Unofficial U.S. Presidential Poll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Nicely written, however, i believe that there needs to be a balance. Look at the Carter administration: rife with disaster because one party ruled all. Would it be nice to have a black president? Shit Yeah! But, to me, he is simply TOO liberal. We'll see where i lay as the general election comes closer and closer. McCain is annoying me with his extremely partisan rhetoric, hypocritical for a man who recently threatened to leave his party. As I said, 61%of me leans toward McCain... I was 75% behind him until his attack adds. I'm learning more and more about Obama's Energy Policies and his willingness to make concession (namely his stance on off-shore drilling, which, while McCain supports it, Obama's has a clear vision which has demonstratable results). We'll agree to disagree at THIS juncture. At this point anyone is better than Bush.

---

Trish just told you everything you or anybody else needed to hear.

I'm honestly not convinced that you are a sellout as much as I'm convinced that you are a plumb fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Nicely written, however, i believe that there needs to be a balance. Look at the Carter administration: rife with disaster because one party ruled all. Would it be nice to have a black president? Shit Yeah! But, to me, he is simply TOO liberal. We'll see where i lay as the general election comes closer and closer. McCain is annoying me with his extremely partisan rhetoric, hypocritical for a man who recently threatened to leave his party. As I said, 61%of me leans toward McCain... I was 75% behind him until his attack adds. I'm learning more and more about Obama's Energy Policies and his willingness to make concession (namely his stance on off-shore drilling, which, while McCain supports it, Obama's has a clear vision which has demonstratable results). We'll agree to disagree at THIS juncture. At this point anyone is better than Bush.

---

Trish just told you everything you or anybody else needed to hear.

I'm honestly not convinced that you are a sellout as much as I'm convinced that you are a plumb fool.

---

I guess I'm a "plumb fool". My opinion is just as valid as yours or anyone else's. That is what gets me about liberal dems... Whenever your opinion differs from their own, you are labeled as "a plum fool". Basic name calling without stating facts. :roll: Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Nicely written, however, i believe that there needs to be a balance. Look at the Carter administration: rife with disaster because one party ruled all. Would it be nice to have a black president? Shit Yeah! But, to me, he is simply TOO liberal. We'll see where i lay as the general election comes closer and closer. McCain is annoying me with his extremely partisan rhetoric, hypocritical for a man who recently threatened to leave his party. As I said, 61%of me leans toward McCain... I was 75% behind him until his attack adds. I'm learning more and more about Obama's Energy Policies and his willingness to make concession (namely his stance on off-shore drilling, which, while McCain supports it, Obama's has a clear vision which has demonstratable results). We'll agree to disagree at THIS juncture. At this point anyone is better than Bush.

---

Trish just told you everything you or anybody else needed to hear.

I'm honestly not convinced that you are a sellout as much as I'm convinced that you are a plumb fool.

---

I guess I'm a "plumb fool". My opinion is just as valid as yours or anyone else's. That is what gets me about liberal dems... Whenever your opinion differs from their own, you are labeled as "a plum fool". Basic name calling without stating facts. :roll: Nice.

---

Look I'm on the sauce at the moment, and when I drink I tend to get real, really fast.

No facts needed here as far as I'm concerned because the obvious is stated right in front of you.


Are you rich guy? Are you yourself rich and powerful?
Cause if you are, then so be it.......long live McCain..........for you, that is.


If not, you are part of what makes America idiodic.........period.










*goes to get some more real sauce*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Nicely written, however, i believe that there needs to be a balance. Look at the Carter administration: rife with disaster because one party ruled all. Would it be nice to have a black president? Shit Yeah! But, to me, he is simply TOO liberal. We'll see where i lay as the general election comes closer and closer. McCain is annoying me with his extremely partisan rhetoric, hypocritical for a man who recently threatened to leave his party. As I said, 61%of me leans toward McCain... I was 75% behind him until his attack adds. I'm learning more and more about Obama's Energy Policies and his willingness to make concession (namely his stance on off-shore drilling, which, while McCain supports it, Obama's has a clear vision which has demonstratable results). We'll agree to disagree at THIS juncture. At this point anyone is better than Bush.

---

Trish just told you everything you or anybody else needed to hear.

I'm honestly not convinced that you are a sellout as much as I'm convinced that you are a plumb fool.

---

I guess I'm a "plumb fool". My opinion is just as valid as yours or anyone else's. That is what gets me about liberal dems... Whenever your opinion differs from their own, you are labeled as "a plum fool". Basic name calling without stating facts. :roll: Nice.

---

Look I'm on the sauce at the moment, and when I drink I tend to get real, really fast.

No facts needed here as far as I'm concerned because the obvious is stated right in front of you.


Are you rich guy? Are you yourself rich and powerful?
Cause if you are, then so be it.......long live McCain..........for you, that is.


If not, you are part of what makes America idiodic.........period.










*goes to get some more real sauce*

---

What is the obvious? I basically see parroting on both sides in this thread. In life NO question is obvious. I've stated my "idiotic' reasons as to why I'm leaning towards McCain at this moment. If you believe Obama is the better candidate, by all means, vote for him. You've made your choice. Just don't call me "stupid" or an "idiot" for having an opinion not your own.

