Official Presidential Election 2008 Discussion

[Zephyr]

To avoid a million threads about the election spamming up Ramblings Of The Wise, I bring you the offical discussion sticky! Anything about the election that you'd like to discuss or debate pretaining to the election, please post in here. Have fun, enjoy and keep it clean and civil ;)

[tbboltz92]

I tihnk obama will be president, hes got all the right ideas In my opion

[Mzor203]

I don't know who's going to win right now. I sincerely hope it's Obama... Having Palin be the vice president sounds a bit scary to me... McCain's already in his 70's, and though even though that isn't incredibly old in this day and age, stuff still happens.

[Oblivion]

I also wish Obama to win
Not only is his speaking inspirational, but his ideas are really good.
Of course rarely could a presidential candidate represent every one of your beliefs, but Obama is definitely close.

[0=]

I don't think either candidate is qualified to be president. I like the theory that only the vice presidential candidates matter; it states that McCain will die from natural causes before his term ends or some racist hick will shoot Obama :rolleyes:

[Attax]

Just some thoughts to sum it up:
Interesting Comparison/Perspective from recent Military Retiree:
>
>
> I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight . .
.
>
>
> If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're
> "exotic, different."
>
> Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
>
>
> If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
>
> Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
>
>
> Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
>
> Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well
>
> grounded.
>
>
> If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the
first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration
drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional
Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with
over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and
Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate
representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and
serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's
Affairs committees, you don't have any real
> leadership experience.
>
>
> If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city
> council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people,
20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're
qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
>
>
> If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2
beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real
Christian.
>
> If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
> disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.
>
>
> If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the
proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
>
> If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other
option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed
teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.
>
>
>
> If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a
prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community,
then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't
represent America's.
>
> If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at
least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to
vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession
of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
>
>
> OK, much clearer now.

[Mzor203]

I don't think either candidate is qualified to be president. I like the theory that only the vice presidential candidates matter; it states that McCain will die from natural causes before his term ends or some racist hick will shoot Obama :rolleyes:

Then we definitely want Obama. Palin scares me.

[Mannequin]

I predict mccain and palin will win, which im not happy about. They appeal so much to the "average" american.

[Antares]

I am undecided...to an extent.
If I could vote then it would be for Obama but I really want to give McCain a chance :P

[southcarolina]

Go McCain!!! I really like Palin too!

[tbboltz92]

I odnt think Palin's got enough under her belt. I mean she was only govonor for 2 years, and of Alska.and what else a mayor. I think Obama being a senator at least gives him the knowlage of all the crap that happens on capital hiil.

[thesphinx]

I odnt think Palin's got enough under her belt. I mean she was only govonor for 2 years, and of Alska.and what else a mayor. I think Obama being a senator at least gives him the knowlage of all the crap that happens on capital hiil.

If you are going to compare Palin to Obama then she has much more experience running a state than Obama does, the only thing he has run is as a community manager.
Yes he's in the senate how does that compare to running a country?
If you want to compare McCain to Obama then you still will see he has more experience then him.

McCain has also actually fought in a war and with the war in Iraq such a big issue I think he would be able to make a better choice in how to deal with it.
Why? Because he knows what a war is like first hand he knows people personally that were in wars he understands what they are like.

Obama does not know what it is like to have your friends killed around you or actually see the people that you are killing, to him it is all statistics and numbers on paper.

[Malcolm Tucker]

ok I know I'm not American but in my opinion, as the consencus of other Irish people and one new yorker that Palin is a nutjob. I want Obama to win, for his beliefs and I think he'll make a great president.

[thesphinx]

How is Palin a Nutjob?
What has she said/done that makes her that? please tell me I'm curious as to why so many people think this?

[tbboltz92]

She has avoided anwering questions asked by the media.thats what makes her a nut job.and the fact that she would evean want to be vice preident makes her nuts. And by the way i think your wrong about obama and war being only statistics. and as far as iam concerned just because you fought in war dosnt mean your a good presidential canidate.
In my opion we shuldnt evean be Iraq and the middle east at all. It's not our fight. And I have to ask what makes Palin a good canidate. Can anyone tell me whats so great about her? If offend iam sorry but this is how I look at things.

[Underground_Network]

Palin has not displayed the qualities of a leader. She has not shown that if McCain were to die/fall fatally ill/etc. that she could take the helms and lead this country. Palin was the most ignorant choice for vice president ever. I'm a democrat, but had McCain chosen anyone else for VP, even a dead squirrel, and I had the ability to vote, I would vote for him. Because of Palin, I would rather vote for Obama.

[thesphinx]

She has avoided anwering questions asked by the media.thats what makes her a nut job.and the fact that she would evean want to be vice preident makes her nuts. And by the way i think your wrong about obama and war being only statistics. and as far as iam concerned just because you fought in war dosnt mean your a good presidential canidate.
In my opion we shuldnt evean be Iraq and the middle east at all. It's not our fight. And I have to ask what makes Palin a good canidate. Can anyone tell me whats so great about her? If offend iam sorry but this is how I look at things.

