dislike conservatives based on the whole gay issue and I refuse to let them treat us in such a manner.
Then again, it is a win-win for the Democratic party. Seeing as how McCain actually wants to wwork with the Democratic party. also, there's the fact that McCain used to be super Liberal.

TRIFORCE89
September 5th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Ok...just to make an example of Canada (Hey...hey!!! YOU GUYS ARE VOTING TOO!!! SNAP ELECTIONS ARE BEING HINTED BY PM STEPHEN HARPER!!! TO BREAK YOUR POLITICAL DEADLOCK...WHAT A COINCIDENCE eh?) There are the two major Political parties Liberal and Conservative. (Their names essentially give their positions yet I think the Canadian Conservative party is more liberal than the Democrats.)
The Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada are the largest parties here, but we do have other parties represented in our House of Commons. I would consider the New Democratic Party to be a major party. The Bloc Québécois is a party for Quebec interests. And then there's Green Party of Canada who just recently got a seat.

We have a whole bunch of other recognized parties, but those five above are what you'll see coverage for in the media - with particular attention given to the Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP.

Also just want to point out that we had a couple other big parties. In that list above (ignoring the Bloc), there's two left-wing parties, one centre, and one right of centre. The current Conservative party is actual a recent party born from the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance.

My best guest in comparing our parties to yours is that the Democrats are some kind of mix of our Liberals and Conservatives, while the Republicans are the equivalent of our former Canadian Alliance.

Ivysaur
September 6th, 2008, 01:40 AM
You think his massive tax increase is going to be good for America? False. The large corporations and wealthy entrepreneurs that drive this country's economy will be handcuffed with taxes. What does that mean? You're job is gone, and that company will move overseas. The people with the highest income will stop investing. Small business owners will be smothered with no room for growth. Essentially, the economy gets worse than it already is.

In the other hand, you have to realize two things: 1- Most of the international enterprises have already moved their production places to cheaper foreigner locations, so the amount of enterprises who still would want to mode to save money is small, since most have already did.

2- There is a big economical crisis going on in the world, and the US is one of the countries with the biggest deficit around. Getting more taxes from the richest people, the ones who aren't noticing the crisis at all, will only help stabilize the country's economy.
And investments? Well, they can also choose to go to Europe, where the crisis is starting already, so they can see how they lose them :D

What about healthcare? Universal looks good on paper, but get ready for some crappy coverage. Without competition, quality of care goes down the toilet. You can't "socialize" medicine. Why do you think people become doctors? Competitive salaries. If healthcare is socialized, they have no more incentive. Why should one doctor work harder than another doctor if they're getting paid exactly the same salary? Sure, doctors are very caring and they want to help, but that six figure check in their wallet doesn't look too bad either. Now, I’m not stupid, I know our system needs reforming to help everyone out. People genuinely cannot afford health care, but socialization is NOT the way to do it.

Well, maybe I'm saying this because I'm European, and we have had Universal health care for decades, or maybe because my father is a doctor so he knows about that, but Universal =! Socialism. Why? Because the hospitals still pay people depending on their merit, their experience, their work and the own hospital they are working on. The only thing that changes is that these salaries are paid by the State, and not by the poor people who have to use their savings to get their broken leg fixed.

Even on the War in Iraq, Obama has no “real” stance. He’s been an anti-war democrat for his entire career in the Senate, voted against the surge, and now, since most of the country believes that the surge is working, he says “Well...Iraq was still a mistake, the real fight is in Afganistan.” Anyone with half a brain could tell you that there are terrorists both in Afghanistan AND Iraq. Iraq may have been mismanaged, but don’t tell me that there was no threat there. Iraq was a haven for terrorism, and you really are flat out blind if you can’t see it. John McCain knows that, Obama doesn’t. He’s using the public’s discontent with the war to get him votes. It’s pandering at it’s absolute worst. He goes to wherever the votes go...which is why he has practically no personal stance on any issue.

Actually, Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorism while Saddam was there. Iraq became a haven for terrorism when the US destroyed Saddam's regime but didn't keep the control over religious groups Saddam had, thus letting them become a meeting place for people who wanted to fight the US invasion. Something that, after all, it's not so condemnable.

But it's true that, after... five years? Finally the mess up that George Bush (from McCain's party?) caused is starting to be fixed. So? Nobody is talking of leaving Iraq tomorrow, but of giving the power back to the remade and pro-American Iraq's army and police, and leaving the country in waves, until Iraq is back under Iraq's control (ironic much?). It's true that the problem is now in Afghanistan, and Iraq is just a waste of money and people.

His strategy is so simple, but people are too dumb to see it (not anyone here, just people in general). Every one of his policies looks great on paper, and he’s great at delivering his message. “Vote for me, and I will heal America”. I ask everyone to look just a bit closer at what he really wants, because if you’re young and blindly follow whatever you hear, you’re playing right into his strategy. He’s relying on you to not inform yourself about what he really wants. He hides behind his uplifting message and his “too good to be true” plan to heal America, and the everyday American, frustrated with the way our country is going, becomes infatuated with him. What he really wants is to move our country towards socialism, make it so that everyone can win and no one loses. Well people, life has winners and losers, and no amount of political skill can change that.

Well, calling Obama any actual politician a socialist is one of the worst insults you could do against all the true socialists in the 10th and 20th centuries. Socialism is currently impossible due that the politic of all the countries is controlled by the big economical groups (banks, industries, etc). They WON'T let one of the biggest and most economically important countries such as the US into socialism. The problem is that some people think that any kind of help towards the less able people, the poor people, etc., is socialism. Well, then all the European countries are socialist, sorry. Even the ultra-liberal UK has some of the "socialist" ideas Obama wants to use.

You might call me stubborn, stupid, ignorant, cruel, uncaring, crazy or anything else you might feel about me. All I can tell you is that I care about America, and so does John McCain. Under all the flowery and dressed up nonsense that Obama calls “policies” , what he really cares about is himself and getting elected. Again, use any of those words above to describe me, but don’t you dare fault me for caring about my country. I don’t pretend to be “enlightened” or “above” anyone else, and apologize if I come off that way. But I do call myself informed, and truth be told, most Americans are not.

Now please tell me that McCain doesn't care about himself getting elected, that he's doing this just out of love for America. Please, we are in the 21st century. Nobody acts just out of love in the two biggest parties in the biggest developed country around, sorry.

Megera
September 6th, 2008, 07:48 AM
I, unfortunately, can't vote. But if I could, I would definitely vote for Obama. I just don't like McCain, moreover I hate Palin. I'm gay and Palin is one of the people trying to make it so gay marriage will never happen. Obama probably has the entire gay vote, at least from what I've seen. I generally dislike conservatives based on the whole gay issue and I refuse to let them treat us in such a manner.
Then again, it is a win-win for the Democratic party. Seeing as how McCain actually wants to wwork with the Democratic party. also, there's the fact that McCain used to be super Liberal.

Sorry to use you as an example, but you're basing your WHOLE entire opinion of who should run America based on who can get MARRIED? I'm GLAD you can't vote. McCain and Palin aren't separating gays and putting them in concentration camps. The conservatives as a whole just need more time (and LESS godawful gay pride parades) to realize that gays are just as human and loving at straights since they divorce at the same rate in Massachusetts.

ALSO my best friend alerted me to the fact that Obama is against gay marriage.

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.


HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE INDECISIVE NOW.

Aurafire
September 6th, 2008, 08:27 AM
In the other hand, you have to realize two things: 1- Most of the international enterprises have already moved their production places to cheaper foreigner locations, so the amount of enterprises who still would want to mode to save money is small, since most have already did.

2- There is a big economical crisis going on in the world, and the US is one of the countries with the biggest deficit around. Getting more taxes from the richest people, the ones who aren't noticing the crisis at all, will only help stabilize the country's economy.
And investments? Well, they can also choose to go to Europe, where the crisis is starting already, so they can see how they lose them :D



Well, maybe I'm saying this because I'm European, and we have had Universal health care for decades, or maybe because my father is a doctor so he knows about that, but Universal =! Socialism. Why? Because the hospitals still pay people depending on their merit, their experience, their work and the own hospital they are working on. The only thing that changes is that these salaries are paid by the State, and not by the poor people who have to use their savings to get their broken leg fixed.



Actually, Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorism while Saddam was there. Iraq became a haven for terrorism when the US destroyed Saddam's regime but didn't keep the control over religious groups Saddam had, thus letting them become a meeting place for people who wanted to fight the US invasion. Something that, after all, it's not so condemnable.

But it's true that, after... five years? Finally the mess up that George Bush (from McCain's party?) caused is starting to be fixed. So? Nobody is talking of leaving Iraq tomorrow, but of giving the power back to the remade and pro-American Iraq's army and police, and leaving the country in waves, until Iraq is back under Iraq's control (ironic much?). It's true that the problem is now in Afghanistan, and Iraq is just a waste of money and people.



Well, calling Obama any actual politician a socialist is one of the worst insults you could do against all the true socialists in the 10th and 20th centuries. Socialism is currently impossible due that the politic of all the countries is controlled by the big economical groups (banks, industries, etc). They WON'T let one of the biggest and most economically important countries such as the US into socialism. The problem is that some people think that any kind of help towards the less able people, the poor people, etc., is socialism. Well, then all the European countries are socialist, sorry. Even the ultra-liberal UK has some of the "socialist" ideas Obama wants to use.



Now please tell me that McCain doesn't care about himself getting elected, that he's doing this just out of love for America. Please, we are in the 21st century. Nobody acts just out of love in the two biggest parties in the biggest developed country around, sorry.

Wow someone dissected my entire essay!

I won't disagree with everything you said, but you missed my main point, which was that people are making uninformed decisions about who they're going to vote for.

However, I did not say the Obama wants full on socialism. I merely pointed out that many of his policies point towards it. Example: Universal Healthcare = socialized medicine = an idea tailored more to socialism than capitalism. Also, the whole tax issue....don't really want to explain again, but again, points toward a socialistic society.


Point being, I'm not a very good source for this information, I'll just put a conservative slant on it (sowwy =/) BUT, it wouldn't kill anyone to watch the news or read some articles and get informed instead of just saying "I'm voting for so-and-so because I hate Bush" Seriously, I hate that....

Xairmo
September 6th, 2008, 11:07 AM
Sorry to use you as an example, but you're basing your WHOLE entire opinion of who should run America based on who can get MARRIED? I'm GLAD you can't vote. McCain and Palin aren't separating gays and putting them in concentration camps. The conservatives as a whole just need more time (and LESS godawful gay pride parades) to realize that gays are just as human and loving at straights since they divorce at the same rate in Massachusetts.

ALSO my best friend alerted me to the fact that Obama is against gay marriage.




HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE INDECISIVE NOW.
It's not JUST the marriage, it's gay rights in general. I hate feeling like a second class citizen. Who are you to judge what I base MY opinion on? Is it wrong to base my voting option on something that actually affects me? Really, how can you patronize me for basing my political standpoint on things that affect and are important to me. Seems like a form of hypocracy to me. The conservatives will never have had enough time. As for the "godawful" gay pride, do you even know how gay pride parades started? Gay pride parade is in remeberance of the gay people who were attacked in a gay bar by the police, there only crime having been gay, have a look for yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_pride_parade). And if your "godawful" comment was directed at how we act during the parade, then I'd just like to point out that we act in such a manner to MOCK what conservatives think of us. I can assure, gay pride is an extreme exaggeration of the portrayal ofgays set by the conservatives.
Conservatives don't like change, period. And the reason they don't like Obama is because his whole campaign is based around CHANGE.

Also, I do believ Obama also said:
"Our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve...to live lives free of discrimination."

Moreover:
Palin was asked about her top three priorities as Governor, with regard to families. Palin's #2 priority? "Preserving the definition of 'marriage' as defined in our constitution."
and
During her 2006 run for Governor, Palin was asked, "Will you support an effort to expand hate crimes laws?" Palin's response? "No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate."


So maybe Obama isn't all for gay marriage at the moment, but he seems a hell of a lot closer to accepting the idea than McCain and Palin. Palin won't even recognize mistreatment of gay people.

txteclipse
September 6th, 2008, 11:40 AM
Nobody acts just out of love in the two biggest parties in the biggest developed country around, sorry.

I saved a cat once. And I lean towards the republican side.

Conservatives don't like change, period.

Yeah, I'm holding you to this one, sorry. That's extremely prejudiced and narrow minded. I'm conservative, and I think there's tons of things that need to change in our country. These things primarily include cutting back on pollution, finding renewable energy sources, and *gasp* reducing and eliminating prejudice.

I'm going to say right now that I do not agree with the gay lifestyle. However, I don't hate gay people. I try to treat others like I would want to be treated. How would I like it if a vegetarian walked up and started screaming at me because I eat meat? I wouldn't like it, obviously, and I believe that no one has a right to act like that.

The current issues with gay marriage stem from the fact that it is originally a religious practice, and people of faith feel that the government is encroaching on one of their traditions. Marriage has been entwined with government since we came stateside from England: back then, however, religion more or less was government. Now they are separate, but the government still has some level of involvement in marriage (legal practices, official recognition, etc.). Now that people are trying to get the government to legalize gay marriage, religious groups are retaliating.

Ultimately, I don't think gay marriage is acceptable, and I don't recognize gay marriage as a "true" marriage. However, I think the country will eventually legalize it and that there will be priests willing to perform the union. That's between them, the couple, and God.

Aurafire
September 6th, 2008, 12:38 PM
I saved a cat once. And I lean towards the republican side.



Yeah, I'm holding you to this one, sorry. That's extremely prejudiced and narrow minded. I'm conservative, and I think there's tons of things that need to change in our country. These things primarily include cutting back on pollution, finding renewable energy sources, and *gasp* reducing and eliminating prejudice.

I'm going to say right now that I do not agree with the gay lifestyle. However, I don't hate gay people. I try to treat others like I would want to be treated. How would I like it if a vegetarian walked up and started screaming at me because I eat meat? I wouldn't like it, obviously, and I believe that no one has a right to act like that.

The current issues with gay marriage stem from the fact that it is originally a religious practice, and people of faith feel that the government is encroaching on one of their traditions. Marriage has been entwined with government since we came stateside from England: back then, however, religion more or less was government. Now they are separate, but the government still has some level of involvement in marriage (legal practices, official recognition, etc.). Now that people are trying to get the government to legalize gay marriage, religious groups are retaliating.

Ultimately, I don't think gay marriage is acceptable, and I don't recognize gay marriage as a "true" marriage. However, I think the country will eventually legalize it and that there will be priests willing to perform the union. That's between them, the couple, and God.

Everything txteclipse said....I was going to post, but he said it all.

I'll add one more thing. Being against gay marriage doesn't mean you're discriminating against gay people. Do I hate gay people? Not even close, I know many of them and like them all the same. But unfortunately, the gay community will continue to put words in my mouth by saying that being against gay marriage is discrimination, which is incredibly false.

Megera
September 6th, 2008, 12:46 PM
It's not JUST the marriage, it's gay rights in general. I hate feeling like a second class citizen. Who are you to judge what I base MY opinion on?

Well hey if the whole country has been invaded and poor, at least you can get married, right? It's that type of selfish thinking that I abhor. How do you feel like a second class citizen? Are you being lynched daily?

Is it wrong to base my voting option on something that actually affects me? Really, how can you patronize me for basing my political standpoint on things that affect and are important to me. Seems like a form of hypocracy to me.It's moronic to base it on something like marriage. Go to Massachusetts or California for now, wait for the government to catch up with the times. And I fail to get why it's hypocritical.

The conservatives will never have had enough time.They came to accept black people as human beings, right? OH WAIT NO I GUESS THEY DIDN'T. I GUESS CONDOLEEZA RICE IS JUST BUSH'S SLAVE GIRL.

As for the "godawful" gay pride, do you even know how blah blah blahblah. And if your "godawful" comment was directed at how we act during the parade, then I'd just like to point out that we act in such a manner to MOCK what conservatives think of us. I can assure, gay pride is an extreme exaggeration of the portrayal ofgays set by the conservatives.

Conservatives, and people, in general are stupid. They usually don't get mockery. So when they see the way gays act in those parades, that's ALL that sticks in their mind. It doesn't HELP your cause, but anyone who's already on your side will get it, but that's hardly the point.

Conservatives don't like change, period. And the reason they don't like Obama is because his whole campaign is based around CHANGE.Or because he has never DONE anything, went to a church for 20 years with an anti-white pastor, etc. This is hardly about Obama, though, this is about me hating your selfish way to view the world.

Also, I do believ Obama also said:
"Our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve...to live lives free of discrimination."Holy crap, NEWS FLASH!

Moreover:
Palin was asked about her top three priorities as Governor, with regard to families. Palin's #2 priority? "Preserving the definition of 'marriage' as defined in our constitution."Again, just wait.

During her 2006 run for Governor, Palin was asked, "Will you support an effort to expand hate crimes laws?" Palin's response? "No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate."She's right on this one. Watch the South Park episode where Cartman commits a hate crime. All crime is hateful. Just because someone kills a black man for being black doesn't mean he shouldn't be charged for more than murder.

So maybe Obama isn't all for gay marriage at the moment, but he seems a hell of a lot closer to accepting the idea than McCain and Palin. Palin won't even recognize mistreatment of gay people.Mistreatment how? Because I honestly don't know.

Red1530
September 6th, 2008, 03:06 PM
On September 11 Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are going to have a joint appearance at Ground Zero to mark the seventh anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Both campaigns are not going to air negative ads on that day as well.

Source: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mccain-obama-to-appear-together-at-ground-zero-site/

Netto Azure
September 6th, 2008, 03:31 PM
On September 11 Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are going to have a joint appearance at Ground Zero to mark the seventh anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Both campaigns are not going to air negative ads on that day as well.

Source: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mccain-obama-to-appear-together-at-ground-zero-site/

I accept the So-called cease-fire JUST on September.11 but for now has anybody heard about this story yet about Sarah Palin? It's gonna be popular...One of the famous e-mails on the net VOTE 08: An actual dissenter from Wasilla, Alaska

http://news.spreadit.org/ann-kilkennykilkenny-palin-email/
NPR article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94332543

Also sorry about this but I don't trust Rupert Murdoch's FOXNews (or Noose) too conservatively biased...

Stalin Malone
September 6th, 2008, 05:09 PM
Barack Obama will expand Welfare to those who just don't want to work with the creation of new social programs and tax anyone who makes more than 100,000 dollars a year with a 100% income tax.

Netto Azure
September 6th, 2008, 05:41 PM
I'm not trying to "kill' you Aurasphere just showing my opinions since that is how a democracy works.

Also has anybody heard about how Police AND Federal Agents "roughed up" the press and did a "pre-emptive" strike against protesters and passer-by's during the Republican National Convention:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6789
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

Not very experienced when you take into account that he voted "present" over 100 times instead of simply saying yes or no....not getting you much experience if you don't actually participate. Though it's not surprising he's voted "present" that many times, since our useless congress doesn't do a thing anyway.

Useless Congress...hmm just about every legislative branch in the world always have political deadlock. That is why it's good to have a majority (as my W.History Teacher said about the two party system) SEE how much the Republicans were able to do when they had BOTH the Capitol AND the White House for 5 Years (the Patriot act...wars in the Middle East...Tax cuts for the Wealthy....to name a few)
The Republican's say they don't want to expand government...see what the PATRIOT Act and subsequent "Anti-Terror" Acts/laws did MASSIVE RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT and curbing of civil-liberties. Also the No Child Left Behind Act...another expansion of government.

Look, he has some political experience. Compared to McCain though, it's laughable. For those of you that actually took the time to watch McCain's speech last night (not many I'm assuming), you would have seen his determination, resolve, and love for America. You would have seen a man ready to lead.

I tried too...but BOTH conventions seemed like an infomercial to me...and the RNC was too much to handle...And yeah now I accept McCain as being in the Progressive Side of the Right (Not enough to be Center-Right)

Let me tell you all a little something about Barack Obama: he's absolutely the most liberal politician ever to be elected. You may ask "So what?" Well I'll tell you what.

No...Obama is not "the most liberal," does anybody even remember Bill Clinton and Hillary's drive for Universal Healthcare? (Too bad it didn't entirely abolish the Insurance companies) No...probably because the average American only remembers the stupid SCANDALS!

You think his massive tax increase is going to be good for America? False. The large corporations and wealthy entrepreneurs that drive this country's economy will be handcuffed with taxes. What does that mean? You're job is gone, and that company will move overseas. The people with the highest income will stop investing. Small business owners will be smothered with no room for growth. Essentially, the economy gets worse than it already is.

With a massive budget deficit you cannot finance this country without raising taxes no matter how many times the republicans spin it...(unless we cut off military spending or at least reform healthcare/social security which I doubt will happen in a McCain Presidency) Also realistically we can only BARELY battle Pork-Barrel spending (Has anybody even watched the ABC "money-trail" where LOBBYISTS and Special-interests were "courting" BOTH Republicans And Democrats during their respective conventions?

What about healthcare? Universal looks good on paper, but get ready for some crappy coverage. Without competition, quality of care goes down the toilet. You can't "socialize" medicine. Why do you think people become doctors? Competitive salaries. If healthcare is socialized, they have no more incentive. Why should one doctor work harder than another doctor if they're getting paid exactly the same salary? Sure, doctors are very caring and they want to help, but that six figure check in their wallet doesn't look too bad either. Now, I’m not stupid, I know our system needs reforming to help everyone out. People genuinely cannot afford health care, but socialization is NOT the way to do it.

Oh PLEASE don't get me started on Universal Health Care I can go on and on about that (I'm going to be for it or PRO in my Grade 10 Persuasive essay. My favorite debate topic.) I could even talk about my grandparents and my experience with it in Canada (maybe next time)...
Don't believe everything FoxNOOSE tells you...Just think maybe the reason why things are relatively slower in UHC countries is bacause MORE PEOPLE are able to use their services...Just think of how clogged up our emergency rooms are here in the US! PEOPLE ARE DYING!!! In there because of the lack of access to Preventive care...Also doctors won't HAVE the same salaries in UHC...There are actual incentives (aka raises) for actually doing GOOD things for their patients (such as getting them to quit smoking) (ex. England) unlike here in the US where insurance companies actually give doctors "incentives" for not giving necessary care. GO WATCH "SICKO" DARN IT!!!!

Even on the War in Iraq, Obama has no “real” stance. He’s been an anti-war democrat for his entire career in the Senate, voted against the surge, and now, since most of the country believes that the surge is working, he says “Well...Iraq was still a mistake, the real fight is in Afganistan.” Anyone with half a brain could tell you that there are terrorists both in Afghanistan AND Iraq. Iraq may have been mismanaged, but don’t tell me that there was no threat there. Iraq was a haven for terrorism, and you really are flat out blind if you can’t see it. John McCain knows that, Obama doesn’t. He’s using the public’s discontent with the war to get him votes. It’s pandering at it’s absolute worst. He goes to wherever the votes go...which is why he has practically no personal stance on any issue.

Yeah...NEWS-FLASH: Obama's acting like a Polititian...FLIP-FLOPPING ON THE ISSUES
Like John McCain didn't flip-flop on issues either...It's all for Political Advantage (You guys are making me want to vote third party if I could...But I try to be realistic)

His strategy is so simple, but people are too dumb to see it (not anyone here, just people in general). Every one of his policies looks great on paper, and he’s great at delivering his message. “Vote for me, and I will heal America”. I ask everyone to look just a bit closer at what he really wants, because if you’re young and blindly follow whatever you hear, you’re playing right into his strategy. He’s relying on you to not inform yourself about what he really wants. He hides behind his uplifting message and his “too good to be true” plan to heal America, and the everyday American, frustrated with the way our country is going, becomes infatuated with him. What he really wants is to move our country towards socialism, make it so that everyone can win and no one loses. Well people, life has winners and losers, and no amount of political skill can change that.

Yeah so now that John McCain is saying he's THE CHANGE WE NEED your stance backfires...Seriously he should have just stayed with Experience...I mean what party controlled the Executive and Legislative branch of government for 5 Years (Surprise: The Republicans) and now he's saying CHANGE?

You might call me stubborn, stupid, ignorant, cruel, uncaring, crazy or anything else you might feel about me. All I can tell you is that I care about America, and so does John McCain. Under all the flowery and dressed up nonsense that Obama calls “policies” , what he really cares about is himself and getting elected. Again, use any of those words above to describe me, but don’t you dare fault me for caring about my country. I don’t pretend to be “enlightened” or “above” anyone else, and apologize if I come off that way. But I do call myself informed, and truth be told, most Americans are not.

Seriously what is up with you and "flowery" speeches or rhetoric. Since the beginings of government that has been used by many polititians to garner votes...I mean McCain's so called "Straight-Talk" is just another variation of that and his title Maverick...what's up with that? (I checked it's dictionary meaning and it says "Unconformist" so is he going for the change mantra again) see another political gimmick such as Obama being a celebrity.

I don’t mind if you support Obama. I do mind if you blindly support him and don’t know what he stands for. And you may not agree with me, but based on what he says and what he believes in, you’d be doing yourself a great dishonor if you didn’t take a closer look. I’m not jumping down anyone’s throats or anything.

And I’m not saying “If you vote for Obama, you’re stupid.” I just want people to be informed. Don’t believe everything you hear, because if Obama does get elected, there’s no way he can live up to all the hype he’s created.

I know me too...I'll repeat what I said above no offense since this is how a democracy works...People must show opinions or dissent the Government because if not might as well go Fascist or Communist (Ideologically different, Realistically the same aka Tolitarian. Both rule through fear)

Aurafire
September 6th, 2008, 06:34 PM
I'm not trying to "kill' you Aurasphere just showing my opinions since that is how a democracy works.

Also has anybody heard about how Police AND Federal Agents "roughed up" the press and did a "pre-emptive" strike against protesters and passer-by's during the Republican National Convention:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6789
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ



Useless Congress...hmm just about every legislative branch in the world always have political deadlock. That is why it's good to have a majority (as my W.History Teacher said about the two party system) SEE how much the Republicans were able to do when they had BOTH the Capitol AND the White House for 5 Years (the Patriot act...wars in the Middle East...Tax cuts for the Wealthy....to name a few)
The Republican's say they don't want to expand government...see what the PATRIOT Act and subsequent "Anti-Terror" Acts/laws did MASSIVE RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT and curbing of civil-liberties. Also the No Child Left Behind Act...another expansion of government.



I tried too...but BOTH conventions seemed like an infomercial to me...and the RNC was too much to handle...And yeah now I accept McCain as being in the Progressive Side of the Right (Not enough to be Center-Right)



No...Obama is not "the most liberal," does anybody even remember Bill Clinton and Hillary's drive for Universal Healthcare? (Too bad it didn't entirely abolish the Insurance companies) No...probably because the average American only remembers the stupid SCANDALS!



With a massive budget deficit you cannot finance this country without raising taxes no matter how many times the republicans spin it...(unless we cut off military spending or at least reform healthcare/social security which I doubt will happen in a McCain Presidency) Also realistically we can only BARELY battle Pork-Barrel spending (Has anybody even watched the ABC "money-trail" where LOBBYISTS and Special-interests were "courting" BOTH Republicans And Democrats during their respective conventions?



Oh PLEASE don't get me started on Universal Health Care I can go on and on about that (I'm going to be for it or PRO in my Grade 10 Persuasive essay. My favorite debate topic.) I could even talk about my grandparents and my experience with it in Canada (maybe next time)...
Don't believe everything FoxNOOSE tells you...Just think maybe the reason why things are relatively slower in UHC countries is bacause MORE PEOPLE are able to use their services...Just think of how clogged up our emergency rooms are here in the US! PEOPLE ARE DYING!!! In there because of the lack of access to Preventive care...Also doctors won't HAVE the same salaries in UHC...There are actual incentives (aka raises) for actually doing GOOD things for their patients (such as getting them to quit smoking) (ex. England) unlike here in the US where insurance companies actually give doctors "incentives" for not giving necessary care. GO WATCH "SICKO" DARN IT!!!!



Yeah...NEWS-FLASH: Obama's acting like a Polititian...FLIP-FLOPPING ON THE ISSUES
Like John McCain didn't flip-flop on issues either...It's all for Political Advantage (You guys are making me want to vote third party if I could...But I try to be realistic)



Yeah so now that John McCain is saying he's THE CHANGE WE NEED your stance backfires...Seriously he should have just stayed with Experience...I mean what party controlled the Executive and Legislative branch of government for 5 Years (Surprise: The Republicans) and now he's saying CHANGE?



