The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   US Elections 2008: Debate the Issues (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=152191)

ChronicEdge September 8th, 2008 3:48 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 3:51 PM

Hillary..eh...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacharine (Post 3923834)
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 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChronicEdge (Post 3923857)
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 3:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpartanPatriot (Post 3923886)
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 4:04 PM

Hmm..
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SpartanPatriot (Post 3923886)
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 4:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3923909)
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 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3923909)
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 4:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3923936)
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....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Feder
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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...



  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 4:14 PM

Heee...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SpartanPatriot (Post 3923930)
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)

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 4:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpartanPatriot (Post 3923947)

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 4:38 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 4:43 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 5:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3923956)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txteclipse (Post 3924056)
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 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpartanPatriot (Post 3924110)
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 5:11 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 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3923838)
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.

Quote:


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 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megera (Post 3924225)
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 6:08 PM

Quote:

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 to the original page on CIS.

Quote:

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 6:17 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 6:22 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 6:26 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 6:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txteclipse (Post 3924352)
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.

doesn't matter September 8th, 2008 6:28 PM

Then why can't you just deal with the individuals rather than the entire group?

Stalin Malone September 8th, 2008 8:32 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 3:26 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 6:48 AM

Argh...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BRTD (Post 3924579)
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/

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 7:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3925212)
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.

wolf September 9th, 2008 7:41 AM

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

Ivysaur September 9th, 2008 9:05 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowmightyena (Post 3925292)
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 o_o

Netto Azure September 9th, 2008 10:08 AM

Hmm...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3925286)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 3925427)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 3925427)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowmightyena (Post 3925292)
Will the Soviet Union take over the Georgia (Europe) or will they destroy it?

...Yeah, proof that No Child Left Behind is not working -_-'
Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 3925427)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by txteclipse (Post 3925610)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3925886)
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

Hee...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by txteclipse (Post 3925891)
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 1:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3925895)
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 website seems dependable. I linked to a page that explains quickly and simply why you should have gold.

Netto Azure September 9th, 2008 5:12 PM

Yup..
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by txteclipse (Post 3925929)
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 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 6:35 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

Yeah...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Red1530 (Post 3926796)
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 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3927923)
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 6:22 PM

Barack Obama is the most liberal senator and thus he would have the worst economic policy.

Netto Azure September 11th, 2008 6:34 PM

Ugh....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BRTD (Post 3931714)
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 3:37 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 4:14 PM

Quote:

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 5:11 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 6:55 PM

either way the next 4-8 years WILL be better than these last 8 FOR SURE

Allstories September 13th, 2008 7:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan24 (Post 3933976)
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. 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 9:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3935091)
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. 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3935329)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3935329)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3935705)



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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3935794)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3935794)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3935794)
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 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3935953)
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 4:28 PM

See how....
 
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 4:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3942641)
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 5:11 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 5:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic_Reactor (Post 3942819)
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 5:23 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 5:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic_Reactor (Post 3942855)
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 5:33 PM

:D

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

Aurafire September 15th, 2008 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic_Reactor (Post 3942886)
: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 5:40 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 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic_Reactor (Post 3942902)
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 5:44 PM

Oh, lol. He said he was 73, but now that I recall, he did sound a bit sarcastic lol

Aurafire September 15th, 2008 5:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic_Reactor (Post 3942913)
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 5:52 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 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic_Reactor (Post 3942939)
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 9:32 AM

Heh...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3942944)
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 6:46 AM

Argh....
 
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 7:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3951196)
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 7:18 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 9:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3951247)
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 9:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3951247)
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 9:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xairmo (Post 3951433)
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 9:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3951443)
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 to the point of becoming a hollow puppet-man for the Republican party.

Aurafire September 19th, 2008 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3951470)
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 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3951522)
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 1:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3951470)
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 to the point of becoming a hollow puppet-man for the Republican party.

Very well spoken. Bravo, sirrah.

the bitter end. September 19th, 2008 2:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpartanPatriot (Post 3909928)
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 2:46 PM

Ehh...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderdudeX (Post 3952153)
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 3:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3952197)
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 6:59 PM

Ok...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan24 (Post 3952329)
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 7:19 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 8:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan24 (Post 3953152)
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 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtommy1 (Post 3953290)

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 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan24 (Post 3952329)
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 2:24 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 9:51 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 1:09 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 3:45 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 5:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3961281)
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 8:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3961715)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3961715)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3961715)
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 9:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3962022)
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.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3962022)
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.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3962022)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3962022)
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.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 3962022)
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 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3961715)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962092)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962092)
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".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962092)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962092)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962092)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962092)
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 7:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 3962201)
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.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 3962201)
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.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 3962201)
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?





Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 3962201)
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.





Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 3962201)
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.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 3962201)
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.



[QUOTE=Went;3962201]...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:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 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 8:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962641)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962641)
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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962641)
I wish liberals would stop taking everything I say out of context."

Do you not realize the irony here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurasphere (Post 3962641)
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?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:59 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.