You think a democratic house and senate will keep McCain in check? They weren’t able to keep Bush in check; and no matter how big a majority the dems get in House and Senate, McCain would pretty much have carte blanche in selecting jurists for the Supreme Court. Do you really want to see Roe vs Wade overturned? Do you agree with the recent rulings on Habeas? How about the deal they just gave Exxon in the Valdez case?

You say you’re not sure Obama’s a fighter, and then you say you don’t want him to win all the battle’s because he’s too liberal! Are you really a democrat? How can someone who pulls people together and compromises be too extreme in either direction?

I don't want to give anyone a hard time...each person is working toward their own opinion. In the end some will be shown to be valid, some will be shown to be invalid and some will remain untested.

I'm glad to see the interest in politics on this forum. The problem is that over 30% of the population on this forum is voting for McCain. Imagine what it looks liike in a forum of christian right people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Nicely written, however, i believe that there needs to be a balance. Look at the Carter administration: rife with disaster because one party ruled all. Would it be nice to have a black president? Shit Yeah! But, to me, he is simply TOO liberal. We'll see where i lay as the general election comes closer and closer. McCain is annoying me with his extremely partisan rhetoric, hypocritical for a man who recently threatened to leave his party. As I said, 61%of me leans toward McCain... I was 75% behind him until his attack adds. I'm learning more and more about Obama's Energy Policies and his willingness to make concession (namely his stance on off-shore drilling, which, while McCain supports it, Obama's has a clear vision which has demonstratable results). We'll agree to disagree at THIS juncture. At this point anyone is better than Bush.

---

Trish just told you everything you or anybody else needed to hear.

I'm honestly not convinced that you are a sellout as much as I'm convinced that you are a plumb fool.

---

I guess I'm a "plumb fool". My opinion is just as valid as yours or anyone else's. That is what gets me about liberal dems... Whenever your opinion differs from their own, you are labeled as "a plum fool". Basic name calling without stating facts. :roll: Nice.

---

Look I'm on the sauce at the moment, and when I drink I tend to get real, really fast.

No facts needed here as far as I'm concerned because the obvious is stated right in front of you.


Are you rich guy? Are you yourself rich and powerful?
Cause if you are, then so be it.......long live McCain..........for you, that is.


If not, you are part of what makes America idiodic.........period.










*goes to get some more real sauce*

---

What is the obvious? I basically see parroting on both sides in this thread. In life NO question is obvious. I've stated my "idiotic' reasons as to why I'm leaning towards McCain at this moment. If you believe Obama is the better candidate, by all means, vote for him. You've made your choice. Just don't call me "stupid" or an "idiot" for having an opinion not your own.

---

No opinion.

Fact as far as I'm concerned:

--You are a stupid American (assuming you are working class)

--More important, at least for me, as far as I'm concerned, you are a stupid black man.




You need to get some "real sauce" of your own it would seem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

It’s going to take more than experience to get us out of hole the Bush administration dug us into. We’re bogged down in two wars, a metaphorical war on terrorism (which is really a war against the individual rights of Americans to privacy and due process), we’re trillions of dollars in dept to communist China, the social security surplus (that was built up because millions of baby boomers paid more in than their elders were withdrawing) was gifted to the 1% of the wealthiest Americans in the form of tax cuts. John McCain promises to stay the course on every one of these sour policies. He’s got experience. Lot’s of it. But has he learned from his experience. He hasn’t learned that Iraq doesn’t share a border with Pakistan. He hasn’t learned the distinction between Shiite and Sunni. Hell, he’s got so much experience he’s going senile: he doesn’t even know how many homes he and his wife have.

What I want in a president is not necessarily the person with the most experience. First, I want someone who shares a lot of common ground with my perspective on the issues. Issues first. Second, I want someone who knows how to get things done through negotiation and compromise. We don’t need another railroader like George Bush. As far as experience goes, I want someone with enough of a history in public life that I can judge from that experience where they stand on issues and how they deal with people.

When we examine McCain’s experience we find a wealthy man who divorced his wife while she was suffering from a life threatening illness. After deciding to go into Arizona politics he sought out and married the daughter of one of the wealthiest men in the State. They have hundreds of millions of dollars. Even so, McCain (one of the Keating Four) took bribes in the Keating savings and loan scandal.

Obama grew up, the son of a single mother. As a young man he learned the value of education and worked hard. He’s called an elitist because he went to Harvard Law School. Yet what mother or father wouldn’t be proud to have a son or daughter go to Harvard and become the president of the Harvard Law Review? Any Harvard Law graduate, president of the Review can write their ticket. They can get a high paying job in any firm in the country. Obama chose instead to become a community organizer in Chicago. He and his wife have only just recently been able to pay off their student loans. Because of his rise to the limelight, Obama did make a fortune off the book he wrote when he was twenty-three. He doesn’t have hundreds of millions of dollars like McCain, who is superrich, but he his book did make him a millionaire. He is what the wealthiest Americans snidely call merely affluent. As a member of the 101st congress he helped forge legislation on terrorism, election fraud and lobbying. He’s shown himself to be of liberal persuasion with an ability to change minds and create compromise positions. That’s what true bipartisanism is about.