Give me an instance what didn't she answer? And you are saying because she is running for VP she is Nuts??
That's what a democracy is about, ANYONE can run and it sure as hell doesn't make you nuts.

I never said that being in a war would make him a better President I said that he understands a war better than Obama will ever be able to.

I think it would also surprise you when I say that Obama has readily said that he would send troups to Iran/Pakistan if he thought terrorists were residing there, sound familiar?

[0=]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84m2orSOaM

Evidence enough of insanity?

[Mzor203]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84m2orSOaM

Evidence enough of insanity?
One of the comments on the first video:

Bush 2.0

I thought that was funny.

[thesphinx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84m2orSOaM

Evidence enough of insanity?

Far from it.

Do you really want to go there?
To religious backgrounds because Obama doesn't have the best background either.

If you are to judge her on her religious background than you need to also judge Obama's Background with Rev. Wright.

[Oblivion]

Did you happen to watch the debate last night?
She avoided almost every single question the moderator asked.
She either had a quick answer leading to what she wanted to talk about, or completely ignore the question and talked about whatever.
The moderator asked what her weaknesses, and Palin started talking about her strengths.

Then she says stuff like "I know all about foreign relations. Heck I can see Russia from my back door!"

Things like that make her seem stupid and unfit for next in line if McCain became president then died.

[0=]

Far from it.

Do you really want to go there?
To religious backgrounds because Obama doesn't have the best background either.

If you are to judge her on her religious background than you need to also judge Obama's Background with Rev. Wright.

I don't care about her religion; I care that she thinks it's God's will that we fight in Iraq and extract oil from Alaska. That signals insanity to me. Christianity teaches peace and tolerance. It also teaches that we're the caretakers of the planet and that's we're responsible for everything on it, meaning destroying a wildlife preserve for monetary gain is against Christianity.

[thesphinx]

Did you happen to watch the debate last night?
She avoided almost every single question the moderator asked.
She either had a quick answer leading to what she wanted to talk about, or completely ignore the question and talked about whatever.
The moderator asked what her weaknesses, and Palin started talking about her strengths.

Then she says stuff like "I know all about foreign relations. Heck I can see Russia from my back door!"

Things like that make her seem stupid and unfit for next in line if McCain became president then died.

Yes I watched the debates.

She might have avoided some things but at least she didn't LIE about certain things like Biden did (Saying Obama Would NOTmeet with out pre-conditions with terrorist related countries).
My point is I would rather have someone not answer a question because they don't know what to say then to have someone completely Lie.

[CaptainObvious]

Yes I watched the debates.

She might have avoided some things but at least she didn't LIE about certain things like Biden did (Saying Obama Would NOTmeet with out pre-conditions with terrorist related countries).
My point is I would rather have someone not answer a question because they don't know what to say then to have someone completely Lie.

Apparently you're one of the people who listens to what Biden said, fails to understand any of the specificity of it, and goes around spouting lies about it.

Here's the facts: Obama, during the primaries, said he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. Then, he quickly realized that would be a mistake, and modified his policy. Now, Obama is in favor of lower-level talks (Secretary of State-level was floated as a good option) without preconditions, and then Presidential-level talks once it is clear that the climate is right (meaning, once concessions have been made and general agreements and frameworks created). Those are the facts. And that's what Biden said.

Obama is obviously not in favor of un-preconditioned Presidential talks. To pretend that he is is purposely sticking your head in the sand. Biden represented Obama's position exactly, and you're the one who's distorting it.

For the record, Henry Kissinger, the eminent former Secretary of State (and a Republican, generally) suggested an approach of engagement with Iran that would start at the Secretary of State level, without preconditions. The Bush administration recently started quietly pursuing a similar diplomatic course as well.

Sounds familiar, right? Oh yeah, that's Obama's plan. Funny how things work out...

[theOperaGhost]

Obama, during the primaries, said he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. Then, he quickly realized that would be a mistake, and modified his policy.

Doesn't that make Obama a flip-flopper? Do we want an indecisive president?

[Mzor203]

Doesn't that make Obama a flip-flopper? Do we want an indecisive president?

Or maybe it just means he is able to recognize his mistakes and fix them. Seriously, every time someone important messes up in some way, no matter how large, we're all over them unfairly.

My opinion. =)

[CaptainObvious]

Doesn't that make Obama a flip-flopper? Do we want an indecisive president?

Well, maybe you don't want indecision. Maybe you want the President to go based on his first instinct and never re-evaluate and change his mind. In that case, you should be extremely happy with how Bush has operated.

I, on the other hand, prefer a President who is open to changing his mind based on re-evaluations of the situation/new information. I feel Obama is capable of that (and, for the record, until recent gaffes - Palin - have made me question his judgment I thought the very same thing of McCain).