Seriously what is up with you and "flowery" speeches or rhetoric. Since the beginings of government that has been used by many polititians to garner votes...I mean McCain's so called "Straight-Talk" is just another variation of that and his title Maverick...what's up with that? (I checked it's dictionary meaning and it says "Unconformist" so is he going for the change mantra again) see another political gimmick such as Obama being a celebrity.



I know me too...I'll repeat what I said above no offense since this is how a democracy works...People must show opinions or dissent the Government because if not might as well go Fascist or Communist (Ideologically different, Realistically the same aka Tolitarian. Both rule through fear)

Ouch, my republican pride...

Now it's my turn.

I'm not the only one who thinks Congress is useless. In fact, I'm in the majority. 9% approval rating? Yeah...

And yes, Obama is the most liberal senator:
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Don't believe me? Type in "most liberal senator" into any search engine and see what comes up.

And don't get ME started on Sicko. You really are pathetic if you're using POLITICAL PROPOGANDA to support your views. I might have respected your opinion on healthcare if you didn't site that fat idiot Michael Moore and his pathetic movies. He' a PROPAGANDIST. Do you know what that means? It means he RADICALLY slants the truth. Sicko was a dramatic over-statement about healthcare in our country and insulting to the U.S....Anyone who actually takes that movie seriously has major problems. I watched and almost threw up because I was so disgusted. Not with what I was seeing, but with how many people Michael Moore is brain washing (I can see he's already claimed you)

You act like I want nothing to change. I'm not an idiot. Of course we need change. Just not radical liberal change that will do this country no good. The news media is blowing the problems we have way out of proportion, further boosting Obama's message. Take a look around, really look, and ask yourself, are things really as bad as the news makes it out to be?

And for my last thought, what is it with liberals and Fox News? (Oh sorry, Fox Noose....i forgot how funny that is). Oh my god, they give the CONSERVATIVE view point? Those monsters! Seriously dude, wake up. ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC....and ANY other news network is DOMINATED by liberals. Someone as smart as you really shouldn't be stooping that low. You know very well that every other network EXCEPT fox news is horrible slanted towards the liberal cause, and you get mad when people get fair and balanced news? I don't get mad when people watch those other news network, and I could easily turn around and say "Turn off the ABC/NBC/CBS!!!" But how ridiculous would I sound. Because conservatives don't COMPLAIN about that kind of stuff. You and your liberal friends are the ones who are whining because people don't want to be brainwashed by "Fox Noose" See...that never gets old.

And ditto...no offense.

Megera
September 6th, 2008, 06:59 PM
Well, as long as no one's getting their news from The View... Stupid *****es.

SpartanPatriot
September 6th, 2008, 07:11 PM
McCain is way too self-centered. All he does is talk about himself and his life stories constantly; Making himself sound superior to the world. It's sickening. I can't stand it!

I agree with you here. I was watching the Republican convention the other night and every word out of his mouth truly bothered me. He was talking about how he wants to lower taxes and Obama does not. He was a veteran in the army and Obama was not. He loves America and Obama does not (last one exaggerating but you get the drift.

McCain likes to flame his opponent. He twists things around that Obama says and then he mud-flings in commercials and everything like that.

I personally do not give a damn that he was in the army and a POW. Good for him. He made a sacrifice in the country and that is fine but he does not need to bring it up every ten minuites. Experience does not always mean you are better, wiser and more intelligent. Look at Drew Bledsoe...was a good qb when he was young when he got old he stuck. Look at people in general, they get Alzheimer when they are older. It is a fact of life that experience does not always make a better person. Also, what does being a veteran have to do with becoming the president of the untied states? He uses it to get people to feel bad for him or to sway voters to thinking since he served his counry 40 years ago then he can do it now. No.

Seriously, his speech gave ke shivers and really, really, annoyed me because of his tactics. Another thing that annoyed me was him choosing the conservative Biden as his second in command. She is conservative (not that it is bad) but that can lead to different decisions that may not lead to the betterment of the country.Also, he chose Biden because he wanted Clinton voters. That annoyed me as well.

Obama has not flamed McCain (to my knowledge) and yet McCain flames him. McCain is not a good president in my opinion. He is to caught up in the past and he is an "old man" which means he has "old ideals"...

I will stop here...I could contnue for days :P

Aurafire
September 6th, 2008, 07:14 PM
I agree with you here. I was watching the Republican convention the other night and every word out of his mouth truly bothered me. He was talking about how he wants to lower taxes and Obama does not. He was a veteran in the army and Obama was not. He loves America and Obama does not (last one exaggerating but you get the drift.

McCain likes to flame his opponent. He twists things around that Obama says and then he mud-flings in commercials and everything like that.

I personally do not give a damn that he was in the army and a POW. Good for him. He made a sacrifice in the country and that is fine but he does not need to bring it up every ten minuites. Experience does not always mean you are better, wiser and more intelligent. Look at Drew Bledsoe...was a good qb when he was young when he got old he stuck. Look at people in general, they get Alzheimer when they are older. It is a fact of life that experience does not always make a better person. Also, what does being a veteran have to do with becoming the president of the untied states? He uses it to get people to feel bad for him or to sway voters to thinking since he served his counry 40 years ago then he can do it now. No.

Seriously, his speech gave ke shivers and really, really, annoyed me because of his tactics. Another thing that annoyed me was him choosing the conservative Biden as his second in command. She is conservative (not that it is bad) but that can lead to different decisions that may not lead to the betterment of the country.Also, he chose Biden because he wanted Clinton voters. That annoyed me as well.

Obama has not flamed McCain (to my knowledge) and yet McCain flames him. McCain is not a good president in my opinion. He is to caught up in the past and he is an "old man" which means he has "old ideals"...

I will stop here...I could contnue for days :P

Wow...I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt since you don't even know who's VP is who. I won't even bother to refute all of your arguments...

SpartanPatriot
September 6th, 2008, 07:17 PM
Are you an McCain supprter? :P jk

I meant Palin lol. I feel stupid now :P I was just playing Madden and won the game by tossing a pass to Joe Biden so I had my mind on him.

Aurafire
September 6th, 2008, 07:19 PM
Are you an McCain supprter? :P jk

I meant Palin lol. I feel stupid now :P I was just playing Madden and won the game by tossing a pass to Joe Biden so I had my mind on him.

Joe Biden is your wide reciever? How's that working out? =P

SpartanPatriot
September 6th, 2008, 07:20 PM
Damn...I must looking f-ing crazy. Joe Biden is an undrafted rookie from this years draft...not the one you are thinking of lol :)

Allstories
September 6th, 2008, 07:33 PM
Well hey if the whole country has been invaded and poor, at least you can get married, right? It's that type of selfish thinking that I abhor. How do you feel like a second class citizen? Are you being lynched daily?

So it's okay to treat a group of people like dirt as long as you aren't lynching them? You grotesque monster.

Don't believe me? Type in "most liberal senator" into any search engine and see what comes up.

Haha this is the worst argument ever.

You act like I want nothing to change. I'm not an idiot. Of course we need change. Just not radical liberal change that will do this country no good. The news media is blowing the problems we have way out of proportion, further boosting Obama's message. Take a look around, really look, and ask yourself, are things really as bad as the news makes it out to be?

The Iraq war is pretty horrible. Not having universal health care is pretty horrible. It might not look so bad in your white-ass suburb, but these are still real problems.

Megera
September 6th, 2008, 07:53 PM
So it's okay to treat a group of people like dirt as long as you aren't lynching them? You grotesque monster.

No, it's not. That's why I didn't say that. You deformed beast.

Aurafire
September 6th, 2008, 07:54 PM
So it's okay to treat a group of people like dirt as long as you aren't lynching them? You grotesque monster.



Haha this is the worst argument ever.



The Iraq war is pretty horrible. Not having universal health care is pretty horrible. It might not look so bad in your white-ass suburb, but these are still real problems.

Way to judge without knowing absolutely nothing about me. How the hell do you know where I live and what my life is like? You must have some balls to come out and say that to me, either that or you're just incredibly stupid.

The Iraq war? Last time I checked, we were winning, and planning troop withdrawals in the near future...So no, doesn't look too bad to me. And maybe the healthcare issue is debatable...but you won't even admit that things aren't as bad as they seem? I'm not against reforming our system dude, there are pros and cons to each system. I just happen to support one, while you support the other. You're for total reform while I only want some tweaks here and there, because everyone blows the issue way out of proportion.

EDIT: I'm for this thread being closed. It's gotten to the point where people can't even debate the issues without calling people names or being uncivilized. I know I've been contributing to it quite a bit, and have gotten a bit angry myself, but it's just not worth it anymore. Most of the people here can't even vote or make educated comments, which isn't really debating....Now it has sunk to name-calling and ill-informed judging.

Sorry for anyone I've offended. I don't think any less of anyone because of their views, and hope no one thinks any worse of me.

Allstories
September 6th, 2008, 08:24 PM
The Iraq war? Last time I checked, we were winning, and planning troop withdrawals in the near future...So no, doesn't look too bad to me. And maybe the healthcare issue is debatable...but you won't even admit that things aren't as bad as they seem?.

I guess if you consider what little we've accomplished at the costs of thousands of lives as winning. Either way, millions of people simply aren't allowed to get sick, our economy is going down the tube, our education is some of the worst in the world, people's rights are being trounced by the religious fundamentalists and/or the people who for some reason believe the constitution is some infallible decree handed down by god, minorities everywhere are getting the short end of the stick, and the list goes on. Everything is not fine, dude.

Netto Azure
September 6th, 2008, 08:27 PM
Ouch, my republican pride...

I'm sorry for hurting your pride, mine was hurt too when I read your reply...Please don't resort to using such words as "pathetic" because you can start making enemies with that. (To be frank I want to be your friend because you help me see the other side of the argument and balance my views.) Also now I'm sad because you believe that I am a crazy Socialist. I'm not...I just have a different point of view on getting from point A to point B, kinda like the Canadians (look at the BBC: Canada primed for snap elections) thread.

And don't get ME started on Sicko. You really are pathetic if you're using POLITICAL PROPAGANDA to support your views. I might have respected your opinion on healthcare if you didn't site that fat idiot Michael Moore and his pathetic movies. He' a PROPAGANDIST. Do you know what that means? It means he RADICALLY slants the truth. Sicko was a dramatic over-statement about healthcare in our country and insulting to the U.S....Anyone who actually takes that movie seriously has major problems. I watched and almost threw up because I was so disgusted. Not with what I was seeing, but with how many people Michael Moore is brain washing (I can see he's already claimed you)

No I only quoted "Sicko" because it is one of the relatively well known documentaries on UHC...Seriously "Sicko" is just like an introduction to me, other studies extensively done support my argument for Universal Health-Care. Also I saw Universal Healthcare IN ACTION back in Canada...First my grandfather was hospitalized for 7 Months and we only had to pay for the ambulance. I lived with my grandparents for a couple of months in an apartment IN DOWNTOWN Winippeg that they only had to pay $300 (back in '04) a month since it was subsidized by the government. My grandmother had home-aid workers come into the apartment to help take care of my grandfather 3 times a day all for free! We all had free (paid by taxes) stuff such as adult diapers, gloves,masks and other medical supplies DELIVERED TO THE APARTMENT to help the Home-aid workers from the government (Pilipino's work for this because it pays higher than their former jobs in the Philippines...AND MORE JOBS CREATED FOR CITIZENS) My grandparents can buy their medicine cheaply because the government has massive leverage against the Pharmaceutical Industry.
ALSO HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY I WAS PART OF THE GRASSROOTS HARBOR-UCLA SUMMER YOUTH HEALTH SUMMIT! I SAW ALONGSIDE COLLEGE AND MEDICAL STUDENTS THE SUFFERING AND PLIGHT OF THE POOR! THE HEATLTH-CARE THEY NEED! REMEMBER IMMIGRANTS ARE HUMANS OKAY? DON'T TREAT THEM LIKE TRASH!!!!!

SO PLEASE DON"T TELL ME THAT I HAVE "BOUGHT" MICHEL MOORES "BS" OKAY I SAW IT PERSONALLY AND IS VERY EMOTIONAL AND PASSIONATE ON THIS TOPIC OK?!!! IT WORKS!
The right is only against it because the Pharmaceutical and Insurance INDUSTRY are TOO ENTRENCHED IN WASHINGTON...
Also there is too much money involved (If we just move that 14% GDP around a bit we CAN provide everyone with quality health-care...

You act like I want nothing to change. I'm not an idiot. Of course we need change. Just not radical liberal change that will do this country no good. The news media is blowing the problems we have way out of proportion, further boosting Obama's message. Take a look around, really look, and ask yourself, are things really as bad as the news makes it out to be?

And for my last thought, what is it with liberals and Fox News? (Oh sorry, Fox Noose....i forgot how funny that is). Oh my god, they give the CONSERVATIVE view point? Those monsters! Seriously dude, wake up. ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC....and ANY other news network is DOMINATED by liberals. Someone as smart as you really shouldn't be stooping that low. You know very well that every other network EXCEPT fox news is horrible slanted towards the liberal cause, and you get mad when people get fair and balanced news? I don't get mad when people watch those other news network, and I could easily turn around and say "Turn off the ABC/NBC/CBS!!!" But how ridiculous would I sound. Because conservatives don't COMPLAIN about that kind of stuff. You and your liberal friends are the ones who are whining because people don't want to be brainwashed by "Fox Noose" See...that never gets old.

And ditto...no offense.

Yes...Massive liberal change is not what we need. I keep on saying Obama is CENTRIST (HE VOTED FOR THE FISA-EXTENTION DARN IT!)

I AM NOT "BRAIN WASHED" okay? JUST DISILUSSIONED TO THE PLIGHT OF OTHER PEOPLE!!!!

I'm so sorry...I just had to reply...this is a BIG issue for me...

Let's put Healthcare in the Back-burner for now....We can talk about this later...

Aurafire
September 6th, 2008, 08:38 PM
I guess if you consider what little we've accomplished at the costs of thousands of lives as winning. Either way, millions of people simply aren't allowed to get sick, our economy is going down the tube, our education is some of the worst in the world, people's rights are being trounced by the religious fundamentalists and/or the people who for some reason believe the constitution is some infallible decree handed down by god, minorities everywhere are getting the short end of the stick, and the list goes on. Everything is not fine, dude.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said everything was just peachy.

In any case, you make America sound like a third world country, barely able to survive. You make it sound like America is going implode on itself. See, unlike you, I'm not a pessimistic liberal who takes everything we have here for granted. Unlike you, I know how great America is. Unlike you, I know we enjoy so many rights that millions of people can never hope to enjoy. And unlike you, I don't jump to ridiculous conclusions when a few things go wrong. The Democratic party is running on that very same principle of pessimism, and that America is somehow the enemy, and that we need to apologize to the world for our mistakes. At least Republicans actually like their country, if only a little bit. At least I don't think everything we do is morally wrong. At least I realize that America is a great place to live, which you and your liberal friends don't seem to understand.

You want a Utopia, where everyone wins and no one loses. Tough. People lose, it's life. Is it fair to give people who don't want to work taxpayer money just on the basis of fairness? Not to me...

Once again....this thread should be closed. People are getting hostile, including me, and it's not an enjoyable thread. All it's causing and frustration and dislike.

Netto Azure
September 6th, 2008, 08:40 PM
EDIT: I'm for this thread being closed. It's gotten to the point where people can't even debate the issues without calling people names or being uncivilized. I know I've been contributing to it quite a bit, and have gotten a bit angry myself, but it's just not worth it anymore. Most of the people here can't even vote or make educated comments, which isn't really debating....Now it has sunk to name-calling and ill-informed judging.

Sorry for anyone I've offended. I don't think any less of anyone because of their views, and hope no one thinks any worse of me.

Ok this thread SHOULDN'T be closed...The name calling can be addressed people just need to be more mature in discussions. This recent exchange is just us being fiery about politics. I don't think any worse of you...just don't call me misinformed or accepting propaganda...I know what propaganda is...I totally agree with you that this is a breach of etiquette and I hope to continue this thread to help others show their positions (This has helped me be more open about my ideals at school so I appreciate this thread)

Aurafire
September 6th, 2008, 08:44 PM
I'm sorry for hurting your pride, mine was hurt too when I read your reply...Please don't resort to using such words as "pathetic" because you can start making enemies with that. (To be frank I want to be your friend because you help me see the other side of the argument and balance my views.) Also now I'm sad because you believe that I am a crazy Socialist. I'm not...I just have a different point of view on getting from point A to point B, kinda like the Canadians (look at the BBC: Canada primed for snap elections) thread.



No I only quoted "Sicko" because it is one of the relatively well known documentaries on UHC...Seriously "Sicko" is just like an introduction to me, other studies extensively done support my argument for Universal Health-Care. Also I saw Universal Healthcare IN ACTION back in Canada...First my grandfather was hospitalized for 7 Months and we only had to pay for the ambulance. I lived with my grandparents for a couple of months in an apartment IN DOWNTOWN Winippeg that they only had to pay $300 (back in '04) a month since it was subsidized by the government. My grandmother had home-aid workers come into the apartment to help take care of my grandfather 3 times a day all for free! We all had free (paid by taxes) stuff such as adult diapers, gloves,masks and other medical supplies DELIVERED TO THE APARTMENT to help the Home-aid workers from the government (Pilipino's work for this because it pays higher than their former jobs in the Philippines...AND MORE JOBS CREATED FOR CITIZENS) My grandparents can buy their medicine cheaply because the government has massive leverage against the Pharmaceutical Industry.
ALSO HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY I WAS PART OF THE GRASSROOTS HARBOR-UCLA SUMMER YOUTH HEALTH SUMMIT! I SAW ALONGSIDE COLLEGE AND MEDICAL STUDENTS THE SUFFERING AND PLIGHT OF THE POOR! THE HEATLTHCARE THEY NEED! REMEMBER IMMIGRANTS ARE HUMANS OKAY? DON'T TREAT HEM LIKE TRASH!!!!!

SO PLEASE DON"T TELL ME THAT I HAVE "BOUGHT" MICHEL MOORS "BS" OKAY I SAW IT PERSONALLY AND IS VERY EMOTIONAL AND PASSIONATE ON THIS TOPIC OK?!!! IT WORKS!
The right is only against it because the Pharmaceutical and Insurance INDUSTRY are TOO ENTRENCHED IN WASHINGTON...



Yes...Massive liberal change is not what we need. I keep on saying Obama is CENTRIST (HE VOTED FOR THE FISA-EXTENTION DARN IT!)

I AM NOT "BRAIN WASHED" okay? JUST DISILUSSIONED TO THE PLIGHT OF OTHER PEOPLE!!!!

I'm so sorry...I just had to reply...this is a BIG issue for me...

SO PC WHAT DO YOU THINK OF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE???!!!!!
I WAS TRYING TO SAVE THIS ISSUE FOR THE LAST DEBATE BUT I HAD TO DRAG IT IN...SO PLEASE LETS BRING SOME EVIDENCE ON OUR VIEWS (NOT REQUIRED BUT HELPS YOUR ARGUMENT)


Ok stop shouting. I'm not going to take you seriously if you can't argue calmly. I just don't like the idea of universal healthcare, for reasons already stated. If i touched a nerve I apologize, another GREAT reasons to close this thread. This isn't a debate, it's people getting angry at each other.

Also, the fact that you even mentioned that I should watch Sicko means that you think that there is a shred of truth in it. At least admit that it's propaganda and you shouldn't use it to argue any points.

I also don't believe you are "crazy". But you do support socialistic ideas, such as universal healthcare. You're idea of getting from point A to point B is an even distribution of wealth and using taxpayer money to grant everyone equality. Hence, Socialism.

Also, to edit for the fourth time, your idea that Obama is somehow centrist is ridiculous. Just look at his policies. Almost every one is a liberal ideal.
Pro-life, raise taxes, socialized medicine, taxpayer relief for the lower class, reduction in military spending.....just admit it....he's a liberal, no other way around it.

Netto Azure
September 6th, 2008, 08:52 PM
Also, the fact that you even mentioned that I should watch Sicko means that you think that there is a shred of truth in it. At least admit that it's propaganda and you shouldn't use it to argue any points.

Ok..I won't use 'Sicko" as reference again. (But the fact is other independent studies DO support some of the points he brings up...So there are truths in his documentary...which is even MORE sickening if you think about it...) I'll re-research the evidence for my view on Universal Health-Care...Summer has just made me rusty on this issue guess I'll just have to ask Dr. Granados for help...
And I'm not making any promises since school is my top priority...(as it should be...)

Oh and remember when I said that I support minimal socialism (UHC, Social Security...etc...) in the "Obama thread"

And yeah we should just stop talking about the candidates being Left, centrist, or right...Lets go back on topic and ACTUALLY debate the issues that the candidates discuss (or should care about). Again I apologize for the mud-slinging...just me being fiery...that always happens in un-moderated debates.

Megera
September 6th, 2008, 08:55 PM
Either way, millions of people simply aren't allowed to get sick

wat

our economy is going down the tubeYeah...

people's rights are being trounced by the religious fundamentalists and/or the people who for some reason believe the constitution is some infallible decree handed down by godAbolish religion. PROBLEM SOLVED.

minorities everywhere are getting the short end of the stickActually our illegals are getting pretty awesome treatment. Free healthcare for them and they can't be deported. Black people are doing well unless they're not trying because of a "White man screwed us" attitude. I fail to see who's getting the short end of the stick. Asians have always been successful.

Stop being ignorant and don't breed.

Cassino
September 6th, 2008, 09:59 PM
Ok...just to make an example of Canada (Hey...hey!!! YOU GUYS ARE VOTING TOO!!! SNAP ELECTIONS ARE BEING HINTED BY PM STEPHEN HARPER!!! TO BREAK YOUR POLITICAL DEADLOCK...WHAT A COINCIDENCE eh?) There are the two major Political parties Liberal and Conservative. (Their names essentially give their positions yet I think the Canadian Conservative party is more liberal than the Democrats.) The two major Political Parties use the names Republican (or GOP Grand Old Party) and Democrat since it has been formalized about 100 years ago to differentiate themselves (and I think because it's neutral sounding.) And anyways people in the US wouldn't really want the name Liberal for the Democrats and Conservative for Republicans. And yes this is technically already a Republic and a Democracy.

Oh...Their "Official" Foreign Policy: It's too long I'll just link it up...(Remember Google is your friend) :D and it's too long to post here.

Barack Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm
Third Parties: Google it up...to lazy to do so...
Oh right, here in England they're also called the liberal and conservative parties (though liberal is the Liberal Democrats... lol).

Eh, neither policy seems to affect me, that's nice.

Stalin Malone
September 7th, 2008, 08:19 AM
Barack Obama's hatred of anyone who isn't black is proof why we should all unite against him and his people. Whether we're asian, hispanic, white, arab, native american one thing we can all agree on is that Obama is the enemy and it would be a disaster for the 88% of the US population who aren't black if he gets elected.

Metatron
September 7th, 2008, 08:40 AM
Barack Obama's hatred of anyone who isn't black is proof why we should all unite against him and his people. Whether we're asian, hispanic, white, arab, native american one thing we can all agree on is that Obama is the enemy and it would be a disaster for the 88% of the US population who aren't black if he gets elected.

...man, what the hell are you talking about? That's easily the most retarded thing I've heard anyone here say in a while. Wow, I mean just...wow...

Where's the "proof" that Obama hates anyone who isn't black? I don't agree that he's the "enemy" and hell, I'm probably whiter than you are. Keep your effing racism out of this forum, and don't post here unless you actually have something to contribute to the actual topic at hand.

If you don't agree with Obama's views, that's perfectly fine, but at least give an actual explanation as to why, rather then just claiming that he "hates everyone who isn't black."

Allstories
September 7th, 2008, 11:55 AM
wat
I'm referring of course to the 16% of Americans that are uninsured, and the 60% of all bankruptcies that are caused by medical expenses. What if one of these uninsured people gets sick? Are they just all expendable to you?
Yeah...
I don't mean to come off as some doomsayer, but our dollar isn't worth a whole lot these days, and there's a lot of unemployent going down, AND we're in the middle of a gas crisis, just so you know.
My History teacher from Iraq says that Americans get some of the best education in the world. I prefer believing him over some jaded guy on the intertubes.
http://kapio.kcc.hawaii.edu/upload/fullnews.php?id=52
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2005/09/30/News/U.s-Falls.In.Education.Rank.Compared.To.Other.Countries-1005055.shtml

Also, I wouldn't expect your teacher to admit that he's not good at his job.
Abolish religion. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Are you autistic.
Black people are doing well unless they're not trying because of a "White man screwed us" attitude.
As much as I am in favor of Affirmative Action, the fact that we need it in order to level the playing field in the first place is a pretty depressing sign of the times.

Netto Azure
September 7th, 2008, 11:58 AM
New Topic: What do you think we should do about Climate-change (Global Warming)? I think we're mostly consensual that it is real...

We just have different views on how to fight it. (Both Democrats and Republicans agree that it's real) (Turns out the environmentalists were right all along, to the dismay of "It's the greatest hoax perpetrated to the American people" former congresspersons (I'm sorry but Republicans did say that...)...If only us Americans did something about it in the 90's just like Universal Healthcare too bad we had bought what the Insurance companies said...eh...wishful thinking)



Also energy-independece since it's intertwined...

I agree with McCain on the Nuclear energy proposition but my only problem is that if we depend too much on Nuclear energy then on times of "conventional" war our enemies would just destroy the Nuclear Reactors and we would lose most of our energy source...also the environmental waste/impact worries me...

I also agree with Obama that we should diversify our energy sources (Solar, Wind, BioFuels..etc..)

Also I believe that we should have mandatory carbon caps like the Kyoto Protocol (don't give me the reason that businesses suffer because they already have record profits...maybe they should think of cutting their board of directors salaries or instead use that ad money there pumping on the media that they're "doing" something about Climate Change and ACTUALLY do something and then reveal that they did something great...

Aurafire
September 7th, 2008, 12:28 PM
New Topic: What do you think we should do about Climate-change (Global Warming)? I think we're mostly consensual that it is real...

We just have different views on how to fight it. (Both Democrats and Republicans agree that it's real) (Turns out the environmentalists were right all along, to the dismay of "It's the greatest hoax perpetrated to the American people" former congresspersons (I'm sorry but Republicans did say that...)...If only us Americans did something about it in the 90's just like Universal Healthcare too bad we had bought what the Insurance companies said...eh...wishful thinking)



Also energy-independece since it's intertwined...

I agree with McCain on the Nuclear energy proposition but my only problem is that if we depend too much on Nuclear energy then on times of "conventional" war our enemies would just destroy the Nuclear Reactors and we would lose most of our energy source...also the environmental waste/impact worries me...

I also agree with Obama that we should diversify our energy sources (Solar, Wind, BioFuels..etc..)

Also I believe that we should have mandatory carbon caps like the Kyoto Protocol (don't give me the reason that businesses suffer because they already have record profits...maybe they should think of cutting their board of directors salaries or instead use that ad money there pumping on the media that they're "doing" something about Climate Change and ACTUALLY do something and then reveal that they did something great...

Once again, I'll have to take the opposite stance Tommy. The global warming issue is very debatable, and I just don't see any conclusive evidence.

I'd like everyone to take a look at this quiz, which gives no slanted facts or skewed data, just pure science. You might be surprised at what you see.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Seriously, please take a look, it's really quite interesting. And it might tell you something that you didn't find out from Al Gore or the media.

Also, this Global Warming Petition, signed by over 31000 American scientists, further proves that people who are actually educated on the earth and its environment think that global warming is a farce: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Allstories
September 7th, 2008, 01:14 PM
Should've got health insurance. But yes, they are expendable. Obviously they didn't care enough about themselves to buy insurance, so why should I care?

MAYBE THEY AREN'T BUYING IT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. MAYBE THEY ARE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THEM? "Sucks to be you, but you should have thought about this before you decided to be born poor!"? You have no idea how the world works and/or you are inhuman.
Affirmative Action means that you're telling minorities that they're stupid and can't get into jobs and colleges on their own. It's degrading and we DON'T need it.
That's not the point of it. The point is not to say "Hey you're not good enough on your own", the point is to say "Hey, look, as much as we'd like to think it does, the world just doesn't work on merit alone, and there are too many closet-racists out there for you have a legitimately fair shot, so we're gonna throw you a bone." Obviously, the system isn't perfect, but it IS the lesser evil. (Also keep in mind it was intended for the benefit of places like, y'know, low-income, urban areas moreso than ORANGE BLOODY COUNTY, ONE THE MOST EXPENSIVE PLACES TO LIVE IN IN THE UNITED STATES, so I could see how you might not be able to easily observe it's impact)
If you're motivated, you'll do well in school, but the truth is that most kids and teenagers don't really care about how well they are in school, and usually because the parents aren't pushing them enough.
Unless you're poor and are too busy trying to help feed your family to pursue an education. Then you're just screwed.