---

Nicely written, however, i believe that there needs to be a balance. Look at the Carter administration: rife with disaster because one party ruled all. Would it be nice to have a black president? Shit Yeah! But, to me, he is simply TOO liberal. We'll see where i lay as the general election comes closer and closer. McCain is annoying me with his extremely partisan rhetoric, hypocritical for a man who recently threatened to leave his party. As I said, 61%of me leans toward McCain... I was 75% behind him until his attack adds. I'm learning more and more about Obama's Energy Policies and his willingness to make concession (namely his stance on off-shore drilling, which, while McCain supports it, Obama's has a clear vision which has demonstratable results). We'll agree to disagree at THIS juncture. At this point anyone is better than Bush.

---

You've mentioned several times that Obama is too liberal. I got a feeling you were a Hilary supporter. Obama's vision for the country is no more liberal than Hilary's or Kerry and even Gore's. You'll need a better excuse than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You think a democratic house and senate will keep McCain in check? They weren’t able to keep Bush in check; and no matter how big a majority the dems get in House and Senate, McCain would pretty much have carte blanche in selecting jurists for the Supreme Court. Do you really want to see Roe vs Wade overturned? Do you agree with the recent rulings on Habeas? How about the deal they just gave Exxon in the Valdez case?

You say you’re not sure Obama’s a fighter, and then you say you don’t want him to win all the battle’s because he’s too liberal! Are you really a democrat? How can someone who pulls people together and compromises be too extreme in either direction?

I don't want to give anyone a hard time...each person is working toward their own opinion. In the end some will be shown to be valid, some will be shown to be invalid and some will remain untested.

---

I've already said that the dems basically let Bush run shit into the ground. It's always been a point of contention with me. In addition, I described myself as a VERY liberal repub. No I don't want Roe vs. Wade overturned (that shit CAN'T happen. It's nigh impossible, i do believe that those Prisoners in Cuba should have the rights you speak of and Exxon Valdez shit is a travesty. You are right. I didn't say i didn't want Obama to win because he's too liberal. I said he is too liberal for me. McCain is too conservative, however, he has a proven record of "pulling people together". Anyway, at this point, all opinions are wrong. Who knows what will happen as November roles around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fitz207

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

It’s going to take more than experience to get us out of hole the Bush administration dug us into. We’re bogged down in two wars, a metaphorical war on terrorism (which is really a war against the individual rights of Americans to privacy and due process), we’re trillions of dollars in dept to communist China, the social security surplus (that was built up because millions of baby boomers paid more in than their elders were withdrawing) was gifted to the 1% of the wealthiest Americans in the form of tax cuts. John McCain promises to stay the course on every one of these sour policies. He’s got experience. Lot’s of it. But has he learned from his experience. He hasn’t learned that Iraq doesn’t share a border with Pakistan. He hasn’t learned the distinction between Shiite and Sunni. Hell, he’s got so much experience he’s going senile: he doesn’t even know how many homes he and his wife have.

What I want in a president is not necessarily the person with the most experience. First, I want someone who shares a lot of common ground with my perspective on the issues. Issues first. Second, I want someone who knows how to get things done through negotiation and compromise. We don’t need another railroader like George Bush. As far as experience goes, I want someone with enough of a history in public life that I can judge from that experience where they stand on issues and how they deal with people.

When we examine McCain’s experience we find a wealthy man who divorced his wife while she was suffering from a life threatening illness. After deciding to go into Arizona politics he sought out and married the daughter of one of the wealthiest men in the State. They have hundreds of millions of dollars. Even so, McCain (one of the Keating Four) took bribes in the Keating savings and loan scandal.

Obama grew up, the son of a single mother. As a young man he learned the value of education and worked hard. He’s called an elitist because he went to Harvard Law School. Yet what mother or father wouldn’t be proud to have a son or daughter go to Harvard and become the president of the Harvard Law Review? Any Harvard Law graduate, president of the Review can write their ticket. They can get a high paying job in any firm in the country. Obama chose instead to become a community organizer in Chicago. He and his wife have only just recently been able to pay off their student loans. Because of his rise to the limelight, Obama did make a fortune off the book he wrote when he was twenty-three. He doesn’t have hundreds of millions of dollars like McCain, who is superrich, but he his book did make him a millionaire. He is what the wealthiest Americans snidely call merely affluent. As a member of the 101st congress he helped forge legislation on terrorism, election fraud and lobbying. He’s shown himself to be of liberal persuasion with an ability to change minds and create compromise positions. That’s what true bipartisanism is about.