But more importantly, it is essentially impossible to find anyone who has been in politics more than a couple of years who has never changed their mind. And that's understandable - have you never changed your mind on a political issue?

[thesphinx]

Apparently you're one of the people who listens to what Biden said, fails to understand any of the specificity of it, and goes around spouting lies about it.

Here's the facts: Obama, during the primaries, said he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. Then, he quickly realized that would be a mistake, and modified his policy. Now, Obama is in favor of lower-level talks (Secretary of State-level was floated as a good option) without preconditions, and then Presidential-level talks once it is clear that the climate is right (meaning, once concessions have been made and general agreements and frameworks created). Those are the facts. And that's what Biden said.

Obama is obviously not in favor of un-preconditioned Presidential talks. To pretend that he is is purposely sticking your head in the sand. Biden represented Obama's position exactly, and you're the one who's distorting it.

For the record, Henry Kissinger, the eminent former Secretary of State (and a Republican, generally) suggested an approach of engagement with Iran that would start at the Secretary of State level, without preconditions. The Bush administration recently started quietly pursuing a similar diplomatic course as well.

Sounds familiar, right? Oh yeah, that's Obama's plan. Funny how things work out...

That may be true but you are still missing the point that Biden Lied!
He said "Obama never said that" why wouldn't he just say that he changed is policy toward that?
Again I would rather of him said "I am not sure" than tell a lie.

This whole discussion started because people say she didn't answer the questions, that may be so but all I am saying is how can you criticize her for not answering a question when Biden blatantly told a lie in front of the entire nation?

[CaptainObvious]

But Biden didn't lie. Palin implied that Obama meeting un-preconditioned with foreign leaders directly was his current policy. That is a lie, and it he has never said, during this campaign, that it was. Therefore, Biden's response was directly accurate.

Had Palin accused Obama of having said such a thing in the primary, which he did, Biden could've responded by pointing out the change of policy. But Palin didn't attack in an honest way, and so Biden's response was very appropriate.

[The Batman]

Actually Palin didn't imply when he said it, all she did was say that he said it sometime in the past. So really Michael is right about this, and also Biden should have been more careful about his words.

[rainebg]

Just some thoughts to sum it up:
Interesting Comparison/Perspective from recent Military Retiree:
>
>
> I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight . .
.
>
>
> If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're
> "exotic, different."
>
> Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
>
>
> If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
>
> Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
>
>
> Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
>
> Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well
>
> grounded.
>
>
> If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the
first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration
drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional
Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with
over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and
Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate
representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and
serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's
Affairs committees, you don't have any real
> leadership experience.
>
>
> If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city
> council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people,
20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're
qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
>
>
> If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2
beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real
Christian.
>
> If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
> disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.
>
>
> If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the
proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
>
> If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other
option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed
teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.
>
>
>
> If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a
prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community,
then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't
represent America's.
>
> If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at
least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to
vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession
of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
>
>
> OK, much clearer now.
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!! i completely agree

[thesphinx]

Just some thoughts to sum it up:
Interesting Comparison/Perspective from recent Military Retiree:
>
>
> I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight . .
.
>
>
> If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're
> "exotic, different."
>
> Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
>
>
> If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
>
> Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
>
>
> Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
>
> Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well
>
> grounded.
>
>
> If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the
first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration
drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional
Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with
over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and
Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate
representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and
serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's
Affairs committees, you don't have any real
> leadership experience.
>
>
> If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city
> council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people,
20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're
qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
>
>
> If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2
beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real
Christian.
>
> If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
> disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.
>
>
> If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the
proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
>
> If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other
option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed
teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.
>
>
>
> If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a
prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community,
then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't
represent America's.
>
> If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at
least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to
vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession
of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
>
>
> OK, much clearer now.

You could flip this so it is against McCain/Palin too.

And I don't understand how being a "Community Manager" could be more important/difficult than running an ENTIRE State especially with the approval rating she had.

[theOperaGhost]

Well, maybe you don't want indecision. Maybe you want the President to go based on his first instinct and never re-evaluate and change his mind. In that case, you should be extremely happy with how Bush has operated.

I, on the other hand, prefer a President who is open to changing his mind based on re-evaluations of the situation/new information. I feel Obama is capable of that (and, for the record, until recent gaffes - Palin - have made me question his judgment I thought the very same thing of McCain).

But more importantly, it is essentially impossible to find anyone who has been in politics more than a couple of years who has never changed their mind. And that's understandable - have you never changed your mind on a political issue?

Why did everyone get so angry when Gore changed his mind about something?

Anywho...I really don't give a shit at who is president...I think both of them are going to be a small step up from Bush, but still not very good. McCain would just be the lesser of two evils.

[rsc4life]

Well. McCain is slipping everywhere. the only real swing state in which he leads is missouri. by a point.

[thesphinx]

Why did everyone get so angry when Gore changed his mind about something?

Anywho...I really don't give a shit at who is president...I think both of them are going to be a small step up from Bush, but still not very good. McCain would just be the lesser of two evils.