Aurafire
September 7th, 2008, 01:44 PM
Why are you both so selfish and stupid? Seriously, shut up and actually debate, not call each other names. How very mature....-_-

Allstories
September 7th, 2008, 01:47 PM
Why are you so black? =( =( =( =( =(

Why would I need to be black to find racism morally repugnant?

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, though, as you are clearly not interested in intelligent discussion anyway.

Netto Azure
September 7th, 2008, 02:22 PM
Megera & All-Stories= LOL...First I agree with your Points All-Stories but lets keep this a respectable thread (Go to edit and DELETE your guy's trolling) I almost started the name-calling w/ AuraSphere yesterday (Bad experience..) I mean think of the Guests who are viewing this (750+ views) and lets keep things serious Ok? Remember the PC rules: NO TROLLING, Name-Calling, and be respectful to each other...

Also Megera I live near San Pedro (the Port of Los Angeles) (Wilmington north of the Port =D ) and I see things very differently from those in generally "rich Orange County)

Stalin Malone
September 7th, 2008, 05:32 PM
Global Warming is a communist lie much like the holocaust.

Netto Azure
September 8th, 2008, 10:07 AM
It's Rebuttal time...

Once again, I'll have to take the opposite stance Tommy. The global warming issue is very debatable, and I just don't see any conclusive evidence.

I'd like everyone to take a look at this quiz, which gives no slanted facts or skewed data, just pure science. You might be surprised at what you see.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Seriously, please take a look, it's really quite interesting. And it might tell you something that you didn't find out from Al Gore or the media.

Also, this Global Warming Petition, signed by over 31000 American scientists, further proves that people who are actually educated on the earth and its environment think that global warming is a farce: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Ok lets say that Climate Change can be doubted but both candidates DO agree about energy independece right...(lets agree on that...)
We all know that fossil fuels are finite...it might not run out in our time, not in the next generation but IT WILL RUN OUT. Let us not give the problem to our posterity...just because "it's not our problem" doesn't mean we do not have a responsibility for our environment...

As I've said we need to diversify our energy sources (ex. solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels, even new technologies) Develop "green" jobs in the process. Isn't that what BOTH McCain and Obama want? More jobs for citizens... The betterment of our environment...The betterment of citizens just different ways of doing it?...(Even if Climate Change (Global Warming) isn't real why take chances if we can do something about it? Fighting CC will just be a consequence of this. )
Global Warming is a communist lie much like the holocaust.

Please be mature and DON'T TROLL please EVERYBODY KNOWS THE HORROR OF THE HOLOCAUST...AND GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT IT WAS THE FASCISTS WHO DID THAT NOT COMMUNISTS...If you can't even do that nobody is going to listen (Save yourself, your credibility and delete your post!)

txteclipse
September 8th, 2008, 10:37 AM
Once again, I'll have to take the opposite stance Tommy. The global warming issue is very debatable, and I just don't see any conclusive evidence.

I'd like everyone to take a look at this quiz, which gives no slanted facts or skewed data, just pure science. You might be surprised at what you see.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Seriously, please take a look, it's really quite interesting. And it might tell you something that you didn't find out from Al Gore or the media.

Also, this Global Warming Petition, signed by over 31000 American scientists, further proves that people who are actually educated on the earth and its environment think that global warming is a farce: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Thank you. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

What people need to understand is that there is lots and lots and lots of money being pumped into "fighting global warming." So if scientists can blow up the warming idea and make it seem dangerous, and then make up a solution, they get rich very quickly. Beware.

Allstories
September 8th, 2008, 11:04 AM
Also, this Global Warming Petition, signed by over 31000 American scientists, further proves that people who are actually educated on the earth and its environment think that global warming is a farce: http://www.oism.org/pproject/
I know of this petition. From what I've heard, most of the people who signed the petition were scientists in fields that have nothing to do with climatology.
What people need to understand is that there is lots and lots and lots of money being pumped into "fighting global warming." So if scientists can blow up the warming idea and make it seem dangerous, and then make up a solution, they get rich very quickly. Beware.
I'm pretty sure that's not how being a scientist works. Politicians would benefit from such scientific data, sure, but the scientists themselves risk being discredited and losing their careers if they exaggerate or falsify their findings. I don't think science has a reputation of being a lucrative career by any means.

txteclipse
September 8th, 2008, 11:34 AM
I'm pretty sure that's not how being a scientist works. Politicians would benefit from such scientific data, sure, but the scientists themselves risk being discredited and losing their careers if they exaggerate or falsify their findings. I don't think science has a reputation of being a lucrative career by any means.

Heard of Al Gore? Inconvenient Truth? That guy is the high wizard of global warming. Read this (http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html), and maybe you'll understand why.

Need more? Okay, James Hanson (part of Al Gore's guru) once said that "some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead." Those scientists, of course, being skeptics of global warming, and the noise being counter arguments.

The thing is, science pretty much is politics, if there's money involved. Environmentalists have gone so far as to call a hotel administrator, a landscape architect, and even a gynecologist (!) "climate scientists." If the person supports the idea of global warming, the higher-ups that would profit from said idea will make sure the public thinks the person is knowledgeable and has valid information, no matter how absurd the truth may actually be.

Netto Azure
September 8th, 2008, 12:36 PM
Heard of Al Gore? Inconvenient Truth? That guy is the high wizard of global warming. Read this (http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html), and maybe you'll understand why.

Need more? Okay, James Hanson (part of Al Gore's guru) once said that "some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead." Those scientists, of course, being skeptics of global warming, and the noise being counter arguments.

The thing is, science pretty much is politics, if there's money involved. Environmentalists have gone so far as to call a hotel administrator, a landscape architect, and even a gynecologist (!) "climate scientists." If the person supports the idea of global warming, the higher-ups that would profit from said idea will make sure the public thinks the person is knowledgeable and has valid information, no matter how absurd the truth may actually be.

You do know that your argument also applies EVEN MORE to the skeptics. Ever heard of the IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) funded BY the United Nations? So by injecting doubt into the arguments (By Big Oil companies BRIBING Climatologist into disregarding MASSIVE scientific evidence) the "special interests aka Lobbyists" can heavily influence the Political process. (Very bad if you ask the Average American)

Aurafire
September 8th, 2008, 12:50 PM
K just wondering if anyone took that GW quiz I posted....guess not.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Like politics, it's nice to get the other side's opinion.

txteclipse
September 8th, 2008, 01:14 PM
You do know that your argument also applies EVEN MORE to the skeptics. Ever heard of the IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) funded BY the United Nations? So by injecting doubt into the arguments (By Big Oil companies BRIBING Climatologist into disregarding MASSIVE scientific evidence) the "special interests aka Lobbyists" can heavily influence the Political process. (Very bad if you ask the Average American)

Ever heard of Enron? It was a super-environmentalist company whose members wholeheartedly supported the passing of the Kyoto Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol) (which regulates U.S. emissions and confines Big Oil's business practices, by the way). Their Kyoto emissary said of the Kyoto Protocol that "this treaty will be good for Enron stock!" They didn't care about the climate, they cared about money. By the way: you can learn about the fantastic system of treachery that was Enron here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron).

I don't doubt that there's corruption on each side. Big Oil isn't flawless: they are out to get money, too. But they're manipulating evidence that has already been manipulated by environmentalists. What we need to know is the actual truth, what's actually going on. What really matters here is if global warming is occurring or not, who's profiting, and why. The truth is that global warming isn't really happening, environmentalists are netting fantastic amounts of money, and it's all because we have been misinformed and manipulated.

icomeanon6
September 8th, 2008, 01:36 PM
What I think people are forgetting is that global warming is far better than the alternative, which will come eventually regardless of what we do. Global cooling would be incredibly detrimental to the economies of all countries and to the overall quality of life. I don't care about global warming that much, I just hope that the next ice age doesn't happen in my time.

Aurafire
September 8th, 2008, 02:01 PM
What I think people are forgetting is that global warming is far better than the alternative, which will come eventually regardless of what we do. Global cooling would be incredibly detrimental to the economies of all countries and to the overall quality of life. I don't care about global warming that much, I just hope that the next ice age doesn't happen in my time.

I'd have to agree....a MAXIMUM of a few degrees temperature increase won't be the end of the world as we know it. The oceans won't rise 20 feet and flood every costal city...People blow it way out of proportion.

Netto Azure
September 8th, 2008, 02:33 PM
I'd have to agree....a MAXIMUM of a few degrees temperature increase won't be the end of the world as we know it. The oceans won't rise 20 feet and flood every coastal city...People blow it way out of proportion.

You guys have successfully injected doubts into my argument for CC (GW) which as it turns out is just enough to get people NOT to care about it (But hey why am I even arguing CC (GW) when the general public accepts it...even the candidates and also I'm too lazy I'm tied into Real-Life commitments)...So I will not press on any further...

Consensus: The realism/impact of Climate Change (Global Warming) is Debatable.

But anyways...You guys do agree that Fossil Fuels are Finite and that we need to diversify our energy sources...

Aurafire
September 8th, 2008, 02:35 PM
You guys have successfully injected doubts into my argument for CC (GW) which as it turns out is just enough to get people NOT to care about it (But hey why am I even arguing CC (GW) when the general public accepts it...even the candidates and also I'm too lazy I'm tied into Real-Life commitments)...So I will not press on any further...

Consensus: The realism/impact of Climate Change (Global Warming) is Debatable.

But anyways...You guys do agree that Fossil Fuels are Finite and that we need to diversify our energy sources...

Well that's hardly debatable....of course fossil fuels are finite, and we need Alt. energy ASAP.
Most people just disagree about how we should go about doing it.

txteclipse
September 8th, 2008, 02:44 PM
But anyways...You guys do agree that Fossil Fuels are Finite and that we need to diversify our energy sources...

Oh, absolutely. I foresee big things for solar and hydrogen-powered energy.

I said this in another thread, and I'll repeat it here: current car motors scrape along at around 15% efficiency. That means that 85% of the energy produced from the gasoline combusting is wasted. So I think that making engines more efficient is big on our to-do list, as well.

Xairmo
September 8th, 2008, 02:47 PM
Well hey if the whole country has been invaded and poor, at least you can get married, right? It's that type of selfish thinking that I abhor. How do you feel like a second class citizen? Are you being lynched daily?
Oh my side, don't make me laugh so hard. McCain is the one who will be the death of this country. With McCain we're going to be at war for many more years to come, and not just in Iraq. As opposed to Obama who actually wants to make AMENDS with countries. Yeah yeah you're totally right, Obama will so be the end of us I can hear the bombs already [/sarcasm] I may not be lynched, but I still feel as if this country sees me as a lesser being. I have less rights than straight people. I can't get married, I can't adopt, I can't join the army. So YES I think I can justifiably say that I feel like a second class citizen in this country.

It's moronic to base it on something like marriage. Go to Massachusetts or California for now, wait for the government to catch up with the times. And I fail to get why it's hypocritical.


What's moronic is to reply when you haven't fully grasped the meaning of my statement. I will make MY political decisions based on what affects ME. Yes, you do fail to see why it's hypocritical. It's hypocritical for you to judge how I make my political decisions when you most likely use the same or similar thought process. I mean do you not also base your decision on things that affect you? Also, as I had said early, I don't ONLY base decisions on gay rights. Sure gay rights have a big sway on which way I would vote but I do take other facts into consideration. Like foreign policies, abortion, affirmative action, etc. Also, I no longer want Republican representationbecause of "No Child Left Behind", 'cause you know what? A lot of students are being left behind!

They came to accept black people as human beings, right? OH WAIT NO I GUESS THEY DIDN'T. I GUESS CONDOLEEZA RICE IS JUST BUSH'S SLAVE GIRL.
OOOOOOOOOH! Whoopdy-freakin' do you named ONE black politician, yeah that's diversity right there ONE black woman in a white male dominated government. I have seen the light! The roots of racism run fairly deep in this country. I know there are many people who won't vote for Obama based on the color of his skin.

Conservatives, and people, in general are stupid. They usually don't get mockery. So when they see the way gays act in those parades, that's ALL that sticks in their mind. It doesn't HELP your cause, but anyone who's already on your side will get it, but that's hardly the point.
Pardon us for having pride, a sense of humor, and a functioning brain >.>

Or because he has never DONE anything, went to a church for 20 years with an anti-white pastor, etc. This is hardly about Obama, though, this is about me hating your selfish way to view the world.
Oh the second there is anti-white, that's when the line has been crossed. Cuz you know slavery never happened right? And skin-head Neo Nazi's don't exist either, huh?

She's right on this one. Watch the South Park episode where Cartman commits a hate crime. All crime is hateful. Just because someone kills a black man for being black doesn't mean he shouldn't be charged for more than murder.
OLOL It's moronic for me to base a decision on gay rights but getting your opinion on hate crimes from South Park makes perfect logical sense. And no, she's not right. Not all crimes are done out of hate. A man who steals money/food for his starving family is not hateful, he's desperate. A white man who kills a black man FOR BEING BLACK should be charged with murder and a hate crime! And vice versa.

Mistreatment how? Because I honestly don't know.
Palin won't even recognize the bashing of a gay person as a hate crime. She's neglecting the fact that gay people are even being mistreated.

Another reason is I wouldn't vote for Palin, is for her blatant hypocracy. She doesn't believe in pro-choice and rants and raves about how here daughter MADE THE CHOICE to keep her baby. Yet they say it's not fair to intrude on Palin's home life yet she's trying to intrude into our family business. The decision to have an abortion should be a family decision. With McCain and Palin it's gonna become just like 1985 8D

Megera
September 8th, 2008, 02:50 PM
Fossil fuels are finite, but we're not close to be able to mass produce any other practical choices for cars. So we need to use what we have, and the rising price of gas will punish the people, not speed up the technology for new energy sources. =\

I'm lazy. Person above me, don't use one single issue as a voting point: that's all I'm saying. And I didn't catch it earlier that you were using more issues, but all I saw was "gay marriage", etc. I didn't say one side is right and the other wrong: just that you're no better than evangelicals who vote solely on abortion issues and anti-gay laws.

SpartanPatriot
September 8th, 2008, 02:53 PM
McCain is the one who will be the death of this country. With McCain we're going to be at war for many more years to come, and not just in Iraq. As opposed to Obama who actually wants to make AMENDS with countries. Yeah yeah you're totally right, Obama will so be the end of us I can hear the bombs already [/sarcasm] I may not be lynched, but I still feel as if this country sees me as a lesser being. I have less rights than straight people. I can't get married, I can't adopt, I can't join the army. So YES I think I can justifiably say that I feel like a second class citizen in this country.




Thank you for saying this. I completely agree. McCain is an old man with old ideals and Obama is a fresh young face with new ideas and a better way of thinking. Obama thinks of the future and McCain thinks in the past. I personally do not give a whoop-de-f*** (I edited it myself XD) that he was a verteran. I have heard him tell the same stuff about being a POW hundreds of time. Yes. He did fight for our country and make a sacrifice but I do not see how that makes him a leader. I also do not give a hoot about experience. I want to see Obama in office because he is a fresh start. I personally want something new. The last republican horribly failed at being president and I do not want another one with the same ideas going into office. McCain says stuff that he will do but they will not be done. Also, I do not like it how he publicly flames OBama and says things about him. Obama is clean and McCain is dirty.

Netto Azure
September 8th, 2008, 02:59 PM
Well that's hardly debatable....of course fossil fuels are finite, and we need Alt. energy ASAP.
Most people just disagree about how we should go about doing it.

Ok, now that CC's out of the way...new topic...An issue skirted by the candidates...

How should we deal with Immigration?

Is building a giant fence even Feasible? Does rounding up all the "Illegal" Immigrants even possible? (12 Million average)
Remember most "illegal" immigrants move here to the US just like our elders...in order to achieve the so-called "American Dream" (All those stories about gangs are tied to other various issues such as economics and education) and they are People like you and me...

Immigrants take the jobs THAT WE DON'T WANT (which is sad since we accuse them of taking THE JOBS WE WANT) in order to send money back to their home country (I'm Filipino so I experience this first hand.)

And also no matter how much (somebody who I know) wants all the so-called "Emes" to be rounded up and deported that is just not realistic and you know it.

I believe we should have some type of Immigration reform legislation to deal with this REALISTICALLY. Not Fence-Building and mass-deportations.

Megera
September 8th, 2008, 03:02 PM
Ok, now that CC's out of the way...new topic...An issue skirted by the candidates...

How should we deal with Immigration?

Is building a giant fence even Feasible? Does rounding up all the "Illegal" Immigrants even possible? (12 Million average)
Remember most "illegal" immigrants move here to the US just like our elders...in order to achieve the so-called "American Dream" (All those stories about gangs are tied to other various issues such as economics and education) and they are People like you and me...

Immigrants take the jobs THAT WE DON'T WANT (which is sad since we accuse them of taking THE JOBS WE WANT) in order to send money back to their home country (I'm Filipino so I experience this first hand.)

And also no matter how much (somebody who I know) wants all the so-called "Emes" to be rounded up and deported that is just not realistic and you know it.

I believe we should have some type of Immigration reform legislation to deal with this REALISTICALLY. Not Fence-Building and mass-deportations.

Just enforce the laws we already have and punish the employers and they will mass deport. Problem solved.

Netto Azure
September 8th, 2008, 03:06 PM
McCain says stuff that he will do but they will not be done.

I agree with most of what you said but the part I quoted applies TO MOST POLITICIANS. (See how Bush routed Gore in 2000 on the Environmental issue by claiming that he'll give action to help the environment (Citing his time as Governor as Evidence) and then back-tracks AND ACTUALLY CUTS BACK ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LAWS for Big Oil and just promotes volunteering by Big Companies on the fight against CC)

Just enforce the laws we already have and punish the employers and they will mass deport. Problem solved.

Your doing the one-liners and trolling again...Please think a lot deeper about this issue since what if I just HAVE YOU deported. (No offense but you really should think more about the plight of others...)

Aurafire
September 8th, 2008, 03:14 PM
Thank you for saying this. I completely agree. McCain is an old man with old ideals and Obama is a fresh young face with new ideas and a better way of thinking. Obama thinks of the future and McCain thinks in the past. I personally do not give a whoop-de-f*** (I edited it myself XD) that he was a verteran. I have heard him tell the same stuff about being a POW hundreds of time. Yes. He did fight for our country and make a sacrifice but I do not see how that makes him a leader. I also do not give a hoot about experience. I want to see Obama in office because he is a fresh start. I personally want something new. The last republican horribly failed at being president and I do not want another one with the same ideas going into office. McCain says stuff that he will do but they will not be done. Also, I do not like it how he publicly flames OBama and says things about him. Obama is clean and McCain is dirty.

Hmmmm....Maybe if you had actually listened to the man during his speech last week you would know what being a vet means to him and why it will make him an effective leader. But seriously, who wants to listen to old ideas anyway?

You should give a whoop-de-f*** that he was a veteran and was a POW for 5 years. Obviously if you had watched his speech you would have heard his whole story and the message that he was trying to convey. You also would have heard his dedication and passion that he has for the United States, a passions that Obama will never have. You would have actually heard his story and what he's about, but you chose to be ill-informed and judgmental.

And I hate to say this, but you're a moron for believing that McCain is the only one running a dirty campaign. Do you even watch TV? Have you seen the ad's Obamas putting out? You're really telling me that Obama isn't doing any mudslinging at all? Wake up dude. Seriously. Neither of them are running clean campaigns. What do you think was going on at the Democratic convention? Was that not flaming? Did they not call McCain old, ignorant and misguided? That's not flaming? Please tell me you don't actually think Obama is running a pure campaign.....

It's fine if you support Obama because you want some new ideas in Washington, but please, inform yourself first and don't be naive when your posting your opinions...

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
September 8th, 2008, 03:14 PM
Barak FTW~

You know what wrong with freaking election?

it's a choice between a old buzzard or a BLACK man.
OMG, CALL THE COPS!

what discusts me is racism.
Heres how I see it:

"Hey, it's the election! I wonder whos up for it?
let's see...
the president is a good, loyal, understanding, tackle issue, overall awesome person! :D
But... he's BLACK.
oh noes. I can't possible vote for a black man, so... might as well vote for the wrong choice! ^^"

It kinda sounds as ridicious as what's going to happen if we allow gay marriage USA-wide.
it's not like you see a gay wedding and you start to have a seizure and start to foam out of your mouth and a giant monster spider crawls out of you creating War of the Worlds.

Racism can go **** itself when it comes to voteing.

EDIT:
One thing is that McCain is going to take education money and put it into the army.
If this guy gets 2 terms, I'm screwed for the rest of my education.

How should we deal with Immigration?

I'm fine with immigrants.
If a person from another country wants to come to the united states,
and is willing to pay taxes, obey laws, and learn local language,
that's fantastic. I want them in ASAP.

what I don't agree with is Illeagal immigration.
Here, let me come to a country and mootch off there money so I can go back to my own.
If you want to come here, for the love of god, become a leagal citizen.
please.
I'm sick of hearing this immigration problem.

I really think when we had Ellis Island it was better.
but hey, what do I know?
I think Ellis Island got sucked out of the question when illeagal immigration started.

Megera
September 8th, 2008, 03:22 PM
Your doing the one-liners and trolling again...Please think a lot deeper about this issue since what if I just HAVE YOU deported. (No offense but you really should think more about the plight of others...)

Do I detect a threat? But I thought you were against personal attacks! Oh no, mister, don't deport me!

If we stopped giving them a way to get our jobs, they would have no reason to come here or stay. It's common sense. =\

Since you don't like logic without a website, here you go: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Illegal-immigrants-volunta-by-John-Martin-080908-158.html

And my stance is the same as Tacharine: LEGAL immigrants are perfectly fine.

Aurafire
September 8th, 2008, 03:24 PM
Barak FTW~

You know what wrong with freaking election?

it's a choice between a old buzzard or a BLACK man.
OMG, CALL THE COPS!

what discusts me is racism.
Heres how I see it:

"Hey, it's the election! I wonder whos up for it?
let's see...
the president is a good, loyal, understanding, tackle issue, overall awesome person! :D
But... he's BLACK.
oh noes. I can't possible vote for a black man, so... might as well vote for the wrong choice! ^^"

It kinda sounds as ridicious as what's going to happen if we allow gay marriage USA-wide.
it's not like you see a gay wedding and you start to have a seizure and start to foam out of your mouth and a giant monster spider crawls out of you creating War of the Worlds.

Racism can go **** itself when it comes to voteing.

EDIT:
One thing is that McCain is going to take education money and put it into the army.
If this guy gets 2 terms, I'm screwed for the rest of my education.

How should we deal with Immigration?

I'm fine with immigrants.
If a person from another country wants to come to the united states,
and is willing to pay taxes, obey laws, and learn local language,
that's fantastic. I want them in ASAP.

what I don't agree with is Illeagal immigration.
Here, let me come to a country and mootch off there money so I can go back to my own.
If you want to come here, for the love of god, become a leagal citizen.
please.
I'm sick of hearing this immigration problem.

I really think when we had Ellis Island it was better.
but hey, what do I know?
I think Ellis Island got sucked out of the question when illeagal immigration started.

Yes, it's unfortunate that people will make decisions about this election based on race....but unfortunately the US is still in a stage where stuff like that will happen. Although, it won't affect as many people as you think...I thought I saw somewhere that 90% or more of the country's voters aren't basing their decision off of race, but if you ask me that's still not enough...

Where are you getting your information about this McCain business? He's never said anything about cutting education. You should read up on that.

I can agree with you on immigration though =P

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
September 8th, 2008, 03:29 PM
Yes, it's unfortunate that people will make decisions about this election based on race....but unfortunately the US is still in a stage where stuff like that will happen. Although, it won't affect as many people as you think...I thought I saw somewhere that 90% or more of the country's voters aren't basing their decision off of race, but if you ask me that's still not enough...

Where are you getting your information about this McCain business? He's never said anything about cutting education. You should read up on that.

I can agree with you on immigration though =P

no, we need atleast 100%.
This proves 90% of the country are a bunch of narrow-minded dumbasses.

well, I got it from one of my realiable sources
Sister's boyfriend
but I don't know where they read that :X
But if it isn't true, my vote would still have gone to Obama.

Hey! wanna know a fun fact?

Pokecommunity was made by a black man!

oops, looks like I made the racist members leave.
sorry, mods ^^

Aurafire
September 8th, 2008, 03:32 PM
no, we need atleast 100%.
This proves 90% of the country are a bunch of narrow-minded dumbasses.

well, I got it from one of my realiable sources
Sister's boyfriend
but I don't know where they read that :X
But if it isn't true, my vote would still have gone to Obama.

Hey! wanna know a fun fact?

Pokecommunity was made by a black man!

oops, looks like I made the racist members leave.
sorry, mods ^^

Yes I agree with you about the racism thing, and your sisters boyfriend is kinda stupid...

And what was the point of that last comment at all?

SpartanPatriot
September 8th, 2008, 03:41 PM
Hmmmm....Maybe if you had actually listened to the man during his speech last week you would know what being a vet means to him and why it will make him an effective leader. But seriously, who wants to listen to old ideas anyway?

You should give a whoop-de-f*** that he was a veteran and was a POW for 5 years. Obviously if you had watched his speech you would have heard his whole story and the message that he was trying to convey. You also would have heard his dedication and passion that he has for the United States, a passions that Obama will never have. You would have actually heard his story and what he's about, but you chose to be ill-informed and judgmental.

And I hate to say this, but you're a moron for believing that McCain is the only one running a dirty campaign. Do you even watch TV? Have you seen the ad's Obamas putting out? You're really telling me that Obama isn't doing any mudslinging at all? Wake up dude. Seriously. Neither of them are running clean campaigns. What do you think was going on at the Democratic convention? Was that not flaming? Did they not call McCain old, ignorant and misguided? That's not flaming? Please tell me you don't actually think Obama is running a pure campaign.....

It's fine if you support Obama because you want some new ideas in Washington, but please, inform yourself first and don't be naive when your posting your opinions...

I said it is fine and all that he was a POW and a veteran. I support them. My grandfather was in the military as well and my neighbour was a POW and I knew him well. I DID watch the whole speech given by him as I have also watched all of Obama's.

For the last part. I have not seen any commercials for Barack Obama and I prefer to think of myself as a person who watches plenty of television when I can.

I have watched and listened to his speech about being a POW at least 20 times and I am not ignorant. If you had read you would have seen that I said it was good he made a sacrifice for the country and it a renowned vet but I think that doies not always makes a great leader. McCain is a great man but not a great leader in my opinion.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
September 8th, 2008, 03:42 PM
Yes I agree with you about the racism thing, and your sisters boyfriend is kinda stupid...

And what was the point of that last comment at all?

your telling me

a fun fact.
It's always a good time for a fun fact.

---

anyway, staying on topic, another issue I have observed:

when Hillary was running against Obama for Democrat,
I can't tell you the amount of people in my school who voted for her just because she was the first woman ever to do so.

now she's out.

NOW, McCain decides to have a FEMALE running mate.
guess what percent of hiliary's votes are going to Palin?

The point is, I don't like people who just vote because of what the people who are running are.

If there was a female democrat/republican, and she was T3H BEST THING TO COME TO POLITICS SINCE BUTTA ON TOAST,
you know I would vote for her.

If she sucked, I would vote for the other.

don't vote for someone whos "2 t3h X-tream" because they are are different gender/race/sexuality/etc.

vote for someone who actually can do a good job.

Netto Azure
September 8th, 2008, 03:42 PM
Do I detect a threat? But I thought you were against personal attacks! Oh no, mister, don't deport me!

If we stopped giving them a way to get our jobs, they would have no reason to come here or stay. It's common sense. =\

Since you don't like logic without a website, here you go: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Illegal-immigrants-volunta-by-John-Martin-080908-158.html

And my stance is the same as Tacharine: LEGAL immigrants are perfectly fine.

I agree with both your points..your link does make sense....but be realistic...we CANNOT deport everyone and people WILL COME BACK when the economy rebounds (eventually) so what do we do then....

SpartanPatriot
September 8th, 2008, 03:46 PM
The point is, I don't like people who just vote because of what the people who are running are.


vote for someone who actually can do a good job.