---

Nicely written, however, i believe that there needs to be a balance. Look at the Carter administration: rife with disaster because one party ruled all. Would it be nice to have a black president? Shit Yeah! But, to me, he is simply TOO liberal. We'll see where i lay as the general election comes closer and closer. McCain is annoying me with his extremely partisan rhetoric, hypocritical for a man who recently threatened to leave his party. As I said, 61%of me leans toward McCain... I was 75% behind him until his attack adds. I'm learning more and more about Obama's Energy Policies and his willingness to make concession (namely his stance on off-shore drilling, which, while McCain supports it, Obama's has a clear vision which has demonstratable results). We'll agree to disagree at THIS juncture. At this point anyone is better than Bush.

---

You've mentioned several times that Obama is too liberal. I got a feeling you were a Hilary supporter. Obama's vision for the country is no more liberal than Hilary's or Kerry and even Gore's. You'll need a better excuse than that.

---

I voted for NADER in 2000's general. Actually, according to the general consensus of this board, namely that armani dude, i'm a stupid black man. Fitz, let's just say i think he is too liberal fiscally. i've looked at his record. McCain's ads are QUITE annoying however, and racist. As I said... we'll see where my opinions lie.

The party agenda will rule the nation ... the game between the parties is finding the right candidate to win the election - beat the other guy. The reality in today's world is the names are interchangeable. Do you really think we would be in a different place today if McCain beats Dub for the Republican nomination eight years ago? The only way things would be different is if 911 did not happen - and would it have happened if Bush didn't win the election?

Our response to 911 would've been worlds different had Gore been president. He wouldn't have sat for seven minutes wondering what fuck he should do. In the weeks after he would've rallied the nation to curb our dependency on foreign oil and instituted stricter cafe standards. He would not have alienated world opinion at a time when international cooperation against terrorist threats was crucial. He wouldn't spent trillions of dollars on a useless regime change in Iraq selling our children's future to communist China. He would've had responsible leadership in FEMA (directors who actually believe it's the business of government to help people when the chips are down) when Katrina hit. But all that is water under the bridge. I never bring it up on my own...but you asked. The answer is YES, the person in the white house makes a difference. On the other hand...you're right...McCain...Bush....not much difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Our response to 911 would've been worlds different had Gore been president. He wouldn't have sat for seven minutes wondering what fuck he should do. In the weeks after he would've rallied the nation to curb our dependency on foreign oil and instituted stricter cafe standards. He would not have alienated world opinion at a time when international cooperation against terrorist threats was crucial. He wouldn't spent trillions of dollars on a useless regime change in Iraq selling our children's future to communist China. He would've had responsible leadership in FEMA (directors who actually believe it's the business of government to help people when the chips are down) when Katrina hit. But all that is water under the bridge. I never bring it up on my own...but you asked. The answer is YES, the person in the white house makes a difference.

---

You missed my point Trish. I was referring to party politics and not the person in the white house - McCain instead of Bush. I agree with you and yes Gore / Democrats would have made a difference.

I wonder if the attacks would have occurred if Gore were elected eight years ago ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fitz207

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beagle

I don't get the big deal about McCain (actually Mrs McCain) owning 7 homes. I believe some are investment properties.

Why is this a problem?

Did you feel the same way about Kerry's wife being rich and owning a lot of stuff?

Do you know how Obama purchased his properties?

---

Of course you don't get it, you're a neocon. The point is how can you govern a Country of working and middle class folks, when you and your wife have had everything handed to you on a silver platter. There are a lot of wealthy people who had to work for everything they have instead of inheriting it.

John and Cindy McCain are the true elitist. From there 7 homes to McCain's economic adviser "a nation of whiners". Only an elitist who doesn't have to worry about eveyday expenses would say something like that.

---

Here's another one I bet you didn't think of fitz207.

Obama Goofed lol lol

I think Barack Obama overlooked something that could infect this whole thing without him or anyone else even knowing it.

Is it just me or could the campaign signs become a subliminal visual innuendo problem when they read . . . .

" * Obama Biden for president * "


Does that not look like it could have subliminal parallel power that looks way too close to the name,

" * Osama Bin laden * " ?


I know he didn't mean it but what an oversight. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatsu1

I've not watched that video, however, I'm sure that it is in regard to McCain voting AGAINST the MLK holiday as the AZ senator. I'm no rookie sir. That is a HUGE point of contention for me, as well as a lot of other things. I'm just looking at the history of this country and knowing the full extent of the presidents power I know, that if elected there will be a series of checks and balances that will keep him in check. Politically, I'm a liberal repub. i'm FOR Affirmative Action, I'm FOR abortion, I'm FOR gay marriage, but I'm more in tune with the conservative "values" when it comes to fiscal policy. sorry. As i said, at this point, I've not made up my mind BUT Obama is way too liberal for me on certain issues. Frankly, i may not vote at all. Perhaps I will vote for Obama. We'll see they're debates where it is CLEAR where both candidates lie as far as issues go. I personally can't wait til' the general election. It will be a MEDIA BLOODBATH!!! lulz!

---

Republican Values? You mean like the values of hatred for non right wing christians? Or you mean like the values that allowed them to run the most corrupt congress in history and has 3 of them in the federal penetentiary? Oh wait....or the values that took us to war against a country who never attacked us? The values that have us backing Israel no matter what they do because we govern based on the bible and the assanine notion that we need to protect the "holy land"? Or maybe you mean the fical values that have given us the largest debt in history and lowers taxes for the richest Americans.

