This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Barack Obama

12357105

Comments

  • Well, I may not be an econ-o-mist, but I know what the guvmint is worth. To all the people thinking that they don't "get a return" from the federal government: Good luck regulating your own cable and airwaves, maintaining your Federal courts, the DEA, CIA, FBI, NSA, and so forth, inspecting your own food and drugs, licensing your own airline pilots, maintaining and policing your own stock market, saving your home from a flood or other emergency, establishing and maintaining your own Federal Reserve System, insuring your own bank account, printing your own money, preventing and cleaning up pollution, maintaining safety in your workplace . . . I could go on, but I don't know how many words gedavids can read at one time without wanting to go burn some books.

  • Very simply, at this point I don't consider that a waste, because the alternative is far worse than the bill.
    Wait, Iraq is not a waste? Mommy, the crazy men are real!
  • I could go on, but I don't know how many words gedavids can read at one time without wanting to go burn some books.
    Yeah, I'm pretty much done with this, you guys seem to think I'm wrong when half the country agrees with me. I'm used to it, it's hard to be a Republican on the internet.
  • edited April 2008
    Very simply, at this point I don't consider that a waste, because the alternative is far worse than the bill.
    What exactly is the alternative? Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, no terrorist training camps, and is not the flowing fountain of oil that the administration hoped it would be after we "won" the war. Right now I would say the best reason to stay in Iraq right now is to prevent Iran from running thorugh it and occupying it, but I think that we have can at best slow that down a couple of years, not stop it. Wouldn't you agree that our best bet at preventing terrorists is to use that money to reform our own security services like TSA, which is a joke right now? Or use that money to increase funding for military operations in Afganistan or maybe future involvement with Pakistan?

    So lets say that you argument is that we are preventing mass bloodshed in Iraq by staying. Well by that logic, we should also been in Darfur right now. However, we have no economic interests in that area which is why we haven't had more involvement there. Now have effectively lost your moral ground with that argument.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • you guys seem to think I'm wrong when half the country agrees with me
    Most of the world is religious. Doesn't make you right. Argumentum ad populum.
  • I could go on, but I don't know how many words gedavids can read at one time without wanting to go burn some books.
    Yeah, I'm pretty much done with this, you guys seem to think I'm wrong when half the country agrees with me. I'm used to it, it's hard to be a Republican on the internet.
    Source? Oh, you don't have one do you? Maybe it was in one of those books you guys like to burn.

    Here's my source. It says that 81% of those polled think America is on the wrong track. Here's another one. This one says that 79% of those polled disapprove of GWB.

    Half the country? They don't teach cipherin' real good where you live, do they?
  • Everyone who is making stereotypical republican jokes needs to fuck off and grow up. I may not agree with gedavids, but resorting to name calling and personal attacks is immature and only hurts you in the long run.
  • edited April 2008
    Sorry. Hemorrhoids again. I'll apply some Preparation H and be good from now on.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Most of the world is religious. Doesn't make you right. Argumentum ad populum.
    I didn't say it made right, that's false dichotomy. There are so many issues that are rolled up with the two parties that it's impossible to say one is right and the other wrong.
  • Source? Oh, you don't have one do you? Maybe it was in one of those books you guys like to burn.

    Here's my source.It says that 81% of those polled think America is on the wrong track.Here's another one.This one says that 79% of those polled disapprove of GWB.

    Half the country? They don't teach cipherin' real good where you live, do they?
    I disapprove of GWB, I wanted McCain back in 2000. Bush is way too "old guard republican" IMO.
  • edited April 2008
    I disapprove of GWB, I wanted McCain back in 2000.
    Actually, I wanted McCain in 2000 as well. GWB receiving the nomination was the first in a long list of disappointments that sent me to the packing to the other side.

    Sadly, McCain is just so compromised now that he's little more than Bush lite. Also, we have to take his age into account. I know there'll be jokes about me saying this, but he's just too damn old now. When you vote for McCain, you'll actually be voting for his running mate to eventually be POTUS.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited April 2008
    Isn't the extreme high debt going to bite 'merica in the ass a lot harder than paying more for oil will? Also the fact certain people would rather other people go risk their lives than pay higher fuel is another odd thought pattern, I know none of us our holier than thou saints, but it seems like keeping the occupation in Iraq going for cheaper fuel is pretty cruel. Approving a occupation (not really a war anymore) which gives you all the personal benefits of lower fuel costs and none of the personal downfalls of maybe dying to keep those costs low seems pretty... well, yeah.