Precisely. Race, gender, religion and other aspects should never be used as a way to vote for someone. People SHOULD be voted for because of their ideas and leadership skills.

So all in all the statement above me is 100% on.

ChronicEdge
September 8th, 2008, 03:48 PM
As far as I view it, we're screwed for the next four years. If McCain is elected, nothing will change because he's a Republican. If Obama is elected, nothing will change because he is incapable. (In his own words: "I got elected to the US Senate. I haven't done anything yet."

Netto Azure
September 8th, 2008, 03:51 PM
your telling me

a fun fact.
It's always a good time for a fun fact.

---

anyway, staying on topic, another issue I have observed:

when Hillary was running against Obama for Democrat,
I can't tell you the amount of people in my school who voted for her just because she was the first woman ever to do so.

now she's out.

NOW, McCain decides to have a FEMALE running mate.
guess what percent of hiliary's votes are going to Palin?

The point is, I don't like people who just vote because of what the people who are running are.

If there was a female democrat/republican, and she was T3H BEST THING TO COME TO POLITICS SINCE BUTTA ON TOAST,
you know I would vote for her.

If she sucked, I would vote for the other.

don't vote for someone whos "2 t3h X-tream" because they are are different gender/race/sexuality/etc.

vote for someone who actually can do a good job.

Eh...I supported Hillary during the Primaries because she had the experience to blunt McCain's arguments and I supported her positions on various issues (such as health-care...even though she sold herself to "old-enemies") The gender issue is just a plus.

SpartanPatriot
September 8th, 2008, 03:54 PM
As far as I view it, we're screwed for the next four years. If McCain is elected, nothing will change because he's a Republican. If Obama is elected, nothing will change because he is incapable. (In his own words: "I got elected to the US Senate. I haven't done anything yet."

This is not really true...Were much better off with one of those two then Bush.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
September 8th, 2008, 03:59 PM
This is not really true...Were much better off with one of those two then Bush.

hopefully whoever gets in can pull a bill clinton and get this mess we call america unruled.

just to be pulled by a george w. bush and screw things up more than they were before the bill clinton pull

Netto Azure
September 8th, 2008, 04:04 PM
This is not really true...Were much better off with one of those two then Bush.

True...since McCain is a Progressive Conservative (Oxymoron much?) and Obama is a Progressive-Centrist...at least they're not going to drive us again like the Bush/Republican Congress since if McCain wins he still has to deal with a hostile Democratic Congress (Which my Algebra 2 teacher says is what "Average Americans" secretly want since a deadlocked government theoretically doesn't intrude on people.) But hey what do you call the PATRIOT Act and the "Anti-Terror" Laws but intruding on peoples right to privacy.

SpartanPatriot
September 8th, 2008, 04:08 PM
But hey what do you call the PATRIOT Act and the "Anti-Terror" Laws but intruding on peoples right to privacy.

Is this directed at my name? lol XD I think so.

My Patriot in my name is for the new england patriots.

Aurafire
September 8th, 2008, 04:09 PM
True...since McCain is a Progressive Conservative (Oxymoron much?) and Obama is a Progressive-Centrist...at least they're not going to drive us again like the Bush/Republican Congress since if McCain wins he still has to deal with a hostile Democratic Congress (Which my Algebra 2 teacher says is what "Average Americans" secretly want since a deadlocked government theoretically doesn't intrude on people.) But hey what do you call the PATRIOT Act and the "Anti-Terror" Laws but intruding on peoples right to privacy.

Tommy, I have to keep pointing this out. Obama is in no way centrist. He just isn't. Ok maybe one or two policies he has some opinions that can be considered moderate, but overall he is incredibly slanted to the left. What is it that makes you think he's centrist?

SpartanPatriot
September 8th, 2008, 04:12 PM
Obama is in no way centrist. He just isn't. Ok maybe one or two policies he has some opinions that can be considered moderate, but overall he is incredibly slanted to the left. What is it that makes you think he's centrist?

http://www.progressive.org/mag/rc070108

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-follow-obama-down-centrist-path-2008-07-09.html

Also, check this out guys....


I just got back from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., where conservatives began lining up behind a man who’s been sticking it to us for years. By a process of self-hypnosis, many have managed to convince themselves that McCain is actually one of us.


Not for nothing did Benjamin Disraeli call conservatives the stupid party.


What part of John McCain do we not get? McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Edwards -- among other socialist, anti-speech, open-borders, enviro-Marxist measures he’s co-sponsored with the hardcore left of the Democratic Party over the years.

If Il Duce had served with him in the United States Senate, there would be McCain-Mussolini.

The moment Mitt Romney “suspended” his campaign and McCain became inevitable, the squawking began: “You mean you’d actually prefer Hillary or Obama (judges)? At least McCain is pro-life (judges). He’s a war hero who’ll ably lead us in the War on Terrorism (judges). Did we mention that he’ll appoint conservative judges?”

Before the chorus of amnesiac Chicken Littles drowns out the voices of reason, here are 10 reasons why conservatives should sever their right hands at the wrist before they pull the McCain lever in November:


Immigration – He’s not just pro-open borders, he’s Senor Amnesty – co-sponsor of McCain-Kennedy, which would have legalized 15 million illegal aliens, allowed them to bring in tens of millions of their mooching relatives (including the elderly and infirm), given them credit for past Social Security contributions, etc. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector said McCain-Kennedy would have constituted the largest expansion of the welfare state in U.S. history (at an estimated cost of $2.6 trillion). A Republican who served with McNasty in the Senate said he was forever haranguing his GOP colleagues about being perceived as “xenophobes” for not supporting amnesty. At CPAC, he told conservatives he’s heard us. He’ll secure the borders first, then push amnesty – which, of course, will negate anything he does at the border. Build it (a suicidal welfare state that embraces alien intruders), and a fence won’t keep them out.
Multiculturalism – If his advocacy of open borders wasn’t enough, McCain has also opposed official English and supported bi-lingual education (two more issues where he’s out-of-step with the overwhelming majority of his countrymen). McCain even voted for an amendment that would have codified Clinton’s Executive Order 13166, requiring recipients of federal funding, like hospitals, to provide translation services in any language requested. (When it comes to pandering, cost is no object.) No wonder he’s a hero to LULAC (the separatist League of United Latin American Citizens), Geraldo Rivera and Juan Hernandez (his Hispanic outreach director, who says he’d like 7th. generation Mexican-Americans to think of themselves as Mexicans first). Look for President McCain to make Cinco de Mayo a national holiday, give his inaugural address in Arabic and light an annual Kwanza whatever on the White House lawn.
Enviro-Marxism – McCain’s supporters think he’s just the man to lead America in the War on Terrorism. What’s the principal weapon of terrorist states? Oil. What does McCain want to keep America from producing more of? Oil. In 2003, McCain was one of only 6 Republican senators to vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For McCain, keeping America dependent on Middle Eastern oil is a small price to pay to make the caribou comfortable. He’s also the proud co-sponsor of McCain-Lieberman – a $660 billion monument to the myth of man-made global warming (an industry-killing cap on CO2 emissions), which would annihilate tens of thousands of American jobs and make us far less competitive. By what twisted logic does open borders, crippling U.S. industry and energy dependence equal national security?
Class Warfare – In the recent debate at the Reagan Library, McCain called Romney a “manager for profits” (would he prefer a businessman who managed for losses?) who has “laid people off” – thus demonstrating how little the Senator understands the market economy. Jobs aren’t permanent -- except for those who’ve served in the Senate for 21 years -- and sometimes they have to disappear so others can be created. In 2001, McCain was one of only two Republican Senators to vote against the Bush tax cuts. In 2003, he was one of only three. Now, he says it’s because there weren’t matching spending cuts. Then he called them “tax cuts for the rich.” This comes from a man who never held a private-sector job and made his money the old-fashioned way – by marrying an heiress whose father subsidized his early campaigns.
Abortion – McCain’s vaunted pro-life voting record reflects the views of his Arizona constituents more than any real commitment. He supports subsidies for embryonic stem-cell research. In 2000, he told the San Francisco Examiner that “certainly in the short term, even in the long-term I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” (He later reversed himself under pro-life pressure.) Most critics view McCain-Feingold as an assault on the First Amendment, which it certainly is. It’s also one of the most destructive anti-life measures ever enacted by Congress. Under this so-called Campaign Finance Reform, a pro-life group can’t run ads criticizing the record of a pro-abortion legislator within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Needless to say, there’s no similar gag-rule for McCain’s buddies in the mainstream media. Elsewhere on the family-values front, McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He says it’s because he wants states to decide the definition of marriage (the only instance in which he’s on record favoring federalism), which is the same as saying he wants activist judges to decide.
Judicial Nominations – Though McCain denies it, columnist Robert Novak swears the frontrunner told him prior to confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito that the nominee was too conservative, and that he preferred those who “didn’t wear their conservatism on their sleeve” (like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy?). McCain was also part of the Gang of 14 which prevented a rules change that would have stopped unconstitutional filibusters on judicial nominations. Former New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman was responsible for the Supreme Court nomination of David Souter -- the most disastrous Republican appointment since Earl Warren. (The play was Rudman to then-Chief of Staff John Sununu to Bush Sr.) Rudman has a prominent role in McCain’s campaign. Rudman could be President McCain’s Attorney General, giving him more say on judicial nominations than anyone other than the president. In his 1996 book, Rudman wrote that Christian conservatives include in their ranks “enough anti-abortion zealots, would-be censors, homophobes, bigots and latter-day Elmer Gantrys to discredit any party that is unwise enough” to align itself with them. With Warren Rudman at his side, it’s anyone’s guess whether McCain’s Supreme Court picks would be appreciably better than Clinton’s or Obama’s...






War on Terrorism – We’ve already noted McCain’s support for energy dependence and his crusade for open borders. (Besides all of the rapists, drug-dealers and gang members coming across our Southern border, terrorists are also infiltrating the United States due to the de facto surrender of national sovereignty.) McCain wants to close Guantanamo and give terrorists the same rights as enemy combatants. He opposes tough interrogation techniques that leave no scars, but have elicited the intelligence that has saved American lives. (Personally, I’d use thumbscrews and the iron maiden on this scum.) A McCain anti-terrorism policy is more likely to be shaped by his friends at the ACLU and The New York Times than by the Center for Security Policy.
McPsycho – McCain is famous for going postal on his Republican colleagues -- dropping the F-word, calling them f---ing idiots and worse. His dangerous inability to control his temper comes from a God-complex and an ingrained contempt for other human beings. One of his colleagues commented, “I don’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.” Given his mental state, McCain could end up nuking Terre Haute instead of Tehran.
Reaching across the aisle – This is media-speak for a Republican sell-out who conspires with the left. McCain doesn’t reach across the aisle – he leaps. Former Senator Rick Santorum discloses: “The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him (McCain), 6 years in the United States Senate as a leader, one of the leaders of the Senate – the number-3 leader – who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and at almost every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.” Republican presidents who are unsure of themselves too often try to placate the other party. For McCain, working with the left is his natural inclination. He’ll turn to the Kennedys, Feingolds and Liebermans not as a last resort, but as a first.
Rally or Roll-Over -- If a Democrat takes the oath of office next January, Congressional Republicans will find their principles again. From 1993 to 1995, without a majority in either House, Republicans fought Bill Clinton to a legislative standstill. They went on to win the House and Senate in the 1994 election -- for the first time in 40 years – and to hold both for a decade. If McCain is elected, it will be roll-over time for Congressional Republicans – on taxes, regulation, environmentalism, speech-suppression, internationalism, multiculturalism, civil liberties for terrorists and open-borders. (When it comes to arm-twisting, Captain Queeg would make Bush look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.) This time, instead of losing power for a few years, the party could be permanently discredited.


Ultimately, all of this is academic. McCain’s chances of becoming the next president are none – and none. Since 1964, Republicans have won 7 of 10 presidential elections. They lost in 1976, 1992 and 1996. Each time, the party was saddled with a standard-bearer – Ford, Bush ’41, Dole – that a large part of the base couldn’t stand.

The American people are basically conservative. At some point, the Democrats always give away the game – expose themselves as the party of socialism, pacifism, racial-pandering and treason. They only win when Republicans sound an uncertain trumpet. McCain is a kazoo played by an asthmatic.

McCain is also old, abrasive and unlovable. (It was said of Bob Dole, another war hero, that he couldn’t sell beer on a troop ship. McCain couldn’t give it away.) Once the Democrats pick their nominee, McCain’s media cheerleaders will pack up their pompoms and move to the other side of the field.


President Bush – he of “compassionate conservatism,” mega-spending hikes and Hamas statehood– has just announced that John McCain is a “true conservative.”

I rest my case.

Netto Azure
September 8th, 2008, 04:14 PM
Is this directed at my name? lol XD I think so.

My Patriot in my name is for the new england patriots.

Lulz!!! no....XP But since you put it that way yeah it's very funny.=D Just Google PATRIOT Act and you'll find out what it is (The sweeping law passed after Sept.11)

http://www.progressive.org/mag/rc070108

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-follow-obama-down-centrist-path-2008-07-09.html

Well thanks SpartanPatriot for the links...People on the left are seeing Obama moving MORE Centrist to pull swing voters...But Aura you have Conservative views so it's hard for you to see why I see Obama as centrist. That's why I said "Progressive-Centrist" =D (And eh it's already hard to define centrist in a Democratic Government)

Aurafire
September 8th, 2008, 04:19 PM
http://www.progressive.org/mag/rc070108

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-follow-obama-down-centrist-path-2008-07-09.html

Also, check this out guys....

The first link is an op-ed, the second one is just a story, it doesn't prove that he's centrist.

And it's nice that you posted that entire story, but you miss the point. When faced with the decision this year between Obama and McCain, the conservative base might not be happy with some of McCain's policies, but that's not even close to enough reason for them to swing to the other side and vote for Obama, who cannot relate to them on any issue. Basically, you take McCain and some of his liberal policies, or take Obama and all of his liberal policies. Conservatives will choose the former, not the latter.

icomeanon6
September 8th, 2008, 04:38 PM
I don't see how anyone can say that Obama is centrist. He only has the most liberal voting record in all of congress...

txteclipse
September 8th, 2008, 04:43 PM
How should we deal with Immigration?

Legal immigration is fine. In fact, it probably even needs a bit of streamlining.

Illegal immigration is the problem. Illegal immigrants screw over everyone: the legal immigrants they are taking opportunities from and making a bad name for, the economy they are taking money from, and the people they are taking jobs from. As far as I'm concerned, they're stealing their place in society. We might as well confiscate the money from them and their employers that is necessary to deport them. That's basically what we do with any thief: they have to return what they stole and face a penalty.

SpartanPatriot
September 8th, 2008, 05:01 PM
Lulz!!! no....XP But since you put it that way yeah it's very funny.=D Just Google PATRIOT Act and you'll find out what it is (The sweeping law passed after Sept.11)



Well thanks SpartanPatriot for the links...People on the left are seeing Obama moving MORE Centrist to pull swing voters...But Aura you have Conservative views so it's hard for you to see why I see Obama as centrist. That's why I said "Progressive-Centrist" =D (And eh it's already hard to define centrist in a Democratic Government)

Well here is a video I found on youtube discussing Obama and his centrist positions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5SPacSKS1E

Let me know what you guys think.

Illegal immigrants screw over everyone.

That is not fair to say. It just is not. No offense.

Would you want to come to America if you are in another country where you are being oppressed, are poor, and your family is dying because you cannot provide?

People come to America illegally at times because it truly is the "land of opportunity". I believe it is fine for someone who wants to feed their children to come here and get a job. It is wrong to come here illegally but some people do it out of fear and sometimes it is the best thing to do. They should get legalized when they can but besides that they can not do much else.

Aurafire
September 8th, 2008, 05:10 PM
Well here is a video I found on youtube discussing Obama and his centrist positions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5SPacSKS1E

Let me know what you guys think.

The main article they use is from the New York Times, which is a well known liberal paper that smears conservatives. And Joe Scarborough isn't reporting the news. It's his own show, which gives his opinion, and like-wise has guests that will support him.

It's actually quite simple: The left doesn't want you to know exactly how left Obama is (note: VERY left), so they try to paint him as a centrist so people don't realize how radical his ideas are. If people knew exactly what his policies are and what he stood for, he would never be elected, so they media is forced to try to pass him off as a moderate Democrat. Really guys, you should try to see through this kind of stuff.

SpartanPatriot
September 8th, 2008, 05:11 PM
Man...this thread is fun! XD

I love debating politics. Although it sucks when I lose. XD

Anyways, I like Obama. I like Obama's ideas. His experience does not bother me. He ideas are amazing and fresh. :)

Megera
September 8th, 2008, 05:39 PM
I agree with both your points..your link does make sense....but be realistic...we CANNOT deport everyone and people WILL COME BACK when the economy rebounds (eventually) so what do we do then....

I didn't say that we should waste more tax money in deporting them. Everyone knows that's logistically impossible. You enforce what laws we have (only people legally here may get jobs), and then there's no incentive for them to come here for jobs. A few people will get under-the-table jobs while waiting at Home Depot or whatever, but as a whole, there will be a mass self-deportation.

Imagine if all 20 million illegals went to Mexico and rebelled against their own government (yes, I know they're not all Mexicans and blah blah). It'd be better than letting them have protests against the one raid a year we have. And I'd totally support American aid to Mexico if their current government were overthrown. At the moment, it's about as dangerous to be in Mexico as it is ins Iraq. =\

For the dude who loves news articles. (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Microchips-Are-Being-Planted-Under-Mexicans-Skin-So-They-Can-Be-Tracked-If-Kidnapped/Article/200808415084707?lpos=World%2BNews_5&lid=ARTICLE_15084707_Microchips%2BAre%2BBeing%2BPlanted%2BUnder%2BMexicans%2527%2BSkin%2BSo%2BThey%2BCan%2BBe%2BTracked%2BIf%2BKidnapped)



Would you want to come to America if you are in another country where you are being oppressed, are poor, and your family is dying because you cannot provide?

People come to America illegally at times because it truly is the "land of opportunity". I believe it is fine for someone who wants to feed their children to come here and get a job. It is wrong to come here illegally but some people do it out of fear and sometimes it is the best thing to do. They should get legalized when they can but besides that they can not do much else.The problem is the Latinos, generally, do not learn the language and do not try to assimilate themselves into American culture. That's why when they first had their "Day Without an Illegal Alien" protests here they were waving their own flag. Only after were they told that maybe it would make more sense to wave the flag of the country you want into. If they were, for the most part, learning the language, not getting into gangs, and not dropping out of school, I would totally be okay with them getting a mass amnesty.

Allstories
September 8th, 2008, 05:53 PM
The problem is the Latinos, generally, do not learn the language and do not try to assimilate themselves into American culture. That's why when they first had their "Day Without an Illegal Alien" protests here they were waving their own flag. Only after were they told that maybe it would make more sense to wave the flag of the country you want into. If they were, for the most part, learning the language, not getting into gangs, and not dropping out of school, I would totally be okay with them getting a mass amnesty.

You can't keep making vague, blanket generalizations like this about what you believe certain groups of people tend to do. This is called racism.

txteclipse
September 8th, 2008, 06:08 PM
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

I didn't even know it was that bad. Here's a link (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back704.html) to the original page on CIS.

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985. It is the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.

Allstories
September 8th, 2008, 06:17 PM
Yeah, you have a point, and y'know, 55% of crimes in the US are committed by African-Americans, so I think we should dump all the black people in the US on an island and let them just fight it out, y'know?

txteclipse
September 8th, 2008, 06:22 PM
Don't you get it? Illegal immigrants aren't even supposed to be here. So when 95% of the murders in LA are committed by them, my tolerance level goes straight to zero. It means they've broken the law twice: once in coming here illegally, and again for the murder. That's not racism. That's indignation at people who break the law multiple times without repercussions, and at the people who turned a blind eye when they did it the first time. You had best learn the difference.

Xairmo
September 8th, 2008, 06:26 PM
I kind of agree with txteclipse, three of my cousins were murdered by an illegal immigrant. The guy wasn't deported because San Francisco is a sanctuary, and then he went and murdered people. You never realize how big an issue is until it hits close to home :/

Allstories
September 8th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Don't you get it? Illegal immigrants aren't even supposed to be here. So when 95% of the murders in LA are committed by them, my tolerance level goes straight to zero. It means they've broken the law twice: once in coming here illegally, and again for the murder. That's not racism. That's indignation at people who break the law multiple times without repercussions, and at the people who turned a blind eye when they did it the first time. You had best learn the difference.

You're ignoring the fact that by no stretch of the imagination are a substantial percentage of illegal immigrants murderers.

Amachi
September 8th, 2008, 06:28 PM
Then why can't you just deal with the individuals rather than the entire group?

Stalin Malone
September 8th, 2008, 08:32 PM
I'm Sorry all of you believe revisionist lies. I thought this community was fair and balanced but yet you believe bolshevik lies.

SpartanPatriot
September 9th, 2008, 03:26 AM
Individuals that come here illegally to seek a better life should be allowed to stay and eventually they should learn the language and they should also not kill people.

Netto Azure
September 9th, 2008, 06:48 AM
I'm Sorry all of you believe revisionist lies. I thought this community was fair and balanced but yet you believe bolshevik lies.

SERIOUSLY do you even know the Truth? This is not a communist country. We are not in the Soviet Union or in China in the 50's-80's Ok? The Internet is one of the most Democratic Places on the World in the 21st Century...We are just showing opinions giving suggestions...NOW here's someone WHO'S ON THE FAR RIGHT.

Anyways I'll put the Immigration issue in the back burner because of this:

Federal Government takes over Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26591359/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26591359/)

Temporary Consensus for Immigration: Legal Immigration is Great. Illegal Immigration should be debated by Congress on what we should do.


Thoughts?

Now I'm not being pessimistic but Americans did bite off more than we could chew...and See where that has gotten us MORE Taxpayer intervention.

Aurafire
September 9th, 2008, 07:37 AM
SERIOUSLY do you even know the Truth? This is not a communist country. We are not in the Soviet Union or in China in the 50's-80's Ok? The Internet is one of the most Democratic Places on the World in the 21st Century...We are just showing opinions giving suggestions...NOW here's someone WHO'S ON THE FAR RIGHT.

Anyways I'll put the Immigration issue in the back burner because of this:

Feds take over Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26591359/

Thoughts?

Kind of necessary I guess....The two biggest mortgage companies in the country going out of business would be a flippin disaster.

awolffromspace
September 9th, 2008, 07:41 AM
Will the Soviet Union take over the Georgia (Europe) or will they destroy it?

Ivysaur
September 9th, 2008, 09:05 AM
About immigration, kicking all of them just because it's not the best option. If they come to the US (and to most of the developed countries) it's because they have no money to live. Kicking them won't solve anything, because, once they go back to their countries, they will still be in the same need as before, and they will probably try to come back. The only way to finish it is helping the poor countries.

Will the Soviet Union take over the Georgia (Europe) or will they destroy it?

...as far as I know, the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991 after Berlin's Wall was torn down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_union) o_o

Netto Azure
September 9th, 2008, 10:08 AM
Kind of necessary I guess....The two biggest mortgage companies in the country going out of business would be a flippin disaster.

But that's Socialism...
Anyways the Government is now essentially the Largest mortgage broker in the world...So now to be frank this mess is everybody's fault, Wall Street, The Government Regulators, The Middlemen (Mortgage Companies and Banks) even the General public for "biting more than we could chew" (Yes even my family's material "stuff" such as cars, credit cards, etc. are funded through loans and debt.) By living a little bit more extravagant than normal the debt of most Americans piled up that the "bubble" burst...Eh...I just hope MOSTLY EVERYONE learns their lesson and live a little bit more frugal.

About immigration, kicking all of them just because it's not the best option. If they come to the US (and to most of the developed countries) it's because they have no money to live. Kicking them won't solve anything, because, once they go back to their countries, they will still be in the same need as before, and they will probably try to come back. The only way to finish it is helping the poor countries.

That is true that is what we should be striving for. But we can't fund everything at once...so what is the short-term solution? (The million dollar question?) Just enforcing laws already streatches Homeland Security a lot.


...as far as I know, the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991 after Berlin's Wall was torn down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_union) o_o.

O_o Yeah...that's also true shouldn't everybody know that through their Grade 10 World History Class (even just the Simpsons is enough) and in College.

Xairmo
September 9th, 2008, 10:37 AM
Will the Soviet Union take over the Georgia (Europe) or will they destroy it?
...Yeah, proof that No Child Left Behind is not working -_-'
About immigration, kicking all of them just because it's not the best option. If they come to the US (and to most of the developed countries) it's because they have no money to live. Kicking them won't solve anything, because, once they go back to their countries, they will still be in the same need as before, and they will probably try to come back. The only way to finish it is helping the poor countries.
Easier said than done. Our country is already trillions of dollars in debt, how do you suppose we help poor countries? Do you suggest that go into their countries and tell them how they need to act? Cause honestly we've tried that approach quite a few times in the past and it led to half of the world hating America >.>
I personally don't think we should be meddling in the affairs of other countries, at least not right now. As for imaggration, it causes over-population and many vast problems for our citzens. Illegal immigrants take jobs from our legal citizens, which firther causes us economical problems. We must deport them, even if that means sending them to starvation and pverty. It's cruel but there is no way to appease all people. Our government has a duty to our citizens first and foremost.

Edit: I just like to clarify. I think immigration is fine, but I don't think illegal immigration is okay.

Mooshykris
September 9th, 2008, 10:41 AM
Heh, I don't know how I missed this thread so long.

Well, I don't have time for a full length discussion on everything right now, but I do have a quick note.

On politics: I am a McCain supporter, and I won't go into it further than that I believe McCain is the best choice for our Country. I'm not interested in debating how, why, my intelligence, or so forth.


On immigration: I agree that they should have a chance, but with that ability of being here, they should have the responsability of becoming citizens, learning our language, paying taxes, and working like every other American does.


On energy and the enviornemnt: I am a very strong believer in clean energy, and believe that we must act towards improving it. I do not, however, believe that we can change everything overnight. We need to start working on clean energy, but we must use fossil fuels so modern civilization doesn't come crashing down with no energy if someone were to just outlaw it, like how some people in the media do.

However, I am also not a believer in Global Warming. I do believe in Global Climate Change, but not in the way the media portrays it. I believe the media overestimates the effects we can cause overnight with fossil fuel emissions. (ie The Day After Tomorrow)

I feel that in the end, we don't really have a massive effect on the Global Environment on a long term scale, as the natural cycles are always at work.


Overall: Regardless of who is elected, or who's policy is what, no one can change the world overnight. So I believe who is expecting a drastic amount of change when the next president is elected is not thinking realistically.


I'll explain anything later in greater detail if anyone wants me to,


~Mooshykris

txteclipse
September 9th, 2008, 10:52 AM
Federal Government take over Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac

Buy lots of gold. Now.

There has been government intervention in the economy before. In fact, it happens all the time. As long as the company accepts the help, then I don't see why the heck not the government shouldn't jump in.

Netto Azure
September 9th, 2008, 12:52 PM
Federal Government takes over Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac

Buy lots of gold. Now.

There has been government intervention in the economy before. In fact, it happens all the time. As long as the company accepts the help, then I don't see why the heck not the government shouldn't jump in.

Gold...Isn't that going back to the Gold Standard?

txteclipse
September 9th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Gold...Isn't that going back to the Gold Standard?

Not if you do it as an individual. If the entire government backed up the economy with gold, then yes.

Netto Azure
September 9th, 2008, 12:56 PM
Not if you do it as an individual. If the entire government backed up the economy with gold, then yes.

You've been watching that infomercial haven't you?

txteclipse
September 9th, 2008, 01:04 PM
You've been watching that infomercial haven't you?

Do NOT buy gold from an infomercial. XD They are usually scams that either make you pay more than the gold is worth or whatnot.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but this (http://goldprice.org/buying-gold/2008/01/why-buy-gold-and-when-to-sell-gold.html) website seems dependable. I linked to a page that explains quickly and simply why you should have gold.

Netto Azure
September 9th, 2008, 05:12 PM
Do NOT buy gold from an infomercial. XD They are usually scams that either make you pay more than the gold is worth or whatnot.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but this (http://goldprice.org/buying-gold/2008/01/why-buy-gold-and-when-to-sell-gold.html) website seems dependable. I linked to a page that explains quickly and simply why you should have gold.

Yes..that has been recommended on that book called "How to be Invisible" (figuratively) by JJ Luna. Hide some amount of savings in a physical form (Money of different currencies, Precious metals, gems etc. (Great if you want to increase your privacy and yeah I read "weird" books)

Anyways since were in the issue of the Mortgage mess...Top issue for most Americans right now...