Please explain which values you are referring to.

'conservative "values" when it comes to fiscal policy' = the upward redistribution of wealth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salvador

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fitz207

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beagle

I don't get the big deal about McCain (actually Mrs McCain) owning 7 homes. I believe some are investment properties.

Why is this a problem?

Did you feel the same way about Kerry's wife being rich and owning a lot of stuff?

Do you know how Obama purchased his properties?

---

Of course you don't get it, you're a neocon. The point is how can you govern a Country of working and middle class folks, when you and your wife have had everything handed to you on a silver platter. There are a lot of wealthy people who had to work for everything they have instead of inheriting it.

John and Cindy McCain are the true elitist. From there 7 homes to McCain's economic adviser "a nation of whiners". Only an elitist who doesn't have to worry about eveyday expenses would say something like that.

---

Here's another one I bet you didn't think of fitz207.

Obama Goofed lol lol

I think Barack Obama overlooked something that could infect this whole thing without him or anyone else even knowing it.

Is it just me or could the campaign signs become a subliminal visual innuendo problem when they read . . . .

" * Obama Biden for president * "


Does that not look like it could have subliminal parallel power that looks way too close to the name,

" * Osama Bin laden * " ?


I know he didn't mean it but what an oversight. :roll:

---

Yeah for sure that's why he shouldn't be president............. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xrey

The party agenda will rule the nation ... the game between the parties is finding the right candidate to win the election - beat the other guy. The reality in today's world is the names are interchangeable. Do you really think we would be in a different place today if McCain beats Dub for the Republican nomination eight years ago? The only way things would be different is if 911 did not happen - and would it have happened if Bush didn't win the election?

---

Things would be a ton different even in the wake of 9/11. We would have finished the job in Afghanistan and never invaded Iraq. Or did you forget about that little fact? In case you haven't been updated wit hthe latest facts; the taliban have regrouped and are now running most of Afghanistan again. The US troop death toll is climbing and of course you don't her squat about it on our stupid network news channels.

I am voting for Obama.

why?

his intelligence

health care

Renewable energy

I am extremely progressive on issues like gay marriage, abortion etc etc.

I despise the republican form of redistribution of wealth. The rich get richer, and the poorer get poorer


That being said, the faith people put in this guy for being "so much different" is ludicrous.

The US will still be the most imperialistic nation in the world.

We will still kill people for their resources.

There will still be a major class divide.

Frankly, I believe we need a revolution.

Take back the power from corporate snakes, government accomplices.

No war, but a class war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janie2261

The fact that the United States is the ONLY developed nation that does not provide adequate healthcare for its people is an obscene tragedy. Even people with insurance are finding that it covers less and less.

Incidentally, as many of you know, transgendered people are completely excluded from healthcare coverage, in almost all cases.

Republican rule is impoverishing the middle class while enriching the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the defense industry.

Any one who votes for McCain is helping to perpetuate this absurd system of corporate welfare at the expense of people at the bottom. I will be voting for Obama, but I think Nader has the right agenda.

Corporate welfare at home and hugely expensively wars abroad (which enrich the defense industry) IS the Republican agenda. That is what you are voting for with McCain.

---

And you really think Democrats are against corporate welfare? LOL

Democrats have started most wars the US has been in. Most voted for the current war we are in. Democrats control the Congress (house and senate) and what did we get from them? $150 billion in additional war spending in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009, on top of the pentagons already ridiculous budgets.

Democrats are not against war, they are against wars that don't do well in public opinion polls. Equally as bad they are all for using the military for "nation building". Obama, back when he was advocating a rapid pull out from Iraq, said that he would send troops back into Iraq if al-Qaeda gained a foothold there. Obama said that he would send US troops into Pakistan even without the Pakistani governments approval, he said that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, under no circumstances, how you can say he is opposed to military action against Iran? Obama is all for the war in Afganistan as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapaGrande

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy"

Just say no, voting only encourages them.

---

I disagree with the quote. The American people have not been voting consistently in their own self interests. If so, Al Gore would have won by a landslide. The budget was balanced and prosperity was at an all time high.

---

I disagree with your disagreement. The quote is about the long term affects of democracy. The Federal budget in 2008 is almost 3 TRILLION dollars. In 1990 it was 1 trillion, in 1976 it was 300 billion. Go and look at what the national debt is at and were it was a few decades ago.
That is the point, and it both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are for big government and Democrats are for bigger government.

Well i won't be voting for a Marxist so that leaves me with Mccain and I'm not voting for him either...so where's my 3rd party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salvador

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fitz207

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beagle

I don't get the big deal about McCain (actually Mrs McCain) owning 7 homes. I believe some are investment properties.

Why is this a problem?

Did you feel the same way about Kerry's wife being rich and owning a lot of stuff?

Do you know how Obama purchased his properties?

---

Of course you don't get it, you're a neocon. The point is how can you govern a Country of working and middle class folks, when you and your wife have had everything handed to you on a silver platter. There are a lot of wealthy people who had to work for everything they have instead of inheriting it.