Agreed, I don't care who the president is Democrat Republican whatever! as long as they do a good job.

[rsc4life]

Well, I'll post this link if you want to see the current electoral standings. I gave McCain North Carolina even though it is dead even.

http://www.270towin.com/

[Mannequin]

Can someone please explain to me why they prefer palin over biden?
or mccain over obama?

[thesphinx]

Can someone please explain to me why they prefer palin over biden?
or mccain over obama?

I posted this in another thread but it faded away..

I have researched each of them a bit and at first I liked Obama better.
Now I like McCain better:
Why,
Palin McCains VP has more experience in government work then the democratic ticket put together.
McCain was in a war, he understands what a war is like and unlike ther politicians he is going to know how hard it is for soldiers to be in a war.
McCains is Pro Life .

Energy wise I believe McCain has a better plan he wants to let us drill for oil on our land so that we can be independent again.
he is for looking into alternative fuel sources but until then we won't have to be dependent on terrorist countries.


Why I dislike Obama:
First of all he promises tax breaks for low income families but it is not realistic because with all of his socialist programs where is the money going to come from - The rich he says, take from the rich and give to the poor? what happens after that is the rich people are not going to invest as much putting our economy in a worse state then it is in now.

also the tax breaks are only for people making under 250K a year so if a small business decides to open and they are making more than that they are going to be taxed higher with no breaks.

Also he wants to pull out from a Iraq at a fast rate I think this is a bad idea because I think if we leave at the wrong time it will go back to how it was years ago.

He is Pro Choice and is for killing the baby right after it is born.

[0=]

Abortion has nothing to do with the president. The supreme court makes the decision.

[Hyper]

Also there are alot of countries with these ''socialist'' take from the rich and give to the poor programms

That are very succesful :P

[thesphinx]

Abortion has nothing to do with the president. The supreme court makes the decision.

Well morally that subject is important to me and shows something about the candidate.

Also there are alot of countries with these ''socialist'' take from the rich and give to the poor programms

That are very succesful :P

Like which countries?

[rsc4life]

Obama pulls ahead in North Dakota! Just thought we should know!

[CaptainObvious]

Like which countries?

America (yes, America has lots of redistributory programs), Canada, most of Europe... should I go on? Almost every country uses wealth redistribution, including America.

Palin McCains VP has more experience in government work then the democratic ticket put together.

...that is a lie. As was pointed out by Palin herself, Biden has been in the senate since Palin was 8. Where exactly are you getting the facts for this statement?

McCain was in a war, he understands what a war is like and unlike ther politicians he is going to know how hard it is for soldiers to be in a war.

Right... which should mean he would be less likely to send soldiers into harm's way. However, Obama is even better on that metric. So shouldn't you logically support Obama on that point? Or do you mean something different?

McCains is Pro Life .

True. And if you're one of the more extreme Americans who wants Roe v Wade overturned (a terrible idea, given the massive amount of jurisprudence built upon it, and its central place in social order), then you should hate Obama and love McCain.

Energy wise I believe McCain has a better plan he wants to let us drill for oil on our land so that we can be independent again.
he is for looking into alternative fuel sources but until then we won't have to be dependent on terrorist countries.

I agree that McCain's stance on drilling is superior. However, his overall energy policy is worse - he has had ample opportunities to pass bills to encourage alternative energy, and he hasn't. Obama has. What precedent do you rely on to substantiate your point that McCain will support alternative energy?

Furthermore, why do you think America won't have to be dependent on foreign oil (from "terrorist countries", which is a false statement since much of America's oil comes from Canada and Mexico) if new drilling is allowed? Not a drop of oil from that drilling would be available for at least 10 years. Doesn't sound independent to me.

First of all he promises tax breaks for low income families but it is not realistic because with all of his socialist programs where is the money going to come from - The rich he says, take from the rich and give to the poor? what happens after that is the rich people are not going to invest as much putting our economy in a worse state then it is in now.

The tax hikes on rich people would pay for far more than the tax cuts would cost. I agree with you, though, that Obama can't both cut taxes and also implement all his proposed programs.

What happens when the rich stop investing? Who says they will? Obama's tax hikes, in total, bring a >$250k earner's tax burden back to what it was under Reagan - and Reagan wasn't exactly a raving socialist, you know. More importantly, the tax decrease on <$250k earners should increase consumption more than investment decreases, keeping aggregate demand constant or increasing.

But the question I consider more important is this: how can McCain possibly consider keeping the Bush tax cuts, when the government is already so massively in debt (due in large part to Bush's tax cuts and his war)? That is massively, massively irresponsible.

also the tax breaks are only for people making under 250K a year so if a small business decides to open and they are making more than that they are going to be taxed higher with no breaks.

This is a misconception. The tax increases are on income - which, for a small business, is profit (proprietor's income). Tax increases are not going to be on revenue, as you seem to think. At the end of the day, very few small businesses makes more than $250k profit.