What do you think about the US economy?


Any suggestions on how we should deal with this? Since by "buying out" the GOE's Fannie May & Freddie Mac this administration has essentially dumped the problem to the next Administration and session of Congress...

Red1530
September 9th, 2008, 06:35 PM
I am going to try and help define what a gold standard is. In the past the money in circulation was backed by gold. That meant if you wanted to you could exchange x amount of dollars to the equivalent amount of gold. Today however the currency is fiat. That means it has value because the government says it has value.

Netto Azure
September 10th, 2008, 10:09 AM
I am going to try and help define what a gold standard is. In the past the money in circulation was backed by gold. That meant if you wanted to you could exchange x amount of dollars to the equivalent amount of gold. Today however the currency is fiat. That means it has value because the government says it has value.


I know that...(I don't know why but I love History) and when we switched from the Gold Standard and instituted a "Floating Currency" which you could say epitomizes Capitalism since it only works if the People believe that the Paper Money is worth something...since Our current currency is just a form of a "promise". I think he was just talking about this individually as a form of savings...Not recommending that the Fed Government move back to the Gold Standard.

Anyways I was listening to "Talk of the Nation" on NPR (I know I should be doing my HW or watching "Bleach" or something....) (Check out: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/)

And they were talking about how the Federal Take-over of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac Does not mean that the Federal government gets $5 trillion more debt since it's backed by "loans" aka your house,cars, etc. or Mortgages. And that the Governments Debt aka Treasury bonds (Currently about $10 Trillion...Our GDP is about $13 Trillion) is just a promise by the government that they'll pay it back (an IOU) and it's not backed by anything (Such as Gold in Fort Knox)...

Wow this thread has slowed down...Is the economy THAT boring...

TRIFORCE89
September 11th, 2008, 05:48 PM
Wow this thread has slowed down...Is the economy THAT boring...
Not boring, just complicated. There are variety of different economic schools to prescribe to. Of all the issues, the economy would be the most complicated in my opinion and would have some the greatest differences between the candidates.

Stalin Malone
September 11th, 2008, 06:22 PM
Barack Obama is the most liberal senator and thus he would have the worst economic policy.

Netto Azure
September 11th, 2008, 06:34 PM
Barack Obama is the most liberal senator and thus he would have the worst economic policy.

What is up with you and progressiveness...??? I mean you come here, troll w/o evidence and keep on spouting that "liberalism" is bad. I mean even John McCain supports some "liberal" policies...Does that mean he's also a bad candidate????

ChronicEdge
September 12th, 2008, 03:37 PM
Meh, what I think would most benefit the economy (ending this oversea sweatshop BS) isn't supported by anyone. *Sigh*

WE NEED MORE FRIGGIN' JOBS!!! D:<

Abrogate Nadir
September 12th, 2008, 04:14 PM
Barack Obama is the most liberal senator and thus he would have the worst economic policy.

While there are certainly people on the left with questionable economic ideas, simply being a liberal does not automatically mean you are one of those people.

I'd also like to respectfully point out that Bill Clinton was a liberal, and his reversal of supply side economics--which was put in place by George Bush Sr.--turned a massive debt into a massive surplus over his years in office.

Volkner's Apprentice
September 12th, 2008, 05:11 PM
I honestly think McCain (well not just think, but know considering anyone can Google his views on major issues) is a much more Moderate choice for America than most people think. Everyone I know who is going to vote for Obama (the vast majority of them anyway) go straight to "McCain is Bush. We'd be doomed for another 4 years. No way." Ummm...sorry, but McCain is not a second Bush. That isn't going to happen. John McCain tackles many issues in different ways than did Bush and on top of it all, he's openly disagreed with a lot of things the Bush administration did over the course of the past eight years. I was too little to fully get politics back in Gore/Bush and even in Kerry/Bush I wasn't crazily informed. Now that I'm older and I know how to research a bit more, I'm definitely choosing McCain over Obama for a good number of reasons.

I mean of course our nation needs change, everyone can see that. Change is good sometimes, but taking America by the ankles and shaking it for it's lunch money is probably not such a good idea. We don't want to turn what we know upside down and backwards, we want to ease into change. Hence the slow Iraq withdrawl.

You simply cannot up and run from a nation you've invaded. There was a quote from someone asking George Bush Sr. about an island near Australia that I might try to find relating to this topic. We can't just pack up and jet out of Iraq and let the place fall apart. That would be giving up on our world, giving up on the people in that nation. A lot of them don't want us there, but those extremists don't know what else to say. They've had what they think of as an "orderly" lifestyle and they don't understand how to react to the situation, so they rebel. If we were to leave, it'd be the same as turning our backs on Darfur.

speedinglight
September 12th, 2008, 06:55 PM
either way the next 4-8 years WILL be better than these last 8 FOR SURE

Allstories
September 13th, 2008, 07:01 AM
I mean of course our nation needs change, everyone can see that. Change is good sometimes, but taking America by the ankles and shaking it for it's lunch money is probably not such a good idea. We don't want to turn what we know upside down and backwards, we want to ease into change. Hence the slow Iraq withdrawl.

You're talking about raising taxes, right? I hate to break it to you, but taxes need to be raised in any event. Even if McCain is in office (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_mccain_tax_increasescontin.html). And why should change necessarily be slow? Our country is broken NOW.

Also, don't forget about McCain's disastrous pick of a VP. What if he dies? Would you suggest that Palin would be a qualified president? I just don't think our country can afford to take that kind of gamble.

Aurafire
September 13th, 2008, 09:03 AM
You're talking about raising taxes, right? I hate to break it to you, but taxes need to be raised in any event. Even if McCain is in office (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_mccain_tax_increasescontin.html). And why should change necessarily be slow? Our country is broken NOW.

Also, don't forget about McCain's disastrous pick of a VP. What if he dies? Would you suggest that Palin would be a qualified president? I just don't think our country can afford to take that kind of gamble.

The exact same thing could be said about Obama. You believe the Palin is inexperienced and would be a disaster if she got into office. Well, I believe the exact same thing about Obama, except Obama is the one actually running for president! I wouldn't take Obama to be a qualified president in a million years.

And high taxes isn't necessarily a good thing. Raising corporate taxes and income taxes of wealthy families to obscene levels like 50% or more is not what we need right now. What do you think those people do with their profits? Let it sit in a bank account and collect dust? They invest it, create new jobs, give to charity, buy property, buy new cars...these are all things that drive the economy. Take away corporate and upper class purchasing power, and you're going to ruin the country even more.

We should create government programs that actually work: that help the lower class get themselves out of poverty. This does not mean hand-outs or tax breaks. It means giving them the means to help themselves instead of just throwing money at them, which does diddly-squat. I also think that lower class families should receive cheaper healthcare if they cannot afford it themselves. Really, if everyone just took some personal responsibility instead of sitting on their lazy butts and letting the government take care of them (not everyone, just some people), we wouldn't be in this much of a jam.

x Cutie x
September 13th, 2008, 10:12 AM
I like Barack Obama. I'd definitely vote for him if I had to make a choice.

Allstories
September 13th, 2008, 11:20 AM
The exact same thing could be said about Obama. You believe the Palin is inexperienced and would be a disaster if she got into office. Well, I believe the exact same thing about Obama, except Obama is the one actually running for president! I wouldn't take Obama to be a qualified president in a million years.

I already mentioned near the beginning of this therad all of the things he's been, and he sounds pretty qualified to me. I don't think 'experience' has much to do with the success of your presidency, though, as long as you are an informed and intelligent individual, at least if we look at history. Lincoln had about as much experience as Obama does now, and he's arguably the best president we've ever had. Conversely, Buchanan was very experienced but is typically regarded as one of the worst. In McCain's case, I certainly don't think any experience you have as a candidate is any good for the country if you have horrible policies and happen to be a blithering idiot.

I understand you have to sort of 'play the game' so to speak in order to be a politician, but he's reversed his policies on just too many issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) just so as to fit with his party. In speeches he refers to borders that don't even exist, his 'energy plan' consists of not spending any money on renewable energy, he opposes Iraq timetables (which even the Bush administration is entertaining the idea of as of recently), and then there's his VP choice, Sarah Palin, who is absolutely indefensible as a VP choice. I do not, for the life of me, understand what McCain has that makes him trustworthy that Obama does not.

Really, if everyone just took some personal responsibility instead of sitting on their lazy butts and letting the government take care of them (not everyone, just some people), we wouldn't be in this much of a jam.

This is something I really despise about Republican arguments like these, and that is that they sound really great and convincing when they are merely vague, general statements about groups of people, they absolutely fall apart when applied on an individual basis. Do you really think that if you approached a bunch of people who were below the poverty line, and were struggling to survive, and maybe even had kids to support on top of all that, and you asked them why they were still in poverty, that any sort of substantial number of them would say "Well, no reason, I guess. I'm just lazy!" IS THIS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE ME BELIEVE?

Aurafire
September 13th, 2008, 11:56 AM
This is something I really despise about Republican arguments like these, and that is that they sound really great and convincing when they are merely vague, general statements about groups of people, they absolutely fall apart when applied on an individual basis. Do you really think that if you approached a bunch of people who were below the poverty line, and were struggling to survive, and maybe even had kids to support on top of all that, and you asked them why they were still in poverty, that any sort of substantial number of them would say "Well, no reason, I guess. I'm just lazy!" IS THIS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE ME BELIEVE?

I'd have you believe that at least some of those people are being lazy and don't really care. You can't argue with that. There are people in this country that live off the government who have the means to get themselves off of wellfare programs. But hey, why should they when the government takes care of them?

And THIS is something I really despise about the Democrat argument, that somehow every poor person in this country somehow got the short straw in the draw of life and it's not their fault their below the poverty line. Bull. This is America, and if you put your mind to it, you can be happy, make money, and live comfortably. Go to community college. Take out a student loan. Really, it's not that difficult. But they decide to slack off in high school, don't go to college, get a low paying job, and COMPLAIN about being poor.

Before you go jumping down my throat, I'm not saying that there are poor people in this country that are poor for no good reasons. Of course people have legitimate problems that are causing money problems, but don't tell me that a good number of those people didn't do everything they could to get themselves above the poverty line. It's just not true. We are a lazy nation with lazy people who don't want to work, and lucky for them, our government supports them by throwing money at them.

At least Republicans take a positive stance on the issue. People make it sounds like Republicans are evil and hate poor people and don't want to help. Democrats just yell boo and criticize us for not understanding what people are going through. Republicans want to help people help themselves. Democrats just want to help people by throwing money at them. You tell me which is going to be more worthwhile?

Allstories
September 13th, 2008, 12:48 PM
I'd have you believe that at least some of those people are being lazy and don't really care. You can't argue with that. There are people in this country that live off the government who have the means to get themselves off of wellfare programs. But hey, why should they when the government takes care of them?

This was my point. Lazy poor people exist, sure, but I have real trouble believing that they are much more than an overwhelming minority of the poor in whole.

This is America, and if you put your mind to it, you can be happy, make money, and live comfortably. Go to community college. Take out a student loan. Really, it's not that difficult. But they decide to slack off in high school, don't go to college, get a low paying job, and COMPLAIN about being poor.
That's pretty naive. I hate to break it to you, but the world is more complicated than that, and even if it's mathematically possible for you to get yourself out of poverty, that doesn't mean that everyone has the education and foreknowledge to actually do anything about it. I can't imagine that very many people would suspend their right to, y'know, eat and have shelter in order to pay for some community college, and good luck paying off student loans when you have no money. Good luck if you happen to have children to feed. Good luck finding a job with the economy the Bush administration left us in.

Republicans want to help people help themselves. Democrats just want to help people. You tell me which is going to be more worthwhile?

Uhh, the more straightforward one, with less pointless rigmarole, and less people falling through the cracks (ie. the latter option)? I don't understand your point.

Aurafire
September 13th, 2008, 02:42 PM
This was my point. Lazy poor people exist, sure, but I have real trouble believing that they are much more than an overwhelming minority of the poor in whole.


That's pretty naive. I hate to break it to you, but the world is more complicated than that, and even if it's mathematically possible for you to get yourself out of poverty, that doesn't mean that everyone has the education and foreknowledge to actually do anything about it. I can't imagine that very many people would suspend their right to, y'know, eat and have shelter in order to pay for some community college, and good luck paying off student loans when you have no money. Good luck if you happen to have children to feed. Good luck finding a job with the economy the Bush administration left us in.



Uhh, the more straightforward one, with less pointless rigmarole, and less people falling through the cracks (ie. the latter option)? I don't understand your point.

I edited my last sentence, I forgot to add a part, hopefully it makes more sense now.

Don't really feel like debating this anymore, let's agree to disagree...at least for now on this particular subject.

speedinglight
September 15th, 2008, 10:08 AM
Hmm decisions decisions.....


ill think when i haveth the time now...

Netto Azure
September 15th, 2008, 04:28 PM
Much one can miss if you don't go to PC for the weekend...Anyways as you can see last week the candidates have started using campaign smears (aka "stretching the truth") for political advantage...(Eh should be normal by now)...
Anyways I missed commenting on lipstick-on-a-pig-gate from last week...

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/08/26/tomo/story.jpg

I know AuraSphere is just going to say "Liberal Media" But how could you still say it's liberal media when all they comment on is "the stupid campaign distraction"....I've lost trust in the traditional media and have moved on to NPR, PBS, (At least these two are partially publicly funded and eh less "ads") BBC, The Internet (Yeah..yeah..."Liberal Media" AuraSphere...) I know I'm showing a comic from a "liberal" blog but he does show funny portrayals of current events that must be shared...

Since I'm on the topic of journalistic quality I was listening to PBS's Bill Moyer's Journal and they were talking about the quality of news we are getting today with the so called "Blogosphere" and the Internet added to the mix...this should be common sense but I feel I should reiterate that always remember to FACT CHECK everything you see (aka News) if you have the time...from this thread(The Internet) to traditional media...Heh it's paradoxical but the Internet is a good place to start =P

They're also right...If we want a relatively non-partisan interview on the issues for this campaign we should have BBC come over and Intervew ALL the candidates (Both Presidential/VP) not just the ones from the major parties because they will interupt if they see hot air...but eh just something to think about...

Aurafire
September 15th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Much one can miss if you don't go to PC for the weekend...Anyways as you can see last week the candidates have started using campaign smears (aka "stretching the truth") for political advantage...(Eh should be normal by now)...
Anyways I missed commenting on lipstick-on-a-pig-gate from last week...

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/08/26/tomo/

I know AuraSphere is just going to say "Liberal Media" But how could you still say it's liberal media when all they comment on is "the stupid campaign distraction"....I've lost trust in the traditional media and have moved on to NPR, PBS, (At least these two are partially publicly funded and eh less "ads") BBC, The Internet (Yeah..yeah..."Liberal Media" AuraSphere...) I know I'm showing a comic from a "liberal" blog but he does show funny portrayals of current events that must be shared...

Since I'm on the topic of journalistic quality I was listening to PBS's Bill Moyer's Journal and they were talking about the quality of news we are getting today with the so called "Blogosphere" and the Internet added to the mix...this should be common sense but I feel I should reiterate that always remember to FACT CHECK everything you see (aka News) if you have the time...from this thread(The Internet) to traditional media...Heh it's paradoxical but the Internet is a good place to start =P

They're also right...If we want a relatively non-partisan interview on the issues for this campaign we should have BBC come over and Intervew ALL the candidates (Both Presidential/VP) not just the ones from the major parties because they will interupt if they see hot air...but eh just something to think about...

Well the internet is a whole different story. No one "owns" the internet, anyone can post whatever they want. There are maybe a few reliable news sources that I've found. One is www.realclearpolitics.com , Which posts editorials from many different columnists giving both points of view. But really, anyone getting their news from the internet isn't really getting news...

The comic is just alright for me =P

Atomic Reactor
September 15th, 2008, 05:11 PM
It's hard to believe half the things I hear on TV anymore.
I always go for republicans, which, I know, isn't the most logical approach.
It's just something I do. So obviously, my choice is for MC Cain :)

Republicans FTW :D

Aurafire
September 15th, 2008, 05:21 PM
It's hard to believe half the things I hear on TV anymore.
I always go for republicans, which, I know, isn't the most logical approach.
It's just something I do. So obviously, my choice is for MC Cain :)

Republicans FTW :D

Gasp, a fellow republican, I'm not alone!

WOOO McCain Palin 08!!!

Atomic Reactor
September 15th, 2008, 05:23 PM
lol XD
fa sho, I'm very conservative.
I hate how everything on TV is usually liberal :(
It depresses my political feelings lol.

Aurafire
September 15th, 2008, 05:30 PM
lol XD
fa sho, I'm very conservative.
I hate how everything on TV is usually liberal :(
It depresses my political feelings lol.

Me too...I stick to Fox News, where the stories aren't biased =P

Atomic Reactor
September 15th, 2008, 05:33 PM
:D

same here!
lol i like fox news :)
Oreily FTW!
and Hannity :P

Aurafire
September 15th, 2008, 05:37 PM
:D

same here!
lol i like fox news :)
Oreily FTW!
and Hannity :P

I know!!!

Everyone hates O'reily, but that's only because he makes liberals so mad =P

Atomic Reactor
September 15th, 2008, 05:40 PM
I love watching that! They get so pissed it makes me laugh XD

did you know that he's like... 73?
i guess he gets a lot of botox.

Aurafire
September 15th, 2008, 05:42 PM
I love watching that! They get so pissed it makes me laugh XD

did you know that he's like... 73?
i guess he gets a lot of botox.

59 according to wikipedia O.O

But yeah he's so awesome.

Atomic Reactor
September 15th, 2008, 05:44 PM
Oh, lol. He said he was 73, but now that I recall, he did sound a bit sarcastic lol

Aurafire
September 15th, 2008, 05:50 PM
Oh, lol. He said he was 73, but now that I recall, he did sound a bit sarcastic lol

That must be it....I'd trust wikipedia anyway.

I was gonna say, he didn't look that old =P

Atomic Reactor
September 15th, 2008, 05:52 PM
lol, wikipedia is like, against the rules for references XD (not here, other places)
But yeah, I think we should cease this conversation, it has nothing to do with the '08 elections lol

XD

Aurafire
September 15th, 2008, 05:53 PM
lol, wikipedia is like, against the rules for references XD (not here, other places)
But yeah, I think we should cease this conversation, it has nothing to do with the '08 elections lol

XD

Kinda true....lol. Sorry tommy =X

Netto Azure
September 16th, 2008, 09:32 AM
Kinda true....lol. Sorry tommy =X

Scary...you guys actually listen to what they're saying...O_O...Eh doesn't really matter...

But anyways more depressing economic news:

Global Market Turmoils continue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7617976.stm
(The Lehman Bros. collapsing and Merryl-Lynch merger is old news =P)

AIG Teeters as Markets face more trouble: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94660752

How can I help but be pessimistic right now...I know your going to oppose what I'm going to say but you have to realize that as the Economy falters people need Social Services even more...But at the same time we're cutting Social Services for our grandiose buyouts of Wall St.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/07/29/tomo/

Eh..At least the Federal government has draw the line on the Lehman.Bros and actually started to discipline Wall St...Also Global Diversification has cushioned the blow...

Also I watched the PBS special "American education in the 21st Century" and is NCLB really not working? I mean they did also point out hat we don't have a National Standard and have unequal distribution of funding...But accountability has to count for something...

Netto Azure
September 19th, 2008, 06:46 AM
Are we going to Bail out everyone??? We already have a large budget deficit!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26787984?GT1=43001

Thoughts?

Aurafire
September 19th, 2008, 07:06 AM
Are we going to Bail out everyone??? We already have a large budget deficit!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26787984?GT1=43001

Thoughts?

I don't particularly enjoy debating economic issues because I'm not very educated about the economy. It's harder for me to take a stance because you can't really inject morals into your argument...and that's probably my strong point =P

Allstories
September 19th, 2008, 07:18 AM
So what do the McCain supporters here think of Palin? I think she's an insultingly poor VP choice, even for the Republicans, but it doesn't seem to bother them too much. Is it just begrudging acceptance?

Aurafire
September 19th, 2008, 09:14 AM
So what do the McCain supporters here think of Palin? I think she's an insultingly poor VP choice, even for the Republicans, but it doesn't seem to bother them too much. Is it just begrudging acceptance?

In an election like this, I think the republicans needed to do something out of the ordinary to stand out from the pack. Whether you like her or not, Sarah Palin is definitely getting the republicans some attention (granted, some of this is negative). I was really quite surprised to hear that she was elected, but I gave her a closer and found she has strong conservative values. I also agree with many of her policies. It'll actually give republicans something to be enthusiastic about this election year. So all in all, I think it was the choice that needed to be made to give the GOP a chance in November. The only problem I see is, obviously, lack of experience, which the Democrats will (and should) play on during the debates. Should be fun to watch =P

Xairmo
September 19th, 2008, 09:15 AM
So what do the McCain supporters here think of Palin? I think she's an insultingly poor VP choice, even for the Republicans, but it doesn't seem to bother them too much. Is it just begrudging acceptance?
I'm not a McCain supporter but I can not stand Palin. She's just such a-- well I think you know what word I would put here >.>
I think McCain picked her as his VP as a pathetic attempt to win over "fence sitting" Hilary supporters.

Aurafire
September 19th, 2008, 09:27 AM
I'm not a McCain supporter but I can not stand Palin. She's just such a-- well I think you know what word I would put here >.>
I think McCain picked her as his VP as a pathetic attempt to win over "fence sitting" Hilary supporters.

I'd put the same word on Hillary.....

And why do Democrats get so mad about Palin being picked to win over Hillary voters? Do people actually think that women swing voters are going to say "Well, I'm a Democrat, and even though I disagree with every one of Palin's beliefs, I'll still vote for her because she's a woman"?

No, Sarah Palin was picked for her strong conservative policies. Yes, she's a woman, but with McCain being the "Maverick" that he is, they needed a true republican on the ticket to win back moderates that might have been leaning the other way.

Really, that argument is quite silly when you think about it. Everyone knows she won't win that many Hillary voters. And if that's the case, why complain about it? It's a win for the Democrats, right? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if Democrats think that choosing Palin was a horrible move for Republicans, why must they keep bashing away at her as though she was some type of political criminal? Because they see her as a threat. Someone who will actually help the Republicans in November. That's the reason for these ruthless attacks on her and her family. It's fine if you don't like her, but really, don't mistake her for someone who was chosen to win Hillary voters. That's obviously not the case. And don't pretend like she's a horrible VP choice...because she is absolutely not.

Allstories
September 19th, 2008, 09:48 AM
if Democrats think that choosing Palin was a horrible move for Republicans, why must they keep bashing away at her as though she was some type of political criminal?

She wasn't a horrible move for the Republicans. She was a horrible move for America. If McCain croaks, this lady is going to be president of the United States. And she is absolutely NOT a good VP choice. She has demonstrated an incredible amount of ignorance regarding how our country works. She had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was, she has condemned abortion under any circumstance unless the woman happens to be her own daughter, she has admitted multiple times to not even knowing what a vice president does. Her executive experience includes being the governor of a state with no people in it. She is applauded for all this and yet a state senator/community organizer/harvard law graduate is considered 'inexperienced' or 'untested'. Give me a break.

Also, I wouldn't consider McCain a 'maverick' after he's reversed practically every one of his somewhat-less-than-conservative political positions (http://www.drudge.com/news/109929/mc-cains-reversed-himself-61-times-key) to the point of becoming a hollow puppet-man for the Republican party.

Aurafire
September 19th, 2008, 10:04 AM
She wasn't a horrible move for the Republicans. She was a horrible move for America. If McCain croaks, this lady is going to be president of the United States. And she is absolutely NOT a good VP choice. She has demonstrated an incredible amount of ignorance regarding how our country works. She had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was, she has condemned abortion under any circumstance unless the woman happens to be her own daughter, she has admitted multiple times to not even knowing what a vice president does. Her executive experience includes being the governor of a state with no people in it. She is applauded for all this and yet a state senator/community organizer/harvard law graduate is considered 'inexperienced' or 'untested'. Give me a break.

Also, I wouldn't consider McCain a 'maverick' after he's reversed practically every one of his somewhat-less-than-conservative political positions (http://www.drudge.com/news/109929/mc-cains-reversed-himself-61-times-key) to the point of becoming a hollow puppet-man for the Republican party.

I respect your opinion that Palin is not a good VP choice, and in some ways she isn't, but you absolutely cannot use the experience argument to its full potential while you have Obama running for president with one Senate term under his belt. He has a little more if not the same amount of experience as Palin. That's just the way I see it, and you see it the other way. Really, if you think about it, the experience arguments cancel each other out and we should just be concentrating on actually policies. And besides: Obama is running for president. Palin is running for vice president. They simply cannot be compared equally. The difference is Palin might get into office if the Republicans win, but Obama WILL get into office if the Democrats win.

And I'm sorry if you think liberal smear sites are "reliable" sources of information, but I happen to prefer getting my news from somewhere that isn't totally biased and actually has cited sources...

Allstories
September 19th, 2008, 10:38 AM
I'm not saying that Palin isn't experienced and Obama is (even though I personally believe that to be the case), I'm saying that it's hypocritical of McCain to criticize Obama's lack of experience when he himself chose a VP with even less experience.

Aurafire
September 19th, 2008, 12:07 PM
I'm not saying that Palin isn't experienced and Obama is (even though I personally believe that to be the case), I'm saying that it's hypocritical of McCain to criticize Obama's lack of experience when he himself chose a VP with even less experience.

Just as Democrats are hypocrites when they criticize Palin's lack of experience when they have someone running for president who also lacks experience. Our definitions of experience obviously differ, but I see the point of your argument, just as you hopefully see the point of mine.

ChronicEdge
September 19th, 2008, 01:38 PM
She wasn't a horrible move for the Republicans. She was a horrible move for America. If McCain croaks, this lady is going to be president of the United States. And she is absolutely NOT a good VP choice. She has demonstrated an incredible amount of ignorance regarding how our country works. She had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was, she has condemned abortion under any circumstance unless the woman happens to be her own daughter, she has admitted multiple times to not even knowing what a vice president does. Her executive experience includes being the governor of a state with no people in it. She is applauded for all this and yet a state senator/community organizer/harvard law graduate is considered 'inexperienced' or 'untested'. Give me a break.

Also, I wouldn't consider McCain a 'maverick' after he's reversed practically every one of his somewhat-less-than-conservative political positions (http://www.drudge.com/news/109929/mc-cains-reversed-himself-61-times-key) to the point of becoming a hollow puppet-man for the Republican party.

Very well spoken. Bravo, sirrah.

the bitter end.
September 19th, 2008, 02:29 PM
Obama is probably going to win. I honestly want Obama to win because he is highly intelligent, young and the best of the two candidates. I say that with the upmost respect. One of the issues that is important to me is getting the troops out of Iraq. The war is needless. McCain supports the war and Obama does not and that is one thing that makes me very happy. On the Death penalty Obama does not support it but he does not want it abolished even though "it does little to deter crimes". Mccain supprts the death penalty. On Guantanemo bay both cadidates do not like it and want it gone. And the last thing I really care about at the moment (all I can really think of) is civil libertys and rights.

Just look here and I believe you will see why I favor Barack Obama.

http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-civil-liberties.php

These are just my opinions so please do not flame me. You can surely disagree but please do not say "idiot! obama is a terroorrizt! obama = osama!"

I agree that we need to get them out, but an instant withdraw of all the troops simultaneously would cost lots of money, and would trigger attacks on the united states, I think they should be withdrawn slowly.

Netto Azure
September 19th, 2008, 02:46 PM
I agree that we need to get them out, but an instant withdraw of all the troops simultaneously would cost lots of money, and would trigger attacks on the united states, I think they should be withdrawn slowly.

They are being withrawn slowly from Iraq...AND THEN MOVED TO AFGANISTAN!!! Lulz =P...But if you payed attention Obama has been saying he is more willing to listen to the Chief of Staff. So they will be probably withrawn slowly in either administration.
That is also my opinion on Sudden withrawal...and you do have to remember All candidates (considering third parties) Are/will be politicians so they will flip-flop on the issues once they hold on to power. (I'm so pessimistic D=)

Volkner's Apprentice
September 19th, 2008, 03:41 PM
They are being withrawn slowly from Iraq...AND THEN MOVED TO AFGANISTAN!!! Lulz =P...

That's not very funny..