John and Cindy McCain are the true elitist. From there 7 homes to McCain's economic adviser "a nation of whiners". Only an elitist who doesn't have to worry about eveyday expenses would say something like that.

---

Here's another one I bet you didn't think of fitz207.

Obama Goofed lol lol

I think Barack Obama overlooked something that could infect this whole thing without him or anyone else even knowing it.

Is it just me or could the campaign signs become a subliminal visual innuendo problem when they read . . . .

" * Obama Biden for president * "


Does that not look like it could have subliminal parallel power that looks way too close to the name,

" * Osama Bin laden * " ?


I know he didn't mean it but what an oversight. :roll:

---

Yeah.. I know the superstituous flat-earth society religious extremist anagramists/numerologists are going to have a field day with this!

O("S" in place of)B AMA BI (stick in a "n la") DEN

It's bad enough when Obama's "57" state gaffe (either an error, or what looks like a dry joke to me - actually I think he mis-spoke and then quickly tried to make it into a joke that fell flat) has right-wingers saying that he must've meant "the 57 states of Islam".

As far as I'm concerned, if racist voters, lies about him being an elitist and religious superstitious keeps Obama from winning, then this country is officially finished. If on the other hand, McCain wins on his good qualities alone, then I guess it's up for debate.

-Tara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapaGrande

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janie2261

The fact that the United States is the ONLY developed nation that does not provide adequate healthcare for its people is an obscene tragedy. Even people with insurance are finding that it covers less and less.

Incidentally, as many of you know, transgendered people are completely excluded from healthcare coverage, in almost all cases.

Republican rule is impoverishing the middle class while enriching the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the defense industry.

Any one who votes for McCain is helping to perpetuate this absurd system of corporate welfare at the expense of people at the bottom. I will be voting for Obama, but I think Nader has the right agenda.

Corporate welfare at home and hugely expensively wars abroad (which enrich the defense industry) IS the Republican agenda. That is what you are voting for with McCain.

---

And you really think Democrats are against corporate welfare? LOL

Democrats have started most wars the US has been in. Most voted for the current war we are in. Democrats control the Congress (house and senate) and what did we get from them? $150 billion in additional war spending in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009, on top of the pentagons already ridiculous budgets.

Democrats are not against war, they are against wars that don't do well in public opinion polls. Equally as bad they are all for using the military for "nation building". Obama, back when he was advocating a rapid pull out from Iraq, said that he would send troops back into Iraq if al-Qaeda gained a foothold there. Obama said that he would send US troops into Pakistan even without the Pakistani governments approval, he said that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, under no circumstances, how you can say he is opposed to military action against Iran? Obama is all for the war in Afganistan as well.

---

Republicans controlled the congress for 12 years before the last congressional election and we got more corporate welfare, corruption, greed, wars we can't handle, etc. Than ever. You need to check our facts before opening mouth and inserting foot.

When the democrats tried to hold hearings to investigate public issues they were stuck in the basement. Don't believe me, google it and do some research. Both parties are fucked but there is nothing in the history of this country that can touch the stupidity, hatred and utter incompetence of the current republican party.

The issue they should be strong on (national security) they have become a joke on as well by getting us into Iraq. On top of this stupidity these idiots run around yapping about support the troops but continue to vote against anything that gives proper medical benefits, mental care, job training, college tuition assistance, etc. As a Naval Academy alum and veteran I am disgusted by this. Supporting the troops doesn't mean running around with a bumper sticker on your car or calling someone non-patriotic because they don't support your bad idea for a war.

one other reason I'm for Obama.

I feel there's a sleeping giant that we need to be very worried about.

It's a continent called Africa , and it's been getting the short end of the stick since- well -at least since Cleopatra surrendered to the Romans in 30BC.

Anyway- people love to hype threats up, and I have this sinking feeling that the worse things get in Africa (or the more they're ignored by the west), the more likely we're going to have portential terrorists threats from extremeist groups in those places.

Electing the whitest white guy we've ever had isn't really going to help our image, when we do have the chance to at least elect someone who represents a more multicultural world. And I'm not saying people should vote for Obama based on just that. He's also intelligent, has good judgement, inspiring, and will make great cabinet choices. And I think electing Obama will have an amazing effect against the ability of extremeist Muslim organizations to be able to point to the enemy and say "look how different they are!".

Now if McCain wins, and he goes back to being the maverick we all sorta liked from 2000, and makes moderate cabinet choices perhaps we'll be okay.. But this just in.. Margaret Thatcher, who is only like 10 years older- is suffering from dementia. I don't know if I want to risk that with McCain- now matter how good he says his health is.. I guess it's all going to depend on who he picks as his running mate.. If he goes with someone like Huckabee, who believes the world is 5000 years old, we're all doomed, doomed!!

And yeah, Bush had less job experience before becoming president than Obama did.