Also he wants to pull out from a Iraq at a fast rate I think this is a bad idea because I think if we leave at the wrong time it will go back to how it was years ago.

Obama's plan that he announced earlier in the primaries is exactly the same as the Iraqi Prime Minister's preferred withdrawal timetable. I'm thinking maybe we should defer to the Iraqi government on when they want America out, but you might disagree.

He is Pro Choice and is for killing the baby right after it is born.

He is pro choice. That is true. But the latter half of your statement is, once again, an outrageous and offensive lie. If you can link me to any statement from Obama that he is "for killing" babies of any age, I'll defer this one. And no, his vote on the Illinois bill that he has been so hammered for doesn't count as proof, for a couple of reasons (there was already a law on the books covering the issue, the bill was championed by a Roe v Wade opponent who openly admitted she hoped for it to be challenged to the Supreme Court so Roe v Wade could be struck down, the bill contained language that would make that constitutional challenge almost inevitable, etc.).

[thesphinx]

America (yes, America has lots of redistributory programs), Canada, most of Europe... should I go on? Almost every country uses wealth redistribution, including America.

Although it may "work" I believe that it is unconstitutional to take money from someone just because they make a lot of money.
In the USA you should have the right to make as much money as you want and not be taxed higher for it, it is not fair.


...that is a lie. As was pointed out by Palin herself, Biden has been in the senate since Palin was 8. Where exactly are you getting the facts for this statement?

Yes I saw that, so let me restate my opinion on it Biden has more experience that Palin.
But McCain has more experience than Obama and in my Ipinion that is what counts because the VP's will not be making the major decisions.


Right... which should mean he would be less likely to send soldiers into harm's way. However, Obama is even better on that metric. So shouldn't you logically support Obama on that point? Or do you mean something different?


I mean that I think he will have more experience and intuition on what is realistic and what isn't when it comes to war.
For instance pulling troops out of Iraq and telling the enemy the deadline for it so they can prepare to take the region over again.


True. And if you're one of the more extreme Americans who wants Roe v Wade overturned (a terrible idea, given the massive amount of jurisprudence built upon it, and its central place in social order), then you should hate Obama and love McCain.

Well I am not an Extreme anything I simply don't support killing unwanted babies.



I agree that McCain's stance on drilling is superior. However, his overall energy policy is worse - he has had ample opportunities to pass bills to encourage alternative energy, and he hasn't. Obama has. What precedent do you rely on to substantiate your point that McCain will support alternative energy?

McCain has said he supports Alternative energy (Natural gas, Clean nuclear power, Hydrogen)


Furthermore, why do you think America won't have to be dependent on foreign oil (from "terrorist countries", which is a false statement since much of America's oil comes from Canada and Mexico) if new drilling is allowed? Not a drop of oil from that drilling would be available for at least 10 years. Doesn't sound independent to me.

That is a false statement we could start getting oil as soon as 1 year.
And it could get us completely off of Middle eastern oil.
We would still get oil from Mexico and Canada but they aren't a threat to our country.


The tax hikes on rich people would pay for far more than the tax cuts would cost. I agree with you, though, that Obama can't both cut taxes and also implement all his proposed programs.

I really just don't like the idea of more socialist programs ran by the government.



What happens when the rich stop investing? Who says they will? Obama's tax hikes, in total, bring a >$250k earner's tax burden back to what it was under Reagan - and Reagan wasn't exactly a raving socialist, you know. More importantly, the tax decrease on <$250k earners should increase consumption more than investment decreases, keeping aggregate demand constant or increasing.

Yes but do you know what business do with there earnings?
They invest, expand and it creates a thriving company.
If they are taxed to death I highly doubt they will be giving away benefits such as vacation, health care, etc
Which means people will be forced to use Obamas government mandatory health care.



But the question I consider more important is this: how can McCain possibly consider keeping the Bush tax cuts, when the government is already so massively in debt (due in large part to Bush's tax cuts and his war)? That is massively, massively irresponsible.

I agree with you here that there needs to be some changes with that.
Although it was not all the Bush Administration.


This is a misconception. The tax increases are on income - which, for a small business, is profit (proprietor's income). Tax increases are not going to be on revenue, as you seem to think. At the end of the day, very few small businesses makes more than $250k profit.

Where do you get the statistic for few businesses make more than 250K?

Obama's plan that he announced earlier in the primaries is exactly the same as the Iraqi Prime Minister's preferred withdrawal timetable. I'm thinking maybe we should defer to the Iraqi government on when they want America out, but you might disagree.

I think giving something like that a time table is like giving a the terrorists an invitation to what they lost.
Yes we should slowly transfere but the Iraqi government needs to be able to stand alone first or they will be over thrown.