And have people heard of living until ninety years old these days? Or heck, even eighty-three? It's happening more and more now that we've got these crazy new things called..well, hospitals. McCain might be old, but he isn't going to die the VERY SECOND he gets into office. This idea is the only thing that really bugs me when people say that. I've got a lot of respect for what both parties are trying to accomplish, but when you say "Well I'm not voting for him because he's old!" that's just stupid..not saying that anyone here has presented that argument, but when it keeps coming up as "and if McCain dies" O_o...don't worry about who's going to become President if he dies. We can deal with that if such a crazy thing were ever to happen. I mean he's seventy something and still bopping around the world with an upbeat personality, he certainly isn't being pushed in a wheel chair connected to life support. I'm sure he could crank out four more years for us lovely Americans if elected into office.

Sure he's old, we get it. Stop bringing it up and look at these people as people instead of considering one the equivalent to a dried up tomato every time someone makes an argument in favor of him.

Netto Azure
September 19th, 2008, 06:59 PM
That's not very funny..

And have people heard of living until ninety years old these days? Or heck, even eighty-three? It's happening more and more now that we've got these crazy new things called..well, hospitals. McCain might be old, but he isn't going to die the VERY SECOND he gets into office. This idea is the only thing that really bugs me when people say that. I've got a lot of respect for what both parties are trying to accomplish, but when you say "Well I'm not voting for him because he's old!" that's just stupid..not saying that anyone here has presented that argument, but when it keeps coming up as "and if McCain dies" O_o...don't worry about who's going to become President if he dies. We can deal with that if such a crazy thing were ever to happen. I mean he's seventy something and still bopping around the world with an upbeat personality, he certainly isn't being pushed in a wheel chair connected to life support. I'm sure he could crank out four more years for us lovely Americans if elected into office.

Sure he's old, we get it. Stop bringing it up and look at these people as people instead of considering one the equivalent to a dried up tomato every time someone makes an argument in favor of him.

I understand your sentiment that it wasn't funny. But if I don't keep myself upbeat in this already historic election (Made even more historic in this exceptional economic week.) I'll probably become more depressed and ultimately not care. Don't think of me as someone who does not respect our soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice. (I could see the hint in that single sentence.)

I do agree that McCain will live on...but there is still that chance...(at the same time there is also the chance of Obama being assassinated.) But yes let's not make that an issue (just another stupid campaign distraction at least we are no longer paying attention to that lipstick-gate)...and actually talk about the real issues such as the economy, education, health-care, and foreign policy.


I think this financial economic meltdown refocuses the general public's attention to the real issues...Which is a good thing...It might even encourage more people to be part of the political process or vote.


Also I know, many would disagree though, that Bush 2008 isn't Bush 2001-2004 (I'm not defending his massive blunders it's just too massive and obvious, they are blunders. His administration still deserves the blame.) He has taken a more "normal" political approach such as diplomacy unlike his former doctrine of full-on conservatism. So the next administration should check out what Bush '09 does instead of reversing everything.

Volkner's Apprentice
September 19th, 2008, 07:19 PM
Sorry about that tommy, I only partially hinted about the soldiers-care, but the main reason was just the subject matter, I just don't like it when people let things slip on that note since I'm an army brat. No worries! I totally feel the same way about the election and the future of our nation, there's just too many things to get depressed about that we need to make sure we stay positive! ^_^

Netto Azure
September 19th, 2008, 08:09 PM
Sorry about that tommy, I only partially hinted about the soldiers-care, but the main reason was just the subject matter, I just don't like it when people let things slip on that note since I'm an army brat. No worries! I totally feel the same way about the election and the future of our nation, there's just too many things to get depressed about that we need to make sure we stay positive! ^_^

Thanks =D I just don't feel right having to watch my back for enemies so I try to mitigate or apologize. But hey that's politics D=

Anyways as a topic for debate since the economy isn't our strong suit:

How should we address the education crisis?

I know some of you guys touched on this earlier. I mean seriously my HS has a 50% Drop-out rate =O Please try to convince me since I really just think that students aren't motivated enough. We already tried accountability through No Child Left Behind (Congress should just make a law called "NO ONE LEFT BEHIND") and it had mixed results at best.

Also on the issue of the economy...If you are well versed on that topic or have a opinion on the candidates position...don't be discouraged...help us understand.

I was listening to PBS earlier and this quote really "stuck" on my head: "Remember when people said earlier that they could see the light at the end of the tunnel? That was just the headlights of the train that we were going to hit."

Also what do you people think of one-issue voters (Of course they exist...) you might consider them swing voters who could turn this election around (I know they're a small group but remember how "weird" the Electoral College System is set up...that could change everything (:_: )

Volkner's Apprentice
September 19th, 2008, 08:48 PM
Also what do you people think of one-issue voters (Of course they exist...) you might consider them swing voters who could turn this election around (I know they're a small group but remember how "weird" the Electoral College System is set up...that could change everything (:_: )


You mean specifically people who vote based solely on candidates views of say, the economy, or education or something? They definitely exist..I get a lot of one winded responses like "Well...um...but THE WAR!" Yeah..alright, sure, there's the war, but howz about teh rest of the nation? O_o haha. So obviously I'm not a fan. I don't, however, blame some of these people, because a lot of them are high school/college level or extremely religious parents or stuff like that and simply haven't educated themselves enough in all-around politics. I was definitely one of these, basing most of my views off of abortion, gun control, marriage laws, etc. Kind of lame, but I've broadened my horizons. Wheeeee.


As for education...hm. Yeah i think our HS drop out rate was pretty bad, which really surprised me. We definitely need some nation-wide gimmicks to get more motivation in the classroom especially the second kids hit high school in 8th-10th grade (depending on where you live.) Honestly, I think I could have been a 5 class AP student my senior year had it not been for laziness, boredom, and all around uninteresting teaching methods during my middle school/9-10th grades.

Aurafire
September 19th, 2008, 10:12 PM
I'm definitely all for more spending on education. I was personally very displeased with the quality of our teachers...I could have taught better than some of them -_-

Allstories
September 20th, 2008, 07:53 AM
McCain might be old, but he isn't going to die the VERY SECOND he gets into office.

Even if he has a good chance of living, you still never know, and it strikes me as incredibly selfish and negligent to put our country on the line like that.

Ivysaur
September 21st, 2008, 02:24 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/bizarre-mccain-remarks-ap_n_127346.html

So it seems that Mr. Foreign Policy doesn't know where is Spain, doesn't know who is the Spanish Prime Minister, or thinks that Spain, a NATO member and an US ally, may be potentially dangerous in the fight for global democracy.

Kudos for McCain.

Volkner's Apprentice
September 21st, 2008, 09:51 AM
This is kind of off topic, but do you live in Spain, Went? :P What's the government like there?

Red1530
September 21st, 2008, 01:09 PM
I would like to address the concerns about Governor Palin. When she was nominated for Vice-President, she already had more experience then Senator Obama. She ran a small town and a small business. She is currently running a state and while running that state took on corruption in her own party. While she lacks foreign policy experience, she is not going to be conducting foreign policy. It is highly unlikely that if Senator McCain was elected President, he is going to die in the first thirty days office. So if McCain dies in office, Palin will be ready as she has some time for training, unlike to top spot.

Allstories
September 21st, 2008, 03:45 PM
She is absolutely NOT more experienced than Barack Obama. Jesus christ there is more to being a president than being in some kind of two-bit executive position (not to mention she's the governor of ALASKA, which has fewer residents than a good number of major US cities, and is second only to maybe Hawaii in terms of being isolated from the rest of the country). George W. Bush was the governor of TEXAS (the second most populated state in the US!) and he turned out to be, by all accounts, one of the worst presidents we've ever had. Ever. (Seriously, at least the Ohio Gang was prosecuted for their crimes. You'll probably never be able to say that about the dudes we have now)

What the hell is it that makes this lady so goddamn special? Obama was a Harvard Law graduate, a goddamn constitutional law TEACHER at the University of Chicago for twelve years, and then a member of the senate for the last twelve years. His personality when speaking suggests that he is an intelligent, rational man with a very calm and friendly, albeit serious demeanor. Governor Palin, by comparison, comes off as utterly retarded, and displaying no discernable understanding of how our country works. Have you seen the interviews with her? She doesn't know anything except that everything is in god's hands and we should trust god to fix our problems. Have you been paying attention to the press conferences with her? That's right, you HAVEN'T, BECAUSE THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY KNOWS THAT SHE DOESN'T KNOW A GODDAMN THING AND ARE SHELTERING HER FROM THE PUBLIC.

There isn't a chance in hell that thirty days of McCain being in the White House is going to make her any more prepared to lead our country if she should need to. Merely being in an executive position does not magically imbue you with years-worth of political knowledge and experience and make you suddenly able to suspend your biases and know how to seperate church and state and all that other noise. The fact that McCain picked her as his VP is the biggest insult to our country in years and both of them should be disqualified from the election and then deported for their sheer selfishness, greed, and stupidity.

Note: Text outlined in RED denotes emotional hyperbole and should not be used as an excuse to ignore the rest of this post. Even though it's all true.

Aurafire
September 21st, 2008, 05:47 PM
She is absolutely NOT more experienced than Barack Obama. Jesus christ there is more to being a president than being in some kind of two-bit executive position (not to mention she's the governor of ALASKA, which has fewer residents than a good number of major US cities, and is second only to maybe Hawaii in terms of being isolated from the rest of the country). George W. Bush was the governor of TEXAS (the second most populated state in the US!) and he turned out to be, by all accounts, one of the worst presidents we've ever had. Ever. (Seriously, at least the Ohio Gang was prosecuted for their crimes. You'll probably never be able to say that about the dudes we have now)

What the hell is it that makes this lady so goddamn special? Obama was a Harvard Law graduate, a goddamn constitutional law TEACHER at the University of Chicago for twelve years, and then a member of the senate for the last twelve years. His personality when speaking suggests that he is an intelligent, rational man with a very calm and friendly, albeit serious demeanor. Governor Palin, by comparison, comes off as utterly retarded, and displaying no discernable understanding of how our country works. Have you seen the interviews with her? She doesn't know anything except that everything is in god's hands and we should trust god to fix our problems. Have you been paying attention to the press conferences with her? That's right, you HAVEN'T, BECAUSE THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY KNOWS THAT SHE DOESN'T KNOW A GODDAMN THING AND ARE SHELTERING HER FROM THE PUBLIC.

There isn't a chance in hell that thirty days of McCain being in the White House is going to make her any more prepared to lead our country if she should need to. Merely being in an executive position does not magically imbue you with years-worth of political knowledge and experience and make you suddenly able to suspend your biases and know how to seperate church and state and all that other noise. The fact that McCain picked her as his VP is the biggest insult to our country in years and both of them should be disqualified from the election and then deported for their sheer selfishness, greed, and stupidity.

Note: Text outlined in RED denotes emotional hyperbole and should not be used as an excuse to ignore the rest of this post. Even though it's all true.

The thing you don't realize is that your argument sounds exactly as ridiculous to Republicans as ours probably does to you. You trying to say Obama has more experience than Palin is just as ridiculous.

Get the hell out of your stupid little liberal fantasy world an WAKE UP! Respect other peoples opinions, Don't insult them. I don't hate Obama, I just don't think he's qualified to be president. Being a law professor at UChicago doesn't qualify him AT ALL to be president. And those 12 years of senate duty were not all in the US senate. Do I have to call him utterly retarded? Absolutely not. I even respect him in some ways. He's done some pretty incredible things. You on the other hand, feel the need to treat the other side as though they are young, stupid, reckless, and naive children who don't know anything.

Let me tell you something: Sarah Palin has actual MORALS upon which she bases her decisions and policies. Sure, she's religious and traditional. But they are her personal beliefs, which you feel the need to make fun because they are different than yours. What happened to that liberal fairness we're all so fond of? Oh wait, that's right! It's only fair if you believe exactly what they believe! Other wise, you're just a complete idiot!

Because, you see, Liberals are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They preach fairness and equality, yet violently attack those with different beliefs (much like you have). They hide under the veil of patriotism and liberty, yet feel the need to DRASTICALLY change what has made America so great and prosperous. You claim to be calm and fair-headed, yet jump down the throats of those that oppose you. (see above quote). What's the matter? Does little bitty Sarah Palin frighten you? Does she threaten your incredibly warped and ridiculous views on how America is the enemy and we must apologize to the world for our great sins against humanity? You claim to care about America and it's future, but the only thing you care about is getting Obama into office and dragging America towards secular-progressivism and total destruction of basic values that our country holds dear. You claim to love your country, but really....do you?

I don't expect you to understand what I've just said, because you've already fallen into your liberal fantasy world, and you've passed the point of no return. I've tried to be civil and respectful when debating you in this thread, but when you write stuff like you've just written, I've lost all respect. Calling Sarah Palin utterly retarded? Where's your liberal kindness? Face it dude, you only respect people who think like you. If you actually believe that McCain and Palin should be deported, you really are quite a moron. Last time I checked, selfishness greed and stupidity were not grounds for deportation (Oh wait! That's right! John McCain and Sarah Palin actually like America and what we stand for!)

I don't agree with Obama, but I don't call him stupid and retarded like you do to Sarah Palin. That is what sets us apart. Oh and by the way, Obama is just as inexperienced as Palin...deal with it. Don't cry about it.

~Apologies to those I've offended, but it needed to be said.~

Allstories
September 21st, 2008, 08:09 PM
Because, you see, Liberals are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They preach fairness and equality, yet violently attack those with different beliefs (much like you have). They hide under the veil of patriotism and liberty, yet feel the need to DRASTICALLY change what has made America so great and prosperous. You claim to be calm and fair-headed, yet jump down the throats of those that oppose you. (see above quote). What's the matter? Does little bitty Sarah Palin frighten you? Does she threaten your incredibly warped and ridiculous views on how America is the enemy and we must apologize to the world for our great sins against humanity? You claim to care about America and it's future, but the only thing you care about is getting Obama into office and dragging America towards secular-progressivism and total destruction of basic values that our country holds dear. You claim to love your country, but really....do you?

Way to put like a million words in my mouth. You're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with your own imaginary defeatist liberal nemesis. When did I say all the things you just said I said? You're making stuff up. You're just taking all these vague generalizations about liberals that you have and just throwing them at me haphazardly without attacking any of my actual arguments. Stop hiding.

If you actually believe that McCain and Palin should be deported, you really are quite a moron. Last time I checked, selfishness greed and stupidity were not grounds for deportation (Oh wait! That's right! John McCain and Sarah Palin actually like America and what we stand for!)

Way to ignore my disclaimer there, chief.

I don't agree with Obama, but I don't call him stupid and retarded like you do to Sarah Palin. That is what sets us apart. Oh and by the way, Obama is just as inexperienced as Palin...deal with it. Don't cry about it.

How? Considering all the facts, how is Palin more experienced than Obama? At all? This woman doesn't know what the freakin' Bush doctrine is, or even what the job she is running for actually involves! If Obama or even just Joe Biden displayed this kind of ignorance and naivete the Republicans would rip him to shreds, but if a woman is ignorant it's okay! She just loves our country! Reality be damned! Let's coddle her into one of the most important and powerful positions in the world!

Aura, I want you to be straight with me here. Instead of prancing around the issue and victimizing yourself, tell me straight:
Why is it okay that millions of people in our country are left simply unable to afford health care, whereas practically every other country in the deveoped world has a universal health care system? Why is it okay that Palin claims to have respected her daughters right to choose when she herself opposes the right to choose even in the case of rape or incest? Why is it okay that Palin attributes so many of her political positions to 'faith' in a country that is supposed to separate church and state? Why is okay for Palin to claim to have foreign policy experience because of her proximity to Russia? (Need I point out that the part of Russia that her state borders is scarcely populated and is, ironically, pretty much the Alaska of Russia? Why is it okay to NOT know what the Bush Doctrine is? What makes Palin more qualified than George W. Bush? What 'basic values' of our country would be destroyed by 'secular-progressivism' if Obama gets elected? Be specific.


And for the record, I love my country, but it's because I care about it that I can't close my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears and say 'lalalalala' in the face of serious issues.

Aurafire
September 21st, 2008, 09:19 PM
Way to put like a million words in my mouth. You're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with your own imaginary defeatist liberal nemesis. You're just taking all these vague generalizations about liberals that you have and just throwing them at me haphazardly without attacking any of my actual arguments. Stop hiding.

My generalizations about liberals are not vague, you just proved that to me with your original post about Palin being "retarded" and worthy of being deported. My post was not about your arguments, it was about general liberal beliefs that you obviously agree with. I don't feel like I can address an argument as silly as someone being stupid and retarded when they are obviously not. And I will stand by and defend every one of my statements about liberals, just like you stand by your beliefs about conservatives.



Way to ignore my disclaimer there, chief.

The mere fact that you believe so strongly in McCain and Palin are insulting to America and are stupid and greedy is so foreign to me, even mentioning something like deporting them is quite angering. That's just me though.



How? Considering all the facts, how is Palin more experienced than Obama? At all? This woman doesn't know what the freakin' Bush doctrine is, or even what the job she is running for actually involves! If Obama or even just Joe Biden displayed this kind of ignorance and naivete the Republicans would rip him to shreds, but if a woman is ignorant it's okay! She just loves our country! Reality be damned! Let's coddle her into one of the most important and powerful positions in the developed world!

I never said more experienced, I said she had close to an equal amount of experience. First of all, any "ripping apart of" by republican would probably be doused by the liberal media anyway. Second, how can you even say that about coddling her into an important position when you have someone just as inexperienced running for the actual PRESIDENCY. You CANNOT compare the two at all. From my perspective, Obama getting into office would be just as disastrous as Palin getting elected vice president (Key word: VICE). To try to put it in perspective, you absolutely abhor McCain and Palin. You call them stupid and retarded. You hate them and what they stand for. I don't hate Obama. I don't think he's stupid (He's obviously a very intelligent man). I just strongly disagree with his policies, I'm not unreasonable about it. What bothers me is that on top of disagreeing with the republican's policies and beliefs, you have to sink to name-calling and verbal abuse. This leads me to believe that you have an irrational hate for those who don't share your beliefs. Really, is retarded a good word for either McCain or Palin? I'd even let "naive" slide, but retarded? Sorry, you went way too far.


Aura, I want you to be straight with me here. Instead of prancing around the issue and victimizing yourself, tell me straight:
Why is it okay that millions of people in our country are left simply unable to afford health care, whereas practically every other country in the deveoped world has a universal health care system? Why is it okay that Palin claims to have respected her daughters right to choose when she herself opposes the right to choose even in the case of rape or incest? Why is it okay that Palin attributes so many of her political positions to 'faith' in a country that is supposed to separate church and state? Why is okay for Palin to claim to have foreign policy experience because of her proximity to Russia? (Need I point out that the part of Russia that her state borders is scarcely populated and is, ironically, pretty much the Alaska of Russia? Why is it okay to NOT know what the Bush Doctrine is? What makes Palin more qualified than George W. Bush?


I'll try to be as straight as I can (I'll just number your points in numerical order):

1. It's absolutely not ok, and I'm for reforming the healthcare system so that people aren't left behind. I'm not totally blind to the healthcare problems we have in this country, and I think they can be addressed without the use of socialized medicine. Sorry, I just don't agree with this. You might call those who don't want to pay more taxes to support universal healthcare greedy and selfish, but 1.Is it fair to some one who worked hard, went to college, got a degree and made money have it taken away from them and given to someone who say...didn't go to college, didn't work hard, and now needs the government to support them? (Yeah, yeah, this doesn't apply to everyone. Some people aren't at fault for being in poverty, but then again, some are.) And: 2. Where's that liberal fairness we all love? Like they say "Equality and Fairness, unless you're rich in which case we're taking your money." It works in other countries because other countries accept these socialistic policies, but I do not, and others will agree with me. (Note: Republicans. and that's a fair amount of people)

2. She's a mother. Her judgement here was obviously affected by strong emotions. You're telling me that if you were pro-life and your daughter got pregnant, you wouldn't care about how this would affect your daughters life? On the one hand, you could stick to your guns and say "No abortion", or you could actually give a darn about the welfare of your daughter. Having a child at that age is never good, and what kind of mother would she be if she didn't take that into account? I'm Pro-choice, and if my daughter was pregnant, I'd be conflicted as well. I can over-look this and give her some slack, but obviously will follow this to no end to see her suffer because of this.

3. Oh blah, blah, blah...separation of church and state. How can you truly separate church and state when so many of our laws are linked so closely to religion? How about things like Gay marriage and Abortion? You would truly ask people to put their core beliefs aside and make a decision on this issue without first remembering how they grew up and how they live their life? You might as well ask everyone to not have morals and be atheists. Would that be the fairness that liberals are so fond of?

4. It's not, I don't agree that she has a lot of foreign policy experience. But that really isn't the biggest issue for me. Plus, Newsflash, she's running for vice president, not president. You would have me believe that Obama has legitimate foreign policy experience? Sorry, a few trips to Iraq and one senate term doesn't cut it for me.

5. I'm currently not very educated about the circumstances of what exactly happened when she said that, so you win for now.

6. What kind of question is that? I'll point out again, Palin IS NOT running for president. If the American people didn't think that Bush was qualified, they wouldn't have voted for him...twice. I was 10 years old when the 2000 election took place, and 2004 I wasn't quite as educated as I am now, so surprise, I'm not well versed on Bush's qualifications before he was elected, but I can tell you that one term of presidency sure as heck qualifies you for another, no matter how much you might disagree with his policies.




And for the record, I love my country, but it's because I care about it that I can't close my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears and say 'lalalalala' in the face of serious issues.

If you loved America, you wouldn't be ashamed of it and what issues might be of importance. When your solution to our problems is to radically change what has made us so great, I don't buy that as patriotism. I'm not against change. The world is evolving, and so should we. But I think the media blows our problems out of proportion and creates an intense nervousness in people that causes them to panic and demand radical change that is not needed. The foundations of our country are strong. I believe in the policies that made America the great country that it is today, and I'm not going to scrap everything just because we have a few issues. Issues come and go, just as they always have. Did people in the past panic like they did today? No they did not.

That's as clear as I can possibly be.

Ivysaur
September 22nd, 2008, 01:02 AM
Because, you see, Liberals are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They preach fairness and equality, yet violently attack those with different beliefs (much like you have). They hide under the veil of patriotism and liberty, yet feel the need to DRASTICALLY change what has made America so great and prosperous. You claim to be calm and fair-headed, yet jump down the throats of those that oppose you. (see above quote). What's the matter? Does little bitty Sarah Palin frighten you? Does she threaten your incredibly warped and ridiculous views on how America is the enemy and we must apologize to the world for our great sins against humanity? You claim to care about America and it's future, but the only thing you care about is getting Obama into office and dragging America towards secular-progressivism and total destruction of basic values that our country holds dear. You claim to love your country, but really....do you?

Well, let me summary this point: in the elections, you have to choose between the people who support the ways that once made the US as big and successful as they once were (but not anymore *COUGH!* Just watch the news), and the people who want to try leaving the traditional ways and finding an actual and modern way to make the US glorious once again. You can say "if the old ways once worked, why wouldn't they work anymore?", but, once again, if everyone thought that, we wouldn't have moved on from the Middle Ages.

1. It's absolutely not ok, and I'm for reforming the healthcare system so that people aren't left behind. I'm not totally blind to the healthcare problems we have in this country, and I think they can be addressed without the use of socialized medicine. Sorry, I just don't agree with this. You might call those who don't want to pay more taxes to support universal healthcare greedy and selfish, but 1.Is it fair to some one who worked hard, went to college, got a degree and made money have it taken away from them and given to someone who say...didn't go to college, didn't work hard, and now needs the government to support them? (Yeah, yeah, this doesn't apply to everyone. Some people aren't at fault for being in poverty, but then again, some are.) And: 2. Where's that liberal fairness we all love? Like they say "Equality and Fairness, unless you're rich in which case we're taking your money." It works in other countries because other countries accept these socialistic policies, but I do not, and others will agree with me. (Note: Republicans. and that's a fair amount of people)

I still think that your perception about universal health care is wrong, darn it, almost every single country in Europe has it and it's not that horribly unfair. In fact, is infinitely fairer than the "money or die from a illness" scenario.

2. She's a mother. Her judgement here was obviously affected by strong emotions. You're telling me that if you were pro-life and your daughter got pregnant, you wouldn't care about how this would affect your daughters life? On the one hand, you could stick to your guns and say "No abortion", or you could actually give a darn about the welfare of your daughter. Having a child at that age is never good, and what kind of mother would she be if she didn't take that into account? I'm Pro-choice, and if my daughter was pregnant, I'd be conflicted as well. I can over-look this and give her some slack, but obviously will follow this to no end to see her suffer because of this.

Choice is the word. Palin doesn't support choice, just "If you are pregnant, you MUST have the baby". That's why the controversy arose. Unless her morals are "If you are pregnant, you MUST have the baby unless you are a member of my family".

3. Oh blah, blah, blah...separation of church and state. How can you truly separate church and state when so many of our laws are linked so closely to religion? How about things like Gay marriage and Abortion? You would truly ask people to put their core beliefs aside and make a decision on this issue without first remembering how they grew up and how they live their life? You might as well ask everyone to not have morals and be atheists. Would that be the fairness that liberals are so fond of?

I'll repeat that word: CHOICE. It's not "Now we'll force every single person in the world to abort, marry people of their same gender and becime atheistic MUHAHAHA!" It's just allowing the people who doesn't care about going to hell to do all of that. Like in more and more of the civilized countries, by the way.

4. It's not, I don't agree that she has a lot of foreign policy experience. But that really isn't the biggest issue for me. Plus, Newsflash, she's running for vice president, not president. You would have me believe that Obama has legitimate foreign policy experience? Sorry, a few trips to Iraq and one senate term doesn't cut it for me.

Read the post I made some posts before. McCain just lost his place of "Mr. Foreign Policy expert" for me some days ago.

If you loved America, you wouldn't be ashamed of it and what issues might be of importance. When your solution to our problems is to radically change what has made us so great, I don't buy that as patriotism. I'm not against change.

Cannot compute. Error.

The world is evolving, and so should we. But I think the media blows our problems out of proportion and creates an intense nervousness in people that causes them to panic and demand radical change that is not needed. The foundations of our country are strong. I believe in the policies that made America the great country that it is today, and I'm not going to scrap everything just because we have a few issues. Issues come and go, just as they always have. Did people in the past panic like they did today? No they did not.

That's as clear as I can possibly be.

...a few? I'm sure you haven't fully read the news, the US is going to have the biggest economical depression since 1929. Even George W. Bush is buying SOCIALIST economical solutions to prevent the US economy from sinking in the mud. The problems are darn big, and, as I said before, if the policies you have been following for the last half of century have caused this, wouldn't be good a bit of change, for once.

And don't tell me McCain is the candidate who will make a change in the Republican policies. Because I'll start laughing. You can't be a conservative 72 years old guy and pretend to make people think you'll change something more than the minimum required not to go into complete destruction.

Aurafire
September 22nd, 2008, 07:50 AM
Well, let me summary this point: in the elections, you have to choose between the people who support the ways that once made the US as big and successful as they once were (but not anymore *COUGH!* Just watch the news), and the people who want to try leaving the traditional ways and finding an actual and modern way to make the US glorious once again. You can say "if the old ways once worked, why wouldn't they work anymore?", but, once again, if everyone thought that, we wouldn't have moved on from the Middle Ages.

Yes....? What did any of that have to do with what I said about liberals? You might for drastic change to restore the U.S. to it's "former" glory. See? There you go again with the "America is broken" stuff. You think just because the U.S. has problems we're suddenly a horrible country to live in? Now you know why I call you hypocrites. You say you are patriots and love your country, but cannot bear to call it great anymore. You just said it above me, you don't think the U.S. is glorious. This isn't the first time we've had problems, and won't be the last. You want to scrap everything and start over again? We've dealt with problems before without a massive overhaul of old policies, why can't we do it now?

I don't believe everything I see on the news, because I know they are liberally biased and trying to get me to think differently than I do now. Oh wait! Solution! FOX NEWS! The only reason people hate it so much is that it's not liberally biased! They give you the news, and let you decide. Isn't that what news is supposed to be? Try watching it sometime, and maybe the haze of the liberal media will clear and the so called "crises" we have in this country won't look as bad as other news networks make them out to be.



I still think that your perception about universal health care is wrong, darn it, almost every single country in Europe has it and it's not that horribly unfair. In fact, is infinitely fairer than the "money or die from a illness" scenario.

That's your opinion.