-Tara

It should be an amazing presidential race to watch regardless of the outcome. We get one of two first in American history: the first black president or the first president collecting social security at the start of his first term (he turns 72 Friday, August 29th). :lol:

I voted Obama in the poll, but if McCain picks Mary Matalin as his VP, I'd reconsider that choice. McCain is most likely going to drop dead and a Matalin presidency with James Carville as First Man would be interesting, so long as they picked Nader as the new VP.

:)

Can it be that long ago?...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542473


I wonder if Jeb Bush would accept the VP slot from McCain? That would be worth it just to for the entertainment value alone.

Or maybe McCain and Hillary will just do the dirty deed. She doesn't appear to be that enamored with B.H. Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beagle

Or maybe McCain and Hillary will just do the dirty deed. She doesn't appear to be that enamored with B.H. Obama.

---

I think my jaw would drop on the floor if McCain chose Hillary to be his veep. That second picture though.. Baw chicka bamp baw!...

-Tara

Obama, and here's reason number 76 why...

I'm voting for Obama. I think he's better for the job.

Although I wouldn't feel as bad about a McCain presidency as I would about a 3rd Bush term :p

Anyways, I feel relatively safe about McCain's age. His mother is still alive, believe it or not, and in good health at 95.

Not that it doesn't exempt McCain from any of old age's effects.

Yeah my great grandma lived to be 101 and she was swatting t imaginary flies and talking to her dead husband for the last 10 years of her life.

McCain and his want for more war scres me and should scare anyone of draft age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldensamba

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapaGrande

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janie2261

The fact that the United States is the ONLY developed nation that does not provide adequate healthcare for its people is an obscene tragedy. Even people with insurance are finding that it covers less and less.

Incidentally, as many of you know, transgendered people are completely excluded from healthcare coverage, in almost all cases.

Republican rule is impoverishing the middle class while enriching the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the defense industry.

Any one who votes for McCain is helping to perpetuate this absurd system of corporate welfare at the expense of people at the bottom. I will be voting for Obama, but I think Nader has the right agenda.

Corporate welfare at home and hugely expensively wars abroad (which enrich the defense industry) IS the Republican agenda. That is what you are voting for with McCain.

---

And you really think Democrats are against corporate welfare? LOL

Democrats have started most wars the US has been in. Most voted for the current war we are in. Democrats control the Congress (house and senate) and what did we get from them? $150 billion in additional war spending in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009, on top of the pentagons already ridiculous budgets.

Democrats are not against war, they are against wars that don't do well in public opinion polls. Equally as bad they are all for using the military for "nation building". Obama, back when he was advocating a rapid pull out from Iraq, said that he would send troops back into Iraq if al-Qaeda gained a foothold there. Obama said that he would send US troops into Pakistan even without the Pakistani governments approval, he said that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, under no circumstances, how you can say he is opposed to military action against Iran? Obama is all for the war in Afganistan as well.

---

Republicans controlled the congress for 12 years before the last congressional election and we got more corporate welfare, corruption, greed, wars we can't handle, etc. Than ever. You need to check our facts before opening mouth and inserting foot.

When the democrats tried to hold hearings to investigate public issues they were stuck in the basement. Don't believe me, google it and do some research. Both parties are fucked but there is nothing in the history of this country that can touch the stupidity, hatred and utter incompetence of the current republican party.

The issue they should be strong on (national security) they have become a joke on as well by getting us into Iraq. On top of this stupidity these idiots run around yapping about support the troops but continue to vote against anything that gives proper medical benefits, mental care, job training, college tuition assistance, etc. As a Naval Academy alum and veteran I am disgusted by this. Supporting the troops doesn't mean running around with a bumper sticker on your car or calling someone non-patriotic because they don't support your bad idea for a war.

---

Foot in mouth? You didn't refute anything I said. Also, you have a basic logical flaw, me pointing out the issues with Obama and Democrats doesnt mean I think the Republicans or McCain are any better, you concede that "both parties are fucked". I only focused on Obama and Democrats because this thread mostly reads like a DNC talking points memo, and the Idol worship of Obama is just plane disgusting. What is your evidence for your claims against the Republican led congress the 12 years you are talking about? Again, I'm not saying I support them, I dislike them as much as Democrats, but to say they are the worst ever is a pretty bold claim.

Obama is nothing special, a total politician. If you don't understand this then you are just another sheep blindly following. If you believe in his policies, or support him solely because you think he is the lesser of two evils, then fine, but lets not pretend there is anything special about him.

BTW, 27 Democrats in the Senate voted for the Iraq war, including Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Bayh, Dodd, Kerry, and Reid. They had the same evidence that Republicans Senators had. Again look at past wars, Democratic presidents got the US involved in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, and our military action in Kosovo under the last Democrat to hold the Presidency, and I know what your response is to this so let me say I can point you to some good resources exposing the myth of the "Just War".

Some of you really need to wake up, the Democratic Party (and GOP) are not your friends, they both use FUD and emotional pleas to persuade you to keep them in power and in control. Currently Democrats are all about class warfare rhetoric, and Republicans are all about Islamofascism fear mongering. Sure they differ on some issues, but both parties believe in big obtrusive government, the Democrats at least admit this (hell, they seem to brag about it) while the Republicans pretend they are fiscally conservative.