He is pro choice. That is true. But the latter half of your statement is, once again, an outrageous and offensive lie. If you can link me to any statement from Obama that he is "for killing" babies of any age, I'll defer this one. And no, his vote on the Illinois bill that he has been so hammered for doesn't count as proof, for a couple of reasons (there was already a law on the books covering the issue, the bill was championed by a Roe v Wade opponent who openly admitted she hoped for it to be challenged to the Supreme Court so Roe v Wade could be struck down, the bill contained language that would make that constitutional challenge almost inevitable, etc.).

If you want you can look it up he voted 4 times for not providing medical care for unwanted born babies.

[CaptainObvious]

Although it may "work" I believe that it is unconstitutional to take money from someone just because they make a lot of money.

Well, you're wrong again:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Seems like it's cosntitutional, yeah?

In the USA you should have the right to make as much money as you want and not be taxed higher for it, it is not fair.

Is it really not fair? Maybe. But tell me, do you think it's fair that a poor person (who already has very little) should be forced to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a wealthy person? That is in fact the case in many circumstances in America. For example, as is often quoted, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. And that is ridiculous.

The reason progressive taxation is superior is because wealthier people "need" their money less. Do they deserve it less? No. But if a certain amount of taxation has to come from the population, it is optimal in a utilitarian sense to take it disproportionately from the wealthy. And that is the way it works in almost every country in the world.

Yes I saw that, so let me restate my opinion on it Biden has more experience that Palin.
But McCain has more experience than Obama and in my Ipinion that is what counts because the VP's will not be making the major decisions.

Experience is irrelevant. Well, not irrelevant: if someone is a bumbling idiot who obviously isn't prepared for the office they seek (Palin - and I say this in a non-partisan way, following in the steps of many Republicans who have said the exact same thing), they shouldn't be elected. But once a person has gained requisite experience (McCain, Obama and Biden all have it), then experience is only as useful as what that experience is.

Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 100s of bills in each legislative session of which he has been a member. He has a clear grasp on Constitutional law (he is a Constitutional scholar, recognized widely for it), as well as economic policy, social policy, etc. You might disagree with him on policy, but to fault him for inexperience is a straw man argument, unless you're arguing that his "lack of experience" (such as it is) will makes him a worse candidate. And if that's what you're arguing, prove it.

I mean that I think he will have more experience and intuition on what is realistic and what isn't when it comes to war.
For instance pulling troops out of Iraq and telling the enemy the deadline for it so they can prepare to take the region over again.

What are you talking about? First, Obama's deadline is now the preferred deadline of the Iraqi Prime Minister (which you seem to have missed), and it is the Iraqis who make the decision on this one. Second, McCain couldn't just pull out. He would absolutely have to announce it well in advance. Maybe you should pick a better example, because from the one you've provided Obama still comes out more favorably.

Well I am not an Extreme anything I simply don't support killing unwanted babies.

Killing unwanted babies? Killing implies that those "babies" (fetuses) are alive, which is in definite dispute. You can be anti-abortion; lots of people are; but if you support overturning Roe v Wade, that makes you extremist in my view; only an extremist on the issue could possibly want to invite all the social and judicial chaos that such a move would cause.

McCain has said he supports Alternative energy (Natural gas, Clean nuclear power, Hydrogen)

Yes, he said that, but he has voted against alternative energy bills almost every time. I care less about what he says than what how he has voted on the issue.

That is a false statement we could start getting oil as soon as 1 year.
And it could get us completely off of Middle eastern oil.
We would still get oil from Mexico and Canada but they aren't a threat to our country.

You're telling me that it takes only a year for oil companies to map reserves, plan drilling sites, drill exploratory wells to find out where best to drill production wells, and then build drilling rigs, move them to their sites, set them up and connect them and set up the supply chains to bring the oil to land? That is a joke.

Show me a single verifiable source that claims currently off-limit drilling areas could produce oil in a year if drilling were opened. Even McCain admits it will be a number of years before additional drilling would produce actual oil. That's the way drilling works, if you didn't know - it takes time.

I really just don't like the idea of more socialist programs ran by the government.

I suppose that's a matter of personal opinion. You might think differently if you had cancer and couldn't get health care because you had no insurance before you were diagnosed and now cannot get any because of the pre-existing condition. That is one of many major problems with health care in America. I could devote a massive post to that alone, and if you'd like we can discuss it separately, but for the moment I'll leave it.

Yes but do you know what business do with there earnings?
They invest, expand and it creates a thriving company.
If they are taxed to death I highly doubt they will be giving away benefits such as vacation, health care, etc
Which means people will be forced to use Obamas government mandatory health care.

Uhh... companies give away the minimum necessary to get the human capital (employees) they desire - that's simple economic profit maximization. Logically, higher taxation shouldn't result in much cutting of benefits - if a particular employee produces more value than his/her benefits cost, that won't change with more taxation. There just may be layoffs. Which is a real problem, but the benefits to the middle class from tax breaks and additional programs will, on the whole, very much more than counterbalance that cost.

I agree with you here that there needs to be some changes with that.
Although it was not all the Bush Administration.