Choice is the word. Palin doesn't support choice, just "If you are pregnant, you MUST have the baby". That's why the controversy arose. Unless her morals are "If you are pregnant, you MUST have the baby unless you are a member of my family".

Let me clearly state her morals for you "If you are pregnant, you MUST have the baby, unless you are a member of my family, in which case I might show a little more concern for someone I care about. I don't want to see their life ruined by having a child at such an early age, but because I am pro-life, they should and will have the baby. I may have simply used the wrong word when I said "choice", but I'm a mother and I love my children. I'm not cold and heartless, so naturally I might say some things I don't mean. I wish liberals would stop taking everything I say out of context."

Better?





I'll repeat that word: CHOICE. It's not "Now we'll force every single person in the world to abort, marry people of their same gender and becime atheistic MUHAHAHA!" It's just allowing the people who doesn't care about going to hell to do all of that. Like in more and more of the civilized countries, by the way.

Excuse me, but did you just call the U.S. less civilized than other countries because we don't allow abortion and gay marriage in our country? Mmm....Nice one. Honestly, I'm pretty apathetic about the gay marriage thing. It's going to happen at some point, just a matter of time. But abortion is just flat out wrong and I happen to believe we would be MORE civilized if we didn't allow it. Or is it civil to kill infants before they are even born? My mistake, murder is completely fair.





Read the post I made some posts before. McCain just lost his place of "Mr. Foreign Policy expert" for me some days ago.

Wow, you really do believe everything you read, don't you? I saw your article, and if that particular news outlet happened to be fair and show both sides of the argument, I might have paid some real attention to it. And that certainly isn't going to make me turn around and vote for someone with barely any foreign policy experience.



Cannot compute. Error.

I lol'd at this. As I've said time and time again, I'm not against change. I'm against to drastic change that Obama wants in the U.S...There's a difference.



...a few? I'm sure you haven't fully read the news, the US is going to have the biggest economical depression since 1929. Even George W. Bush is buying SOCIALIST economical solutions to prevent the US economy from sinking in the mud. The problems are darn big, and, as I said before, if the policies you have been following for the last half of century have caused this, wouldn't be good a bit of change, for once.[QUOTE]

WHOA. We agree on something! Sure, every now and then the government needs to come in to help out! And yes it's a big problem. But this is not because of our economic policies. Where did you get that?

[QUOTE=Went;3962201]And don't tell me McCain is the candidate who will make a change in the Republican policies. Because I'll start laughing. You can't be a conservative 72 years old guy and pretend to make people think you'll change something more than the minimum required not to go into complete destruction.

Who said they needed changing? =P

You've caused me to be late for class haha, but thanks for addressing my points. I always enjoy a good debate.

Allstories
September 22nd, 2008, 08:52 AM
You think just because the U.S. has problems we're suddenly a horrible country to live in? Now you know why I call you hypocrites. You say you are patriots and love your country, but cannot bear to call it great anymore. You just said it above me, you don't think the U.S. is glorious.

STOP DOING THIS. STOP IT. You are not even arguing with us. You are just putting words in our mouths and arguing against points that we literally aren't even making. Do you understand? Neither me nor Went said that we think the United States is a horrible place, you paranoid cretin. We just think that it has some problems. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BLINDLY BELIEVE THAT A COUNTRY IS A GODDAMNED UTOPIA IN ORDER TO CARE ABOUT IT. Seriously, assuming you aren't autistic or something, I can't understand how you can be so obtuse about everything.

Oh wait! Solution! FOX NEWS! The only reason people hate it so much is that it's not liberally biased!

Hey yeah, they're just conservatively biased! That's so much better!

I wish liberals would stop taking everything I say out of context."

Do you not realize the irony here.

But abortion is just flat out wrong and I happen to believe we would be MORE civilized if we didn't allow it. Or is it civil to kill infants before they are even born? My mistake, murder is completely fair.

Is there a religious basis for that opinion? If there is, I guess I'll respect that (even if the country is supposed to be religiously neutral), but otherwise, from a scientific standpoint, it's just a bunch of cells, and it's hardly anything more than the millions of sperm cells swimming around in your junk as we speak. I fail to understand why a cluster of cells should be regarded as more important than the life of the mother, ESPECIALLY in the case of rape or incest. Raising a child is no walk in the park. By the way, did you know McCain and Palin believe that the victims should be the ones to foot the bill on a rape kit? What do you have to say about that?

Cherrim
September 22nd, 2008, 09:45 AM
1. It's absolutely not ok, and I'm for reforming the healthcare system so that people aren't left behind. I'm not totally blind to the healthcare problems we have in this country, and I think they can be addressed without the use of socialized medicine. Sorry, I just don't agree with this. You might call those who don't want to pay more taxes to support universal healthcare greedy and selfish, but 1.Is it fair to some one who worked hard, went to college, got a degree and made money have it taken away from them and given to someone who say...didn't go to college, didn't work hard, and now needs the government to support them? (Yeah, yeah, this doesn't apply to everyone. Some people aren't at fault for being in poverty, but then again, some are.) And: 2. Where's that liberal fairness we all love? Like they say "Equality and Fairness, unless you're rich in which case we're taking your money." It works in other countries because other countries accept these socialistic policies, but I do not, and others will agree with me. (Note: Republicans. and that's a fair amount of people)
...so a few extra taxes to ensure that EVERYONE gets health care when they need it are that bad? I can't even imagine living without free health care. I know someone who was hospitalized recently and their hospital bill for one night was over $1000. Sure, if your family has good insurance, it probably won't matter, but I know some people in the US who simply will not go to the doctor because they can't afford it. This isn't even a matter of not affording the treatment suggested--like pills or something--they can't afford the visit. That just boggles my mind because I've always grown up with free health care. I'm not feeling well? No worries. I can just head to a health clinic and see someone about it, even if it's nothing. The idea that anyone would hesitate about going to the doctor not because they don't have time but because they can't afford even a check-up is just... just... @_@; Universal health care is not a bad thing. I don't know ANYONE under a universal health care system who doesn't appreciate it. Sure, I may not appreciate some of the waits we have, but I would seriously consider moving if I didn't have access to free health care. The taxes are a small price to pay, imo. (To be honest, I've probably racked up thousands of dollars in health care fees over the last few years. To not have to worry about huge bills and everything? It's a big relief.) Before you go dismissing socialized medicine, actually look into it. Maybe you've never had any health problems in your family, but I sure as hell hope you don't since it'll probably cost you way more than anticipated if you do. D:
2. She's a mother. Her judgement here was obviously affected by strong emotions. You're telling me that if you were pro-life and your daughter got pregnant, you wouldn't care about how this would affect your daughters life? On the one hand, you could stick to your guns and say "No abortion", or you could actually give a darn about the welfare of your daughter. Having a child at that age is never good, and what kind of mother would she be if she didn't take that into account? I'm Pro-choice, and if my daughter was pregnant, I'd be conflicted as well. I can over-look this and give her some slack, but obviously will follow this to no end to see her suffer because of this.
Precisely because she's a mother, it worries me that she hasn't changed her viewpoint at all. If she respects her daughter's decision, then she must have known it was a hard decision. If she's so unempathetic that she can't think outside the box about all the women who don't want to keep the child, that bothers me. Fine, if you aren't pro-choice when someone just went and got themselves knocked up, fair enough. But also in the case of rape and incest!? That's ridiculous. You say she'd be a terrible mother if she didn't care about her child's welfare--but what about the welfare of every woman in the US? So if someone else's daughter is raped, it's okay to FORCE her to carry and birth the child? :| Ahaha, yeah, I don't agree in the slightest with her ideals there.
3. Oh blah, blah, blah...separation of church and state. How can you truly separate church and state when so many of our laws are linked so closely to religion? How about things like Gay marriage and Abortion? You would truly ask people to put their core beliefs aside and make a decision on this issue without first remembering how they grew up and how they live their life? You might as well ask everyone to not have morals and be atheists. Would that be the fairness that liberals are so fond of?
I would expect people to put aside their beliefs when making laws and decisions regarding anything, especially those. While the US is largely Christian, there are ALL KINDS out there. Laws shouldn't be made with one group in mind. Just because a lot of them probably are now doesn't mean it's right.
6. What kind of question is that? I'll point out again, Palin IS NOT running for president. If the American people didn't think that Bush was qualified, they wouldn't have voted for him...twice. I was 10 years old when the 2000 election took place, and 2004 I wasn't quite as educated as I am now, so surprise, I'm not well versed on Bush's qualifications before he was elected, but I can tell you that one term of presidency sure as heck qualifies you for another, no matter how much you might disagree with his policies.
McCain is old. If he should croak before his term is over, she has full rein of all the power in the US. :(
Let me clearly state her morals for you "If you are pregnant, you MUST have the baby, unless you are a member of my family, in which case I might show a little more concern for someone I care about. I don't want to see their life ruined by having a child at such an early age, but because I am pro-life, they should and will have the baby. I may have simply used the wrong word when I said "choice", but I'm a mother and I love my children. I'm not cold and heartless, so naturally I might say some things I don't mean. I wish liberals would stop taking everything I say out of context."
I should really group this up above but oh well.

I really think that, if she really respected and cared about her daughter's choice, she'd rethink her stance on the issue altogether. WHY is it okay for her daughter to have a choice when she advocates that no one should have a choice. I find it disgusting that she can have this viewpoint when "to abort or not to abort" was obviously a heated issue in her own household. Her daughter had a choice. She may have chosen to keep the baby, yes, but her daughter had the CHOICE. To take that choice from millions, especially in circumstances that they cannot control? That's disgusting. I don't care if she's not the personal mother of all those women--as a mother to someone who had to have struggled with the choice (and her daughter had consentual sex, which to me makes a big difference), she should realize how important it is that everyone should have the right to choose.
By the way, did you know McCain and Palin believe that the victims should be the ones to foot the bill on a rape kit? What do you have to say about that?
THIS. THIS THIS THIS. This is disgusting! If someone breaks into your house and robs you, the government pays for the investigation, they pay for the fingerprinting, they pay for all of that. But if someone breaks into your house and rapes you--oh, we're sorry but you've gotta pay for the rape kit. What? You can't afford it? Well, sorry, but we aren't going to catch the culprit for you. Try again when you're richer! (And keep in mind that rape kits aren't cheap. They include hospital stay, an anti-contraceptive, etc. It adds up. D:)

lol my lunch break ended like 10 minutes ago. I should get back to work. 8/

Ivysaur
September 22nd, 2008, 10:06 AM
Yes....? What did any of that have to do with what I said about liberals? You might for drastic change to restore the U.S. to it's "former" glory. See? There you go again with the "America is broken" stuff. You think just because the U.S. has problems we're suddenly a horrible country to live in? Now you know why I call you hypocrites. You say you are patriots and love your country, but cannot bear to call it great anymore. You just said it above me, you don't think the U.S. is glorious. This isn't the first time we've had problems, and won't be the last. You want to scrap everything and start over again? We've dealt with problems before without a massive overhaul of old policies, why can't we do it now?

Hey, hey, hey, I never called myself "patriot" for the simple reason that I live in Spain, not in the US. But yeah, the US has problems, you said it, and that's why you have to solve them. But what have caused these problems? The policies you have been following, maybe? Solution? Change them! *hinthint*

Plus, I highly believe that a patriot is somebody that cares about his country and try to get the best for it, not one who sings the anthem louder than anybody and waves the flag each 30 seconds *points at the Republican convention*

I don't believe everything I see on the news, because I know they are liberally biased and trying to get me to think differently than I do now. Oh wait! Solution! FOX NEWS!

Allstories already dealt with this: I seriously prefer liberal biased news to conservative biased news. But do you know what's the best option? WATCHING THEM BOTH, and taking your own oppinions after comparing them.

That's your opinion.

That's my experience after living in a country with Universal Health care for the last 17 years, as well as having my father working in a public hospital.

Let me clearly state her morals for you "If you are pregnant, you MUST have the baby, unless you are a member of my family, in which case I might show a little more concern for someone I care about. I don't want to see their life ruined by having a child at such an early age, but because I am pro-life, they should and will have the baby. I may have simply used the wrong word when I said "choice", but I'm a mother and I love my children. I'm not cold and heartless, so naturally I might say some things I don't mean. I wish liberals would stop taking everything I say out of context."

Yeah, who cares for the children of people I don't know[/sarcasm]

Excuse me, but did you just call the U.S. less civilized than other countries because we don't allow abortion and gay marriage in our country? Mmm....Nice one. Honestly, I'm pretty apathetic about the gay marriage thing. It's going to happen at some point, just a matter of time. But abortion is just flat out wrong and I happen to believe we would be MORE civilized if we didn't allow it. Or is it civil to kill infants before they are even born? My mistake, murder is completely fair.

...okay, who was talking about "Taking things out of context"? I just said that more and more countries are allowing that, not that the US is not civilized for not doing so @_@

And, about "murder being fair", just look at the people who are waiting for the electric chair. My bad, killing a bunch of cells that aren't even a being by themselves is a crime, killing a full living person isn't in some cases.

Wow, you really do believe everything you read, don't you? I saw your article, and if that particular news outlet happened to be fair and show both sides of the argument, I might have paid some real attention to it. And that certainly isn't going to make me turn around and vote for someone with barely any foreign policy experience.

Okay, link to the news, including the original conversation: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lIcEa1CLhc8

Sorry, it's CNN news, sorry if I didn't find FOX, I took the first result that came up.

And yes it's a big problem. But this is not because of our economic policies. Where did you get that?

I got that because the problem started in the US bank system. If the US banks gave mortgages to people earning $800 a month just to get easy, fast money by making them last 60 years, I think it may be the fault of the country who allowed them, not Russia's fault (to say some random country).

Aurafire
September 22nd, 2008, 11:47 AM
I'm on my iPod right now, but I'll be sure to get back to all of you. 3 vs. 1 Is totally fair btw =p

Netto Azure
September 22nd, 2008, 12:47 PM
I'm on my iPod right now, but I'll be sure to get back to all of you. 3 vs. 1 Is totally fair btw =p

4 vs. 1 now....=P

I have to agree with them...you've seen how vehemently I was for Universal Healthcare. Also if we can make things better for our fellow citizens, why shouldn't we. I mean we have more than $800 Billion for Wall St. in corporate welfare why can't we give some of that to the poor...(Yeah I know you'll say "throwing money") =D but eh I don't have time to elaborate yet...Also I'm probably going to rant and babble later on about my Mom voting Republican due to single-issue topics (Abortion & Gay-marrage) >:-(

Xairmo
September 22nd, 2008, 12:58 PM
3 vs. 1 Is totally fair btw =p
Who ever said politics was "fair"? >.>
1. It's absolutely not ok, and I'm for reforming the healthcare system so that people aren't left behind. I'm not totally blind to the healthcare problems we have in this country, and I think they can be addressed without the use of socialized medicine. Sorry, I just don't agree with this. You might call those who don't want to pay more taxes to support universal healthcare greedy and selfish, but 1.Is it fair to some one who worked hard, went to college, got a degree and made money have it taken away from them and given to someone who say...didn't go to college, didn't work hard, and now needs the government to support them? (Yeah, yeah, this doesn't apply to everyone. Some people aren't at fault for being in poverty, but then again, some are.) And: 2. Where's that liberal fairness we all love? Like they say "Equality and Fairness, unless you're rich in which case we're taking your money." It works in other countries because other countries accept these socialistic policies, but I do not, and others will agree with me. (Note: Republicans. and that's a fair amount of people)
@TheBold: Is it fair to take hard earned money from people to bail out AIG? If I had to choose between my hard earned money going towards something like universal healthcare and bailing out heartless profit-machines, I'd pick universal healthcare. There are so many social and economical factors that hold people back. You could be the brightest person in the world and not be able to go to college to prove how bright you are on a resume because you couldn't afford it. People can't choose what families they're born into. We need to help those who can't help themselves. It might even bring a better sense of unity to this country.
2. She's a mother. Her judgement here was obviously affected by strong emotions. You're telling me that if you were pro-life and your daughter got pregnant, you wouldn't care about how this would affect your daughters life? On the one hand, you could stick to your guns and say "No abortion", or you could actually give a darn about the welfare of your daughter. Having a child at that age is never good, and what kind of mother would she be if she didn't take that into account? I'm Pro-choice, and if my daughter was pregnant, I'd be conflicted as well. I can over-look this and give her some slack, but obviously will follow this to no end to see her suffer because of this.
How can you say you're Pro-choice? Just a second ago I read a post by you explaining how abortion is just flat out wrong!
3. Oh blah, blah, blah...separation of church and state. How can you truly separate church and state when so many of our laws are linked so closely to religion? How about things like Gay marriage and Abortion? You would truly ask people to put their core beliefs aside and make a decision on this issue without first remembering how they grew up and how they live their life? You might as well ask everyone to not have morals and be atheists. Would that be the fairness that liberals are so fond of?
You have the right of Freedom of religion and I have the right to be gay.
@TheBold: OMFG! Christians are allowed their beliefs and think that me marrying another man is wrong, but how the hell does me getting married affect them? It's not like I'm forcing them to be gay! You're trying to set up a government based around Christian beliefs! You deserve to live your life however you want and follow whatever religion you want, just as I deserve all those same liberties! I'm tired of feeling like a second class citizen! I can't marry, I can't adopt (cuz you know all we queer-o-sexuals do is molest children right?), and I can't even join the army. It is still socially and politically accepted to discriminate against gay people.
4. It's not, I don't agree that she has a lot of foreign policy experience. But that really isn't the biggest issue for me. Plus, Newsflash, she's running for vice president, not president. You would have me believe that Obama has legitimate foreign policy experience? Sorry, a few trips to Iraq and one senate term doesn't cut it for me.
She maybe running for VP, but there's a damn good chance McCain is going to die within his first term (if elected). I mean he's 72 and has had like every major skin cancer known to man.
5. I'm currently not very educated about the circumstances of what exactly happened when she said that, so you win for now.
We just win period >.>
6. What kind of question is that? I'll point out again, Palin IS NOT running for president. If the American people didn't think that Bush was qualified, they wouldn't have voted for him...twice. I was 10 years old when the 2000 election took place, and 2004 I wasn't quite as educated as I am now, so surprise, I'm not well versed on Bush's qualifications before he was elected, but I can tell you that one term of presidency sure as heck qualifies you for another, no matter how much you might disagree with his policies.
Bush is just an idiot. I haven't the time nor the patience to point out everything he's done wrong. Gore technically won, btw. *shot'd*
If you loved America, you wouldn't be ashamed of it and what issues might be of importance. When your solution to our problems is to radically change what has made us so great, I don't buy that as patriotism. I'm not against change. The world is evolving, and so should we. But I think the media blows our problems out of proportion and creates an intense nervousness in people that causes them to panic and demand radical change that is not needed. The foundations of our country are strong. I believe in the policies that made America the great country that it is today, and I'm not going to scrap everything just because we have a few issues. Issues come and go, just as they always have. Did people in the past panic like they did today? No they did not.
People of the past DID panic quite a lot actually, ever hear of a lil' something called The Great Depression? And no one is trying to "radically" change America. Sure we believe there are things that need revisions, which is why we have these nifty little things called amendments. There's a difference in being ashamed of America, and being ashamed of what it's becoming. I love America, it's great here but there are aspects of America that piss me off. America isn't perfect, but according to you we must think it is to be patriotic, yes?

Cherrim
September 22nd, 2008, 01:23 PM
How can you say you're Pro-choice? Just a second ago I read a post by you explaining how abortion is just flat out wrong!
That's actually quite possible. Someone can think something is wrong, but still agree to give the option to others. (Case in point, people who disagree with gay marriage but still wish EVERYONE to have the same, fair rights.) D: In fact, a lot of people who agree that abortion is just full-out murder also agree that it may be the best choice in some cases. That's just separating personal beliefs/religion from the law. :x

Aurafire
September 22nd, 2008, 01:28 PM
Allstories: I'll have to apologize for my "obtuseness" that you think I exhibit. There's you go with the name calling again. Paranoid cretin....haven't heard that one before. Forgive me if I'm coming off in a displeasing way. I'm just trying to express my opinions, not about you personally, but liberals in general. And while you continue to argue your points in a way that is characteristic of a liberal, I am forced to call you call you out on it. I'm so tired of arguing this, So you know what? STATEMENT RETRACTED. Liberals are unbiased, patriotic and don't think that the U.S. is a horrible place! HAPPY???

You've made me to goddamn angry about liberals and how they think, I really just could not help myself. The way you think, the way you argue your points....It just bothers me, ok? Feel free to bite right back with how you hate conservatives and such, at least I won't call you anything. I respect your opinion, but you obviously don't respect mine.

Fox News is not conservatively biased, and I invite you to prove me wrong. Don't mistake bias for giving both sides of the argument.

I am not religious, I'm agnostic. However, I believe that life is sacred and should be protected. That cluster of cells is a human life, sorry you don't see it that way, but I do. And thusly believe that the destruction of those cells is murder. And before you go jumping down my throat, in extreme cases of rape and when there is a danger to the mother's life, I think abortion is acceptable.

Lightning: I'm not as conservative as you might think on this issue. Sorry for not pointing this out before, but I am in favor of optional universal healthcare, and those who want/are in need of it should definitely have this option open to them, as long as it doesn't cost any more taxpayer money. I don't know how in the world we would fund it, but if it works, wonderful. The top 1% of the populations pays something like 35% of the U.S. tax burden, and I think that's high enough.

I already explained my position about abortion above: In extreme cases, yes abortion is acceptable, but I still don't like it, and that's my personal opinion on the issue.

I agree with you on the rape thing as well, it's ridiculous. I am totally against that law.

And thank you for being civil, Lightning. You expressed your views in a very calm way (Unlike some people I know...)

Went: Sorry about that, I forgot that you live in spain. And yes, some of our current policies have been causing problems and need changing, I agree. We just disagree on which issues and how to correctly deal with them. I also agree with your definition of a patriot, I just happen to disagree on the way people choose to express themselves as such for reasons that should already be clear.

I CERTAINLY agree with you on getting both sides of the argument and making your own decisions, but the point is most people in our county do not in fact get both sides of the argument, thus altering theit own decision-making abilities. And again, I invite you to prove to me that Fox News in conservatively biased.

Our death penalty system is an absolute joke. You might be convicted of a crime and sentenced to death and wait upwards of 15-20 years before you've exhausted all your appeals. That's not a death penalty. The system is broken, but yes, I'm a supporter of the death penalty. I just think the way we go about enforcing it is horrible.

Thanks for the link. Yup, McCain came off as a blubbering idiot. The man isn't perfect, and I never said he was. The U.S. doesn't have anything against Spain, and I'm pretty sure we maintain a policy of friendship with them...McCain could have just came out and said that. -_-

Ugh...please let's not get into the banking crisis. (Yes it's a crisis)...I'm not fully versed on this issue as well.

Also Went, thank you also for being civil and expressing your points clearly. (Unlike some people I know)

Tommy: 4 vs. 1? No problem =P

Hopefully I've made my views on healthcare clear.

Honestly, when it's 4 minds against one, you all make me sound like an idiot. I guess that's just what I get for being an 18 year old conservative....I'm already vastly out numbered. The vast majority of young people are liberal, and sometimes I find myself thinking that the words that come out of my mouth don't even make sense because of everything I hear from my peers. Just know that there are plenty of other people out there that think like me and will back me up. Unfortunately, PC seems to be out of those people -_-

EDIT: 5 VS 1! Thanks Xairmo....the nail in the coffin. Because this thread has debate in the title, I'm forced to comment on it. BUT I DON'T NEED 5 PEOPLE QUOTING EVERY ONE OF MY POSTS SAYING HOW I'M FLAT OUT WRONG. 1 or 2 is fine. But you guys just do not let up, do you???

I don't even know anymore. I'm not going to take the time and effort to try to explain the Republicans argument if I don't even get any enjoyment out of it. I'm honestly quite tired of this. Please rename this thread "Election 2008: Why Democrats are right and Republicans aren't"

Just to clarify: I AM PRO LIFE. You have seriously got to be kidding me. I never, EVER, said I was pro choice. My beliefs on abortion should be clear. Yes, now I see the typo. But seriously dude, couldn't you have just realized that, or we're you just too eager to prove me wrong?

Allstories
September 22nd, 2008, 01:50 PM
Allstories: Fox News is not conservatively biased, and I invite you to prove me wrong. Don't mistake bias for giving both sides of the argument.

Do you consider Hannity & Colmes to be a balanced debate show?

I don't know how in the world we would fund it, but if it works, wonderful.

If you have health insurance in America chances are you are paying out the wazoo for it to some blood-sucking insurance company. Why not just pay for health care through taxes and allow everyone to at least be able to see a doctor if they need to, instead of weigh the economic risks of their right to live?

Cherrim
September 22nd, 2008, 02:23 PM
We aren't ganging up on you, though most of us did joke about it. You just happen to be the only one here defending that viewpoint right now unless someone wants to play devil's advocate. Like you said, the younger generation is just very liberal (especially the forum-goers, as I've noticed) so it's not really a fair debate in that sense. :(

Anyway, Allstories just summed up my reply to the health care thing. But I'll also toss in that universal health care can't be an opt-in, opt-out thing. It wouldn't work that way, because the funds just wouldn't be significant enough.

Aurafire
September 22nd, 2008, 03:18 PM
[font=tahoma]We aren't ganging up on you, though most of us did joke about it. You just happen to be the only one here defending that viewpoint right now unless someone wants to play devil's advocate. Like you said, the younger generation is just very liberal (especially the forum-goers, as I've noticed) so it's not really a fair debate in that sense. :(

Which is why there's no point for me to argue on my behalf, I'll just end up being proved wrong and looking foolish. What's the point? No one is going to change each others core views, that's why everyone argues so ferociously and we resort to name-calling and hostility towards each other. It really can't be helped. I try my best to argue my points in a calm manner, but even I let my emotions get carried away. One little paragraph of unreasonable anger totally ruined this for me.

And really....if no one agrees with me, I get nothing out of this. So yeah, I'm done for now.

Chibi-chan
September 22nd, 2008, 04:13 PM
65I0HNvTDH4

Just to lighten up this conversation. :D
....Continue.

Aurafire
September 22nd, 2008, 04:16 PM
Just to lighten up this conversation. :D

I will say this...he's not the best dancer in the world. XD

Red1530
September 22nd, 2008, 04:55 PM
I read the CNN article about Wasilla charging for rape kits (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html). Wasilla was not the only town to charge for them as some posters conveniently forget to mention. Also according to local records the issue was not brought up at city meetings.

To the posters that say governors are not qualified to be President, I have a list of twentieth century presidents that were governors.


William McKinley, Governor of Ohio, 1892-96
Theodore Roosevelt, Governor of New York, 1898-1900
William Howard Taft, Governor of the Philippines, 1901-04
Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey, 1911-13
Calvin Coolidge, Governor of Massachusetts, 1919-20
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Governor of New York, 1929-33
James Earl Carter, Jr., Governor of Georgia, 1971-75
Ronald Wilson Reagan, Governor of California, 1967-75
William Jefferson Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, 1978-80, 1982-92
George Walker Bush, Governor of Texas, 1995-2000

Volkner's Apprentice
September 22nd, 2008, 05:07 PM
I would like to address the concerns about Governor Palin. When she was nominated for Vice-President, she already had more experience then Senator Obama. She ran a small town and a small business. She is currently running a state and while running that state took on corruption in her own party. While she lacks foreign policy experience, she is not going to be conducting foreign policy. It is highly unlikely that if Senator McCain was elected President, he is going to die in the first thirty days office. So if McCain dies in office, Palin will be ready as she has some time for training, unlike to top spot.

Okay so, everyone does realize the giant fiasco that just happened his ^--his fault right?

Getting back on topic, the current issue of debate was education and not "Let's splurge right back into Democrats vs. Republicans part twelve-hundred and sixty two." O_O

Seriously dude, read the current discussion before hurtling the masses into an uproar. I'm even voting for McCain and I'm disliking that guy for not thinking before turning a handful of PC greats against Aurasphere in this respect. Not to insult you Red, but if you want to state your beliefs about the election in general, perhaps that can be done during somewhat of an intermission to topics? From what I can see those statements were present at the beginning and only the beginning of this thread, afterwards it's just side-track on issues which debate threads try to avoid. There is a difference between debating something and arguing with someone, just to clear that up. If you want to enrage someone, do it on your own time, that goes for everyone to responded too. There is such a thing as level-headed behavior. You have to analysis a collection of posted information before you deem "wow this person is insulting me" when one should be thinking "Oh he's misunderstanding what I'm presenting, let me try to clear things up from my point of view."