I have been watching and listening to some of the convention, and its funny to here the Democrats talk about how Republicans are tools of "Special Interests", and I gather most here believe that as well. So this might come as a surprise, but the Democrats are just as much beholden to special interests as the Republicans are (although a slightly different mix), in fact the Democratic Party gets more money from special interest groups than the Republican party.

27 democrats voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq. They did not vote to go to war in Iraq. Its a big different. Some indeed wanted to go to war but others were trusting the president and the info he was giving them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baron Of Hell

27 democrats voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq. They did not vote to go to war in Iraq. Its a big different. Some indeed wanted to go to war but others were trusting the president and the info he was giving them.

---

Point well taken, they only authorized the use of force, but that seems like a bit of a cop out to me. Democrats and Republicans looked at the same info and decided the US was justified in using force. Of course one theory is that the Bush administration fabricated evidence to make their case, I would think they would have come up with something better if that was the case, but who knowns maybe it is true. It seems to me from what I have read that this was more a case of selective use of data, they had a forgone conclusion and searched out evidence to support their case, instead of an objective analysis. This happens all the time in the media and academia, unfortuately in this case the stakes were billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

All this seems to miss the key point that Democrats say they were "fooled" into supporting the war, and to that I say even if WMD were found in Iraq the war would not have been justified. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a direct threat to our security.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the Democrats are the party of peace. They have no problems with starting wars, and IMO even worse using the military for "peace keeping" and "nation building". They might be right (in hindsight) about Iraq being a mistake, but it illustrates how quick many of them were to support the war on the flimsiest of reasons.

When it comes to war mongering, the current neo-con Republicans are #1, but the Democrats are clearly not far behind. You might find it interesting that the "old right" Republicans of the past were non-interventionists, its only in more modern times with the rise of the neo-cons that they have become the main supporters of war, regime change, etc. There is an active movement by some conservatives to retake the Republican party from neo-cons and bible thumpers, unfortunately I think this is a lost cause as these two demographics seem to have a strangle hold. Some conservaties actually want Obama to win, not because they agree with any of his policies, but because they feel an Obama win might diminish the power of the neo-cons and religious right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapaGrande

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baron Of Hell

27 democrats voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq. They did not vote to go to war in Iraq. Its a big different. Some indeed wanted to go to war but others were trusting the president and the info he was giving them.

---

Point well taken, they only authorized the use of force, but that seems like a bit of a cop out to me. Democrats and Republicans looked at the same info and decided the US was justified in using force. Of course one theory is that the Bush administration fabricated evidence to make their case, I would think they would have come up with something better if that was the case, but who knowns maybe it is true. It seems to me from what I have read that this was more a case of selective use of data, they had a forgone conclusion and searched out evidence to support their case, instead of an objective analysis. This happens all the time in the media and academia, unfortuately in this case the stakes were billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

All this seems to miss the key point that Democrats say they were "fooled" into supporting the war, and to that I say even if WMD were found in Iraq the war would not have been justified. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a direct threat to our security.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the Democrats are the party of peace. They have no problems with starting wars, and IMO even worse using the military for "peace keeping" and "nation building". They might be right (in hindsight) about Iraq being a mistake, but it illustrates how quick many of them were to support the war on the flimsiest of reasons.

When it comes to war mongering, the current neo-con Republicans are #1, but the Democrats are clearly not far behind. You might find it interesting that the "old right" Republicans of the past were non-interventionists, its only in more modern times with the rise of the neo-cons that they have become the main supporters of war, regime change, etc. There is an active movement by some conservatives to retake the Republican party from neo-cons and bible thumpers, unfortunately I think this is a lost cause as these two demographics seem to have a strangle hold. Some conservaties actually want Obama to win, not because they agree with any of his policies, but because they feel an Obama win might diminish the power of the neo-cons and religious right.

---

You ar actually right on one point. A bunch of them supported the war for idiot reasons. Like being afraid of being called unpatriotic. It's a cop out and a bad reason to go along. I have no problem with theat fact. But, trying to say both parties are equally corrupt is garbage. Especially when statistics show different.

And by the way, I am an independent. At least I was until this latest crop of republican idiots decided our country should be run based on religion and hatred for people who aren't white males.

Wow we have some "pink" republicans......wow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beagle

I don't get the big deal about McCain (actually Mrs McCain) owning 7 homes. I believe some are investment properties.

Why is this a problem?

Did you feel the same way about Kerry's wife being rich and owning a lot of stuff?

Do you know how Obama purchased his properties?

---

most people online and in general dont and dont care they watch too much mtv to actually know the facts

they go oh Obama makes a good speech even though all his speeches are a in sharp contrasts to everything hes done in his whole life they will vote for him

Well the house thing is simple. People think McCain is not that good with money. He had 200k credit card debt and his top economic advisor didn't think there was a problem with the economy. A person that doesn't know how many houses he owns might not think the economy is in bad shape.

So basically it is just one more thing that makes him look like the wrong choice to fix the economy.