Bush's tax cuts are the fault of the Bush administration. The Iraq war is the fault of the Bush administration. Those are the two biggest items that have contributed to the deficit over the past 8 years. So yeah, I'd say it was more or less the Bush administrations fault. And, insofar as the Republican congress was right in line with him on it, it's their fault too.

Where do you get the statistic for few businesses make more than 250K?

You need to read what I write much more carefully. Obama's proposed tax increase is not a revenue tax increase, it is an income tax increase - effectively a profit tax increase. Very, very few small businesses (I didn't say businesses, I said small businesses) make over $250k profit (proprietor's income). They may make more than that in revenue, but not in profit. And even if they do, I'm not particularly opposed to taxing the profit that's over $250k at a somewhat higher rate.

I think giving something like that a time table is like giving a the terrorists an invitation to what they lost.
Yes we should slowly transfere but the Iraqi government needs to be able to stand alone first or they will be over thrown.

When McCain decides to withdraw he will be forced to give a timetable as well. He can't just up and pull all the troops out. That's not how it works, either in Iraq (they will require advance warning, and since they are a democracy as well it will be public), and so does America (and because America is a democracy, it will be public here as well).

As for the Iraqi government standing on its own, they appear to already think they can, since (as I've said before, and you've ignored), the Iraqi Prime Minister likes Obama's timetable and said so publicly.

If you want you can look it up he voted 4 times for not providing medical care for unwanted born babies.

Did you bother to find out why, or did you just see the right win talking points spin and believe and repeat it?

The Illinois law Obama voted against was both redundant (there was already a law on the books), and contained language that was intended to make the law precipitate a Constitutional challenge that the bill's major proponent (an extremely pro-life nurse called Jill Stanek) hoped would result in challenges to the Supreme Court, and the overturning of Roe v Wade.

Since doctors in Illinois were already required to do whatever they could to save fetuses born alive, an additional law was both unnecessary and, given its creator's purpose, misleading (this was never really about saving babies, who were already legally protected - it was about overturning Roe v Wade).

[theOperaGhost]

You're telling me that it takes only a year for oil companies to map reserves, plan drilling sites, drill exploratory wells to find out where best to drill production wells, and then build drilling rigs, move them to their sites, set them up and connect them and set up the supply chains to bring the oil to land? That is a joke.



Ever heard of North Dakota? The Bakken Formation?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

Check it out...

[CaptainObvious]

Ever heard of North Dakota? The Bakken Formation?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

Check it out...

Did you bother reading my post? The difference of opinion between Obama and McCain (at least the one we were discussing, I don't know what you're on about) is over drilling on the outer continental shelf, where it is currently illegal to drill. Oil from there could not come to market for some years, even if drilling there were legalized today.

The Bakken formation is irrelevant because it's already legal to drill there.

[rsc4life]

Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 100s of bills in each legislative session of which he has been a member. He has a clear grasp on Constitutional law (he is a Constitutional scholar, recognized widely for it), as well as economic policy, social policy, etc. You might disagree with him on policy, but to fault him for inexperience is a straw man argument, unless you're arguing that his "lack of experience" (such as it is) will makes him a worse candidate. And if that's what you're arguing, prove it.

Just wondering, although I am an obama supporter, do you know what co-sponsoring is? I mean. It is not a big deal at all.

[CaptainObvious]

Just wondering, although I am an obama supporter, do you know what co-sponsoring is? I mean. It is not a big deal at all.

That's true, but the point is not that he was substantively involved with each of those bills, but rather that he was substantively involved in the legislative process surrounding them. It's more of a counter to the argument that he sat around voting present for his whole legislative career, than anything else.

[CaptainObvious]

Hey thePianoMan, still waiting on your answer as to why the Bakken Formation is/was relevant to our discussion of offshore drilling...

On another note, did anyone watch the debate last night? Thoughts? I thought McCain was winning for the first 30 or so minutes, but Obama really ended up on top, starting with his (in my mind at least) very strong answer to the question about Ayers.

[theOperaGhost]

Hey thePianoMan, still waiting on your answer as to why the Bakken Formation is/was relevant to our discussion of offshore drilling...

On another note, did anyone watch the debate last night? Thoughts? I thought McCain was winning for the first 30 or so minutes, but Obama really ended up on top, starting with his (in my mind at least) very strong answer to the question about Ayers.

I'll admit I was in the wrong there, but that's because I didn't read everything in your posts (I rarely read all of yours) and I just saw oil and having to wait ten years and thought, wtf...there's a shit load of oil here.

My bad...

[Mzor203]

My brother showed me a site today... I love it.

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

And THAT's why we don't want McCain in office. :D

[iJack]

Haha!

[thesphinx]

that made me laugh even though I support McCain-Palin.

[Requin]

Obama's worried that his gran might die before the election. Ah.