Just remember we're all here because of our love of Pokemon :mudkip^_^:, don't let political issues come completely between you and another user. Respecting other's viewpoints is key to success, you don't get there by ganging up or name calling. Politics might seem like the only fun to it is completely ripping each other apart, but hey, c'mon, focus on the real things at stake here. What are you going to do by doing that? That is the worst way of trying to get someone to see your point of view. It's also the worst way, which if you didn't notice is what politicians usually try to do, to persuade the public to think like they do. How else will they get your vote?

Being honest, I'm sure once in awhile everyone likes to blow off steam and this kind of thing seems the best way to do it, but when you take into consideration that these issues kind of reflect our countries and...well, our futures? That's kind of an important thing to be taken calmly. Swiftly, sure, but calm would be nice. So again, not pointing fingers, Red, but it's probably better not to taunt the masses.

So ANYWAY, what does everyone think about education? Hopefully everyone chimes in for the particular issues and not just ZOMG ARGUMENT, ME JOIN. -_-

Netto Azure
September 22nd, 2008, 05:27 PM
Okay so, everyone does realize the giant fiasco that just happened his ^--his fault right?

Getting back on topic, the current issue of debate was education and not "Let's splurge right back into Democrats vs. Republicans part twelve-hundred and sixty two." O_O

Seriously dude, read the current discussion before hurtling the masses into an uproar. I'm even voting for McCain and I'm disliking that guy for not thinking before turning a handful of PC greats against Aurasphere in this respect. Not to insult you Red, but if you want to state your beliefs about the election in general, perhaps that can be done during somewhat of an intermission to topics? From what I can see those statements were present at the beginning and only the beginning of this thread, afterwards it's just side-track on issues which debate threads try to avoid. There is a difference between debating something and arguing with someone, just to clear that up. If you want to enrage someone, do it on your own time, that goes for everyone to responded too. There is such a thing as level-headed behavior. You have to analysis a collection of posted information before you deem "wow this person is insulting me" when one should be thinking "Oh he's misunderstanding what I'm presenting, let me try to clear things up from my point of view."

Just remember we're all here because of our love of Pokemon :mudkip^_^:, don't let political issues come completely between you and another user. Respecting other's viewpoints is key to success, you don't get there by ganging up or name calling. Politics might seem like the only fun to it is completely ripping each other apart, but hey, c'mon, focus on the real things at stake here. What are you going to do by doing that? That is the worst way of trying to get someone to see your point of view. It's also the worst way, which if you didn't notice is what politicians usually try to do, to persuade the public to think like they do. How else will they get your vote?

Being honest, I'm sure once in awhile everyone likes to blow off steam and this kind of thing seems the best way to do it, but when you take into consideration that these issues kind of reflect our countries and...well, our futures? That's kind of an important thing to be taken calmly. Swiftly, sure, but calm would be nice. So again, not pointing fingers, Red, but it's probably better not to taunt the masses.

So ANYWAY, what does everyone think about education? Hopefully everyone chimes in for the particular issues and not just ZOMG ARGUMENT, ME JOIN. -_-


Wow...I totally forgot about the education part...=P But yes, our passion for our views on politics can cloud ourselves and hurt other people's feelings (Sorry...Aura (;_; ) Yes our love for Pocket Monsters (Yay for PokeSpe!) is what brought us here to this forum. Let's not devolve this debate thread into "my political party is better than yours" arguments. Let's start by not devolving to name calling (Seriously has anybody read that breach of etiquette exchange between me and Aura, Then how I resented it later) You guys are some of the MOST friendliest people I have ever seen. Let's not have our Political views create schisms and grudges, remember the person your replying to IS A PERSON!)

SO LETS KEEP DISCUSSIONS ON TOPIC AND ON THE ISSUES! PLEASE :D

Also I'm watching PBS and they're right Wall St. is changing right in front of our eyes...Very historic times...=D





Just to lighten up this conversation. :D
....Continue.

ROTFL!!!!This is the kind of humour that we need to calm everybody...XPPPPP

=D

And yeah let us try not to be a bunch of hypocritical politicians. Seriously if politicians just follow what they say in their 4th of July speeches things might actually become better, Instead of taking lobbyist money and become a bunch of corporate sellouts. Help...Don't bash me...XD

Red1530
September 25th, 2008, 06:00 AM
President Bush has summoned top lawmakers including Senators John McCain and Barack Obama to a meting in the White House to discuss the Bailout plan (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427642,00.html).

Netto Azure
September 25th, 2008, 06:42 AM
President Bush has summoned top lawmakers including Senators John McCain and Barack Obama to a meting in the White House to discuss the Bailout plan (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427642,00.html).

I was going to post that....But yeah...Photo-op for Bush? Yet I just hope all of them WOULD ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE PATH TO TAKE DURING THIS CRISIS. Politics would of course get into this since Either senator will become President.

Anyways the first Presidential Debate was scheduled for Friday (Wow...Moderated by Jim Lehrer? I might actually watch this one since I always try to tune into "The News Hour w/ Jim Lehrer" on PBS which I trust...?cautiously?) but the economic crisis will probably postpone it while McCain, Obama, Congress, and Congress debate on which course to take.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=at0jj_i8qxN4&refer=us

Anyways in anticipation for the Presidential/VP Debates:
If you could ask the Presidential/VP candidates one question what would it be?


Me...I'm not sure since it's an opportunity of the lifetime...

Also if you want to talk about the Economy and Education, go ahead...

Now for some Campaign ads: I know they're outdated since it was made before/around the Primaries. Sorry Republicans if it's offending but I just had to post it since this is a Pocket Monsters forum. Seriously if Campaign ads were made like this, maybe we'll actually listen to them for once.
Uh0mD_dTbiADF2wH5hlT0o

If you guys have found a Republican version post it....=D

Red1530
September 25th, 2008, 06:20 PM
Great video finds vtommy1.

Netto Azure
September 26th, 2008, 06:30 AM
Great video finds vtommy1.


I actually found these a couple of months ago during the primaries....I actually wanted to post them up but was too lazy to do so...But yeah they're funny...If politics were like this things would be A LOT EASIER...=P J/K

So anybody watching the Presidential Debates tonight?

I'll try since the economy is tanking as it is...But isn't it supposed to be about foreign policy?

awolffromspace
September 26th, 2008, 06:35 AM
This might be off topic for a moment. But do you think McCain is going to the debate tonight?

Volkner's Apprentice
September 26th, 2008, 07:24 AM
Haha, I saw the first video earlier in the summer but the Ron Paul one I like better, it has better graphics :P

Netto Azure
September 26th, 2008, 09:59 AM
This might be off topic for a moment. But do you think McCain is going to the debate tonight?

He has to go...Every single politically aware/undecided voter is waiting for what they're going to say about the economy...even though the topic is about Foreign Policy, I think they'll be able to squeeze in a question or two about the economy

Red1530
September 26th, 2008, 05:56 PM
Senator McCain has decided to go to the debate. The first forty-five minutes of the debate was focused on the economy. Now it has moved onto the original topic of foreign policy. Also I am posting the JibJab satire of this campaign.
adc3MSS5Ydc

Aurafire
September 26th, 2008, 06:01 PM
Senator McCain has decided to go to the debate. The first forty-five minutes of the debate was focused on the economy. Now it has moved onto the original topic of foreign policy. Also I am posting the JibJab satire of this campaign.

I'm watching right now...It's pretty good so far. This could just me be being a McCain supporter, but he's doing a great job. He already totally discredited Obama's point that he'd be 4 more years of Bush, and he sounds way more sure about himself and his policies than Obama (big surprise there....)

Working Class Hero
September 26th, 2008, 06:25 PM
What I just love about McCain is that:

About 90% of his commercials just bash Obama and say what Obama wont do. But still wont say what McCain will do.
McCain says he is against lobbyists. While, all of his advisers are lobbyists. :\
McCain voted with Bush on economic issues. Also with things like privatizing social secrurity. Which would cause basically anyone over 75 years old to become poor. :\

McCain will be a Bush. Although I will say McCain > Bush....Everyone > Bush. :] (Also to all those idiots, being imprisoned during war is NOT a qualification to be president. His senate terms are. So stop saying "WELL HE WAS IMPRISONED IN VIETNAM" or you will get a "WELL MY FOOT IS IN YOUR EYE")

At least Obama isn't a hypocrite and says what he will do.

Obama all the way. Why?

He actually says what he WILL do.
He doesn't spend 99% of his life just bashing the other candidates.
He isn't Bush.
He wont spend 12 billion dollars a month on a quite possibly endless war.

Oh, and he has common sense. That is always fun.

Aurafire
September 26th, 2008, 07:00 PM
Anywho.....

What I just love about McCain is that:

About 90% of his commercials just bash Obama and say what Obama wont do. But still wont say what McCain will do.

Don't be naive, both candidates are doing equal amounts of bashing...That's all that this campaign has been so far. You're telling me that Obama is not bashing McCain in his ads? Have you even seen any of these adds?

McCain says he is against lobbyists. While, all of his advisers are lobbyists. :\

Haha, nice point. Proof is always good instead of just spewing random facts out.

McCain voted with Bush on economic issues. Also with things like privatizing social secrurity. Which would cause basically anyone over 75 years old to become poor.

Do you even understand the social security situation? How would privatizing social security cause the elderly to become poor? Social Security funds are being used on other spending, NO ONE is getting their SS money, so if the elderly aren't getting the money in the first place, it's not really an issue....


McCain will be a Bush. Although I will say McCain > Bush....Everyone > Bush. :] (Also to all those idiots, being imprisoned during war is NOT a qualification to be president. His senate terms are. So stop saying "WELL HE WAS IMPRISONED IN VIETNAM" or you will get a "WELL MY FOOT IS IN YOUR EYE")

McCain will be a Bush? Just like that? Please.....Iraq? The environment? Immigration? Do you even look at the issues, or are you just echoing the liberal media?

His time in Vietnam was a defining moment in his life and shaped him as a politician. No one is saying that being a POW qualifies you to be president. However, the character and resolve that he gained during this time is DEFINITELY a qualification.

At least Obama isn't a hypocrite and says what he will do.

Ahahaha, I could have so much fun with this. But there's so many ways that Barack Obama is a hypocrite, I'd get tired of listing all of them...

You really need to stop saying random stuff and expect people to believe them. Unfortunately, just by reading what you say, people will automatically assume it's the truth. No politician is entirely truthful about their policies, making them all hypocrites. Obama is no different.



Obama all the way. Why?

He actually says what he WILL do.

That's such a horrible point. Both of them are doing the exact same thing in their campaigns, how the heck are you drawing any differences between the truth in their words? Are you really that naive about this election?

He doesn't spend 99% of his life just bashing the other candidates.

Again, BOTH candidates are bashing, not just one.

He isn't Bush.

Not really a point at all. Of course he's not Bush, he's a Democrat, and that's up for scrutiny as well.

He wont spend 12 billion dollars a month on a quite possibly endless war.

But he'll spend billions in Afghanistan, is that really a better alternative in your view?

Oh, and he has common sense. That is always fun.

That's not an intelligent comment at all

The only thing I can draw from all of your comments is that you are incredibly caught up in the liberal media's message. Every single one of your points was an echo of everything that the media is saying about McCain. Don't believe everything you hear dude. Get educated on the issues, and stop spewing out those random facts, and we could actually debate some of your points if you backed them up....

supertails
September 26th, 2008, 07:17 PM
The Election is rigged anyway but I'm voting for Obama.

True Justice
September 26th, 2008, 07:30 PM
The Election is rigged anyway but I'm voting for Obama.

Haha, so true. I can't vote yet (lame) but me and my family are all proud supporters of Obama. Personally, I love his view on getting off our dependence on foreign oil and start investing on alternative sources of energy. And tomorrow, there's a meeting in a school near my house where Obama supporters are supposed to go canvassing. And I'm going.

EDIT: @ Aurasphere: My definition of rigged is when a candidate wins the popular vote but not the electoral vote, which is what really matters. Or when something occurs to interfere with the votes of the election. Ex: Election 2000, Gore won the popular vote but not the electoral vote. And the hanging chads on ballots were never counted, possibly stealing the election from Gore. Now tell me some things aren't rigged.

Aurafire
September 26th, 2008, 07:31 PM
The Election is rigged anyway but I'm voting for Obama.

How would you call the election "rigged"? Specify....don't just say it's rigged and be done with it....

Working Class Hero
September 26th, 2008, 07:44 PM
Anywho.....





McCain will be a Bush? Just like that? Please.....Iraq? The environment? Immigration? Do you even look at the issues, or are you just echoing the liberal media?

The only thing McCain is different from Bush is that he actually has good environmental plans...to an extent..

His time in Vietnam was a defining moment in his life and shaped him as a politician. No one is saying that being a POW qualifies you to be president. However, the character and resolve that he gained during this time is DEFINITELY a qualification.

Because PTSD and the nuclear button go so well together. :3 Why don't we just throw in mobility issues, cancer and age in with it!

Ahahaha, I could have so much fun with this. But there's so many ways that Barack Obama is a hypocrite, I'd get tired of listing all of them...

Get tired.

You really need to stop saying random stuff and expect people to believe them. Unfortunately, just by reading what you say, people will automatically assume it's the truth. No politician is entirely truthful about their policies, making them all hypocrites. Obama is no different.


Hm, it isn't random judging how they are facts. Maybe YOU should pay more attention.


The only thing I can draw from all of your comments is that you are incredibly caught up in the liberal media's message. Every single one of your points was an echo of everything that the media is saying about McCain. Don't believe everything you hear dude. Get educated on the issues, and stop spewing out those random facts, and we could actually debate some of your points if you backed them up....

Please tell me where I said Obama doesn't bash. I just implied that McCain does it MORE.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/31/2008-03-31_key_mccain_advisors_were_lobbyists_for_s.html

Proof is fun! ^^

About me not knowing the issues, maybe you should look at them. Everything about the enviroment, economics, immigration all that fun stuff McCain voted FOR Bush's proposals on those issues.

Also, if SS is privatized, the person themselves will have to pay for it. Not the government. And most people can't pay for it. :\ Not everyone is rich.

Also, about half of your additions would be considered flaming. Have fun! :D

And, the common sense thing was supposed to be a joke. In case you didn't notice. :3

He will spend LESS THAN 12 BILLION in Afghanistan so yes, it is better.

And if you watch any of the speeches, you will see that all McCain does is say what Obama wont do. Actually, this debate is the first time I have actually heard him say a lot of things on what he is going to do.

Tamaki
September 26th, 2008, 07:48 PM
How would you call the election "rigged"? Specify....don't just say it's rigged and be done with it....

I think I know what he's talking about... I saw a program about this a few months ago.

I'm not entirely sure, because I only saw the program once, but there was a lot of evidence suggesting that the Republicans rigged some of the voting machines to count votes differently.

...You could look it up, if you're interested, because I don't know too much about it.
---
On topic, I'm not old enough to vote but I'm 100% for Obama. McCain winning the election would be almost exactly like four more years of Bush...

I did watch the debate tonight, and tbh, I don't think anyone "won" it. I do, however, think that Obama sounded better, like he had all the facts more together than McCain. McCain was just too vague, and not sticking to the point.

...Yes. I'm done.

Gunn
September 27th, 2008, 01:12 AM
How would you call the election "rigged"?

I believe he means the electoral college.

I watched the debate. The entire thing was just, Obama, "Something something something ..," McCain, "My opponent doesn't understand."

Red1530
September 27th, 2008, 06:31 AM
The Electoral Collage does a fairly good job at representing the will of the people. It has only gone against the will of the people only four times in the history of the United Sates. Also I am posting the entire debate. The YouTube video is broken up into eleven parts. This video in this post is part one and the rest of the parts are accessible after part one is done.
oD4mspMtYzc

Netto Azure
September 27th, 2008, 08:51 AM
The debate was pure substance, no lipstick on whatever. It was of course expected that McCain is better on FP. Both candidates knew the facts ....But the economy is what on the voters minds right now and I think it was a draw.

Both candidates sidestepped the issue of which programs to cut due to the Wall. St. Bailout. Maybe on the next debate we'll find out more.

Loved it when Obama said: "this orgy of spending" Yes, I'm immature =P

Allstories
September 27th, 2008, 09:46 AM
I thought the debate was disappointingly even. Obama looked presidential and had all the right ideas and stuff, but McCain kept sneering and interuppting him every two seconds to distort and oversimplify all of Obama's ideas, and so Obama naturally had to contest them all for being untrue and they both just ended up wasting lots of time. Obama's gotta be more forceful, which is an unfortunate requirement.

Here's hoping Biden rips Palin a new one next week.

Netto Azure
September 27th, 2008, 02:59 PM
I thought the debate was disappointingly even. Obama looked presidential and had all the right ideas and stuff, but McCain kept sneering and interuppting him every two seconds to distort and oversimplify all of Obama's ideas, and so Obama naturally had to contest them all for being untrue and they both just ended up wasting lots of time. Obama's gotta be more forceful, which is an unfortunate requirement.

Here's hoping Biden rips Palin a new one next week.

Thoughts...

The interrupting looked real...Democrats in general should develop a backbone and retaliate to such smear campaigns. But the candidates have to look to the public as being above such partisanship due to the economic crisis....

Has anybody noticed that McCain didn't even look towards Obama throughout the debate...and kept on saying Sen. Obama (third-person)...just a thought on body language....

Can't wait to next weeks VP debates...Gwen Iffil's moderating, another PBS newscaster...I can trust that. Let's see how the "shapeshifting" VP's positions will be (Don't worry they'll be coached by the "best" political analysts of the campaigns.)

Also can't wait for the next Presidential Debate on the economy (Lucky they were able to squeeze in the economy last night. Many voters were looking forward on that.)

Unlike some other Presidential Debates there wasn't anything quotable from this one for History books nor the "funnies" both sticked to pure facts and their campaign points nothing on the change that the $700 Billion bailout of Wall.St on their proposed programs....

Except McCain's proposed Full spending freeze (that's new) except on defence, veterans benefits, forgot the last one...this was the only thing surprising....But there are other things that need work, not just foreign policy and defence since this is a Global Economy....

supertails
September 27th, 2008, 05:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF5Kdm4Eu6w

Netto Azure
September 28th, 2008, 10:20 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF5Kdm4Eu6w

I remember that....it was during the primaries....I first found out about "The Onion" in USC during the "Youth Health Career Conference 2008." It was very funny...I actually took it seriously 'till the middle of the Parody Newspaper...=P I'm so gullible....LOL

Also anybody heard about DHS "hiring" the Muppets to warn us about the "evil doers" out there...No offence but that's just humourous...

Rudy23
September 28th, 2008, 11:09 AM
A little off-topic but:
Does any1 here actually find McCain to be a war hero? I dnt find anything heroic about bombing innocent civilian villages in 'nam.

Aurafire
September 28th, 2008, 12:56 PM
A little off-topic but:
Does any1 here actually find McCain to be a war hero? I dnt find anything heroic about bombing innocent civilian villages in 'nam.

That's a pretty ignorant statement, seeing as almost every single major war in world history has had civilian casualties. They are unavoidable. It's called war for a reason, and it's never fair for everyone. That being said, John McCain served in the Navy for many years and was a POW for six of them. He never gave up information that would compromise the U.S. war effort even after being tortured mercilessly. He sacrificed his own safety and well-being for the good of his fellow soldiers and his country, putting his life at risk, and doing so without hesitation. He exemplified what it truly means to be a soldier in the U.S. armed forces. Yes, John McCain is a war hero. What, may I ask, is your definition?

Rudy23
September 28th, 2008, 03:08 PM
I know he suffered alot in that POW hell for 6 years, and never tlked but the mission in 'nam was anything but heroic (look up the massacres of innocent viatnemese by american troops). Atleast in WW2 we were fighting a REAL threat (Nazis, Japan, etc.), but in 'nam to many ppl lost their lives in a conflict that had no real positive outcome (much like our "war on terror")

Red1530
September 28th, 2008, 03:12 PM
I know he suffered alot in that POW hell for 6 years, and never tlked but the mission in 'nam was anything but heroic (look up the massacres of innocent viatnemese by american troops). Atleast in WW2 we were fighting a REAL threat (Nazis, Japan, etc.), but in 'nam to many ppl lost their lives in a conflict that had no real positive outcome (much like our "war on terror")So let me get this straight, you are saying that terrorists are not a threat like the Germans and Japanese were during World War II. Did you forget about the September 11 attacks, the worse attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

supertails
September 28th, 2008, 04:53 PM
Theirs no just thing as a war hero. The first casualty of war is the truth. We don't go to war unless were tricked and you know what Nam wasn't met to be won it was met to go the distance. Wars are corporate lies and 911 was the biggest. No one benefited from it but the leaders in our country. It's ashame the Land of the Free became the Land of the Enslaved. I'd watch our flag burn for an hour before I saloot it again and guess what I was born and bread here. The American Dream is over, The American Nightmare as only just begun.

Aurafire
September 28th, 2008, 05:24 PM
Theirs no just thing as a war hero. The first casualty of war is the truth. We don't go to war unless were tricked and you know what Nam wasn't met to be won it was met to go the distance. Wars are corporate lies and 911 was the biggest. No one benefited from it but the leaders in our country. It's ashame the Land of the Free became the Land of the Enslaved. I'd watch our flag burn for an hour before I saloot it again and guess what I was born and bread here. The American Dream is over, The American Nightmare as only just begun.

That is absolutely sickening. SICKENING! It's you kind of people that should be ashamed to call yourself an American.

No such thing as a war hero? Have you no respect for the brave men and women who fight for our safety EVERY SINGLE DAY? Every single one of our soldiers who is fighting or has fought in any war that the US has been involved in is a hero in my opinion. It takes a special kind of person to lay their life on the line, putting the greater good of their country above themselves. I can't even fathom the INCREDIBLE amount of ignorance that must be inside that mind of yours for you to disrespect millions and millions of veterans that have fought and died to protect the very freedoms that you enjoy EVERY SINGLE DAY? HAVE YOU NO RESPECT? HAVE YOU NO THANKFULNESS? Are you not aware that if not for the US military, we would not even be alive right now? You think that wars are waged for corporate and government gain? You are so wrong, I can't even believe that I am typing this right now. You think that 9/11 and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention every other war in modern US history, are/were fought so that Bush and the "evil" big business corporations can benefit? You and your twisted mind think that America is broken and twisted and a former shadow of the greatness that it once was?

I have one message for you and people that share your views: Leave. Get out of here. I for one am ashamed that we live in a country where our very own citizens think that our own government and military are scum. Move to Canada. Move to Europe. Move to freakin Antarctica for all I care. If America has become "The land of the Enslaved" how can you bear to live, benefit, and enjoy the freedom that you and your kind take for granted? You make me sick.

And at least use proper grammar when sharing your disgusting and vile opinions. I'm fairly sure "saloot" isn't a word, and "born and bread" is also pretty confusing.

supertails
September 28th, 2008, 09:21 PM
That is absolutely sickening. SICKENING! It's you kind of people that should be ashamed to call yourself an American.

No such thing as a war hero? Have you no respect for the brave men and women who fight for our safety EVERY SINGLE DAY? Every single one of our soldiers who is fighting or has fought in any war that the US has been involved in is a hero in my opinion. It takes a special kind of person to lay their life on the line, putting the greater good of their country above themselves. I can't even fathom the INCREDIBLE amount of ignorance that must be inside that mind of yours for you to disrespect millions and millions of veterans that have fought and died to protect the very freedoms that you enjoy EVERY SINGLE DAY? HAVE YOU NO RESPECT? HAVE YOU NO THANKFULNESS? Are you not aware that if not for the US military, we would not even be alive right now? You think that wars are waged for corporate and government gain? You are so wrong, I can't even believe that I am typing this right now. You think that 9/11 and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention every other war in modern US history, are/were fought so that Bush and the "evil" big business corporations can benefit? You and your twisted mind think that America is broken and twisted and a former shadow of the greatness that it once was?

I have one message for you and people that share your views: Leave. Get out of here. I for one am ashamed that we live in a country where our very own citizens think that our own government and military are scum. Move to Canada. Move to Europe. Move to freakin Antarctica for all I care. If America has become "The land of the Enslaved" how can you bear to live, benefit, and enjoy the freedom that you and your kind take for granted? You make me sick.

And at least use proper grammar when sharing your disgusting and vile opinions. I'm fairly sure "saloot" isn't a word, and "born and bread" is also pretty confusing.

I'm a part of the Solution not the problem. It's people like me they fear. Bush and all of his little men are the only ones to benefit and I'll be moving to Canada but when everyone else sees what I see, I'll come down and fight with ya. I will love to instill a new government, free from the evil businesses. I'm guessing you never heard of War Corporatism. Let me tell you, 911 and all the wars we've been in has War Corporatism written all over them and I feel for those men too. They died to fight fictional enemies. 911 was a lie that killed over 3000 people, only leading to the deaths of millions of other people just because The Bush Family and all the other businesses didn't feel they had enough money. I hate this country and I'd love to see it as our forefathers made it but because of what happened in 1913 it'll never be the same. In 1913 was the year The USA became owned by the Banks and all the Wars since was to put millions of dollars into their wallets. We are no longer the country of free people but the country of the rich and the powerful. I am not proud to be an American because how can one be proud to kill for money. I know Bush and his men are. Bush is Hitler and his men and the businesses that caused this fake war are EVIL, EVIL men. Bush and his men are EVIL because they caused 911 and killed millions just for money. FDR was the same and all the other businesses kill every single day just to make money.

Aurafire
September 28th, 2008, 09:40 PM
I'm a part of the Solution not the problem. It's people like me they fear. Bush and all of his little men are the only ones to benefit and I'll be moving to Canada but when everyone else sees what I see, I'll come down and fight with ya. I will love to instill a new government, free from the evil businesses. I'm guessing you never heard of War Corporatism. Let me tell you, 911 and all the wars we've been in has War Corporatism written all over them and I feel for those men too. They died to fight fictional enemies. 911 was a lie that killed over 3000 people, only leading to the deaths of millions of other people just because The Bush Family and all the other businesses didn't feel they had enough money. I hate this country and I'd love to see it as our forefathers made it but because of what happened in 1913 it'll never be the same. In 1913 was the year The USA became owned by the Banks and all the Wars since was to put millions of dollars into their wallets. We are no longer the country of free people but the country of the rich and the powerful. I am not proud to be an American because how can one be proud to kill for money. I know Bush and his men are. Bush is Hitler and his men and the businesses that caused this fake war are EVIL, EVIL men. Bush and his men are EVIL because they caused 911 and killed millions just for money. FDR was the same and all the other businesses kill every single day just to make money.

Yeah have fun with that buddy. I'll just be chilling with the other 99.9% of the entire US population who aren't complete lunatics.

supertails
September 28th, 2008, 09:43 PM
Actually it's the other way away around.

Aurafire
September 28th, 2008, 09:49 PM
Actually it's the other way away around.

Oh, I'm sorry. I almost forgot that the majority of the United States believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Of course, how could I be so silly! Conspiracy theorists obviously represent the overwhelming majority of the population.

If this is the case, if 99.9% of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I'd tend to think that we'd probably here more about how Bush and his evil henchmen killed 3,000 innocent people instead of islamic terrorists. But oh well, you're probably right. What was I thinking?

I'm not going to argue with you any more dude. There's is absolutely no point.

supertails
September 28th, 2008, 09:57 PM
Actually I meant to say that 99.9% are lunatics and the other .1% like me are smart. I was meaning to reverse the insult from me to you. You called me a lunatic and I reserved it back to you.

Cherrim
September 29th, 2008, 03:46 AM
Bush is Hitler and his men and the businesses that caused this fake war are EVIL, EVIL men. Bush and his men are EVIL because they caused 911 and killed millions just for money.
...you're comparing Bush to Hitler!? I can't be the only one who finds that horribly insulting. :| Listen, we don't CARE that you're a conspiracy theorist. Your reasoning is terrible and thoroughly unconvincing. You wanna bring that stuff up, do it in a separate thread so you can be argued with there or something (though you may have help considering some of the posts in the 9/11 thread this year <_<). Your spam is unneeded in this thread; it's both unneeded and irrelevant. And seriously--no comparing people to Hitler whether you know them or not. That's a very, very hefty accusation and I don't think you have enough of a claim to back that up anyway so watch what you say. (Strange, I have this odd feeling I've told you this before.)

Anyway, get on topic or get out of this thread. Go make a conspiracy thread in OC to keep yourself occupied if you have to. :|