Really as Ian Hislop pointed out on 'Have I Got News For You' it's a good thing that he's with this gran because:
a) She needs looking after.
b) It shows that he's a kind family loving guy.
and c) It shows that his gran is white and well...that always helps.
:-)

[Mannequin]

I think it's kind of stupid to purely base votes on social issues. We need to rebuild our economy and exit Iraq gracefully first and foremost. Connecting with a president on your religious beliefs (barf) or loose morals(yay) isn't really important now.

[Zephyr]

Viva Obama!

0fd-MVU4vtU

[Mzor203]

So... Obama has won Mexico? :P

[Zephyr]

lol

I saw this commercial when I was in the Dallas-Fort Worth airport back in March,
And remembered it.

If you notice, the song lists off Texan cities :P

[Requin]

Well everyone is making a HUGE fuss about it and i'm sick to death of seeing it every day.
So basically, if Obama doesn't win I will be very suprised. I'll also be very suprised if he doesn't win by a decent margin.

But...we'll see won't we. :-)

[Donkey]

Obama's gran died recently, didn't she?

[The Batman]

Yea it's so sad.


I'm so scared I voted for the wrong person and I'm extremely nervous.

I didn't pay attention to the other positions I just voted for the people with the best sounding names.

[Donkey]

Yea it's so sad.


I'm so scared I voted for the wrong person and I'm extremely nervous.

I didn't pay attention to the other positions I just voted for the people with the best sounding names.
If you voted Obama, ok. If you voted McCain, I can only say: French hoax call to vice president :|

[Gavin]

I can't wait, personally as a UK observer, it's going to be very interesting.

[Donkey]

I can't wait, personally as a UK observer, it's going to be very interesting.
Agreed. I wanna see McCain's reaction when he loses (he probably already knows he will)

[The Batman]

I don't want to say who I voted for because at the last minute I changed my mind and went a different route, but just know that I voted.

[theOperaGhost]

So Obama is resorting to the ethos method, I see...anywho...I need to go vote sometime today, I suppose. I won't be voting for Obama...

[Underground_Network]

^^ Vote for Nader!! Or better yet... Write in "Bag of Leaves"! :)

[Requin]

It'll be funny if Nader wins when no one has been paying any attention to him.
I'd piss myself if that happens.

[Zephyr]

Duuuuuuuude.
Nader = NO NO!

[Requin]

Hahahahaha
It was just an example. I dont' know who he is anyway. Because as I said, the attention has been on Obama and McCain.

[Underground_Network]

It would be impossible. Literally. The winner, unless something screwy happens, like someone messing with the polls or something, will be Obama or McCain; more likely Obama...

[Techno Monster]

I'm for Obama,
Sara Palian is a ditz. I don't want her as a president, or a vice... There is a chance Mccain may die.

[Serenity]

HELLZ YEAH!
That's all I've got to say about THAT.

Oh, politics. :rolleyes: I'm very happy right now. Yay.
And my school holds the record for most student volunteers in the state, news that several high-up politicians have heard thanks to our Obama Student Union President's great connections [his grandfather is a former senator and a friend of Obama's]

Life's gooood.

[0=]

Obama has won. Our country is now moving back to the hands of the democrats after eight years of republican failure. I predict Obama will not be much better overall and the democrat-controlled house and senate will fail to bring about change as Obama has promised. My hope is that people will begin to see the flaws of the two-party system and will elect a third-party candidate in 2012, or at least come very close. Doing so would probably require a change in the electoral process, involving instant run-off ballots or something similar. The main point I'm trying to make is people need to realize that both democrats and republicans have repeatedly failed them and that there are other options. At least one thing's guaranteed: anything is better than the status quo. Good luck America, we need it.

[*Dissident*]

Barack Obama has slowly but surely whittled away at my cynicism since he won the nomination. Last night, after his speech, I cried with joy. I love that man to no end, and I have immense faith in him, and I want him to succeed, and I believe he will.

[Maverick]

Obama has won. Our country is now moving back to the hands of the democrats after eight years of republican failure. I predict Obama will not be much better overall and the democrat-controlled house and senate will fail to bring about change as Obama has promised. My hope is that people will begin to see the flaws of the two-party system and will elect a third-party candidate in 2012, or at least come very close. Doing so would probably require a change in the electoral process, involving instant run-off ballots or something similar. The main point I'm trying to make is people need to realize that both democrats and republicans have repeatedly failed them and that there are other options. At least one thing's guaranteed: anything is better than the status quo. Good luck America, we need it.Awesome post.http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Underground_Network]

Obama has won. Our country is now moving back to the hands of the democrats after eight years of republican failure. I predict Obama will not be much better overall and the democrat-controlled house and senate will fail to bring about change as Obama has promised. My hope is that people will begin to see the flaws of the two-party system and will elect a third-party candidate in 2012, or at least come very close. Doing so would probably require a change in the electoral process, involving instant run-off ballots or something similar. The main point I'm trying to make is people need to realize that both democrats and republicans have repeatedly failed them and that there are other options. At least one thing's guaranteed: anything is better than the status quo. Good luck America, we need it.

Agreed 100%.