    Of course, I don't claim to know jack about this subject and I also suck at debating, just my POV.
    Post edited by Norvu on
  • Also, we have to take his age into account. I know there'll be jokes about me sating this, but he's just too damn old now. When you vote for McCain, you'll actually be voting for his running mate to eventually be POTUS.
    The chance of this being Huckabee is scary.
  • Oh wow, he's 71, I totally didn't realize that. Well, I'll wait and see who his running mate is.
  • The chance of this being Huckabee is scary.
    A running mate is usually chosen to balance the ticket, but that would totally ruin the whole thing for me. I hate Huckabee. I could tolerate Romney, but Huckabee no way.
  • Oh wow, he's 71, I totally didn't realize that. Well, I'll wait and see who his running mate is.
    I must say that he looks very good for a 71 year old man, and on the subject of vice presidents: I won't expect a good choice from the "saggy butt" party.
  • The chance of this being Huckabee is scary.
    A running mate is usually chosen to balance the ticket, but that would totally ruin the whole thing for me. I hate Huckabee. I could tolerate Romney, but Huckabee no way.
    But he's so entertaining!
  • edited April 2008

    A running mate is usually chosen to balance the ticket, but that would totally ruin the whole thing for me. I hate Huckabee. I could tolerate Romney, but Huckabee no way.
    The reason why I think Huckabee is that he appeals to the core Republicans and would help McCain's credientials with the staunch republican core. The fact is that McCain's dubious past with the Democrats has come up a couple times recently, especially when he said he might switch the the Democratic party. McCain has a good history with independant voters, but he has little appeal to strong republicans.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • The reason why I think Huckabee is that he appeals to the core Republicans and would help McCain's credientials with the staunch republican core. The fact McCain's dubious past with the Democrats has come up a couple times recently, especially when he said he might switch the the Democratic party. McCain has a good history with independant voters, but he has little appeal to strong republicans.
    We'll see I suppose, I think the Republican party needs a new face.
  • We'll see I suppose, I think the Republican party needs a new face.
    I don't think there are any Regans in today's Republican party...
  • edited April 2008
    We'll see I suppose, I think the Republican party needs a new face.
    I don't think there are any Regans in today's Republican party...
    That's what makes me so mad. McCain could have been that new face. I don't think things would be nearly where they are now if he had been elected in 2000. I certainly don't think he would have gone into Iraq. Now, however, he's in a position where he's obligated to try to justify it.

    I think he could have been a good president, but his time is past. Seeing him try for it now is kinda like watching an average 55 year old guy trying to skate a half-pipe yelling, "Gnarly dude! This is rad!"
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited April 2008
    Damn, I hate getting in to these threads late. Where to start where to start.

    Ok Iraq, What hasn't been said, If you believe that any of the current presidential candidates are going to cut and run on Iraq you've got to be smoking something. Everyone of them has said they would consult with military leaders to decide when the best time is to reduce troop levels. Regardless of whether we have a democrat or a republican involved we will be there for at least another couple of years at the earliest a couple of decades at the latest.

    There is no Winning in Iraq without it being split into three different countries. The British artificially created the country after world war II and it has only survived by having a dictator who can keep the other two groups in line. George bush senior knew this In 1996, Bush Sr. wrote, “Removing [Saddam] from power might well have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order. Had we elected to march on Baghdad, our forces might still be there.”. Regardless, lets review the facts on Iraq. Some claim that by attacking Iraq we attacked Al Qaeda and prevented them from attacking us. Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed The rebuttal to this is well, at least NOW al qaeda is busy in Iraq instead of over here. But I ask you were they not busy in Afghanistan. Did we not already have a country to secure and hold and even work with Pakistan to find Osama bin laden. Al Qaeda would have been busy fighting us in Afghanistan while we dealt with the Taliban there Taliban making gains instead now we are losing afganistan again as we moved our forces out of that country while we were making progress. But But, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Well to this date we've only found out-dated degraded chemical weapons that were left over from the Iran-Iraq war and were most likely forgotten. Report concludes no WMD

    Now the only argument left for Iraq is that we broke it and now we have to fix it. But will we be able to do this effectively. Most conservatives believe that giving handouts to people makes them dependent. Well we are doing the same with Iraq. We are paying insurgents to not fight us. We have mismanaged the reconstruction and are relying on profit seeking companies to the job for us. If we got out of Iraq and spent about 20% in education that we gained by not fighting we would have a first rate education system and we would not be talking about the dumbing down of the US. Obama could lower taxes if we cut the spending for Iraq and still have money left to do many of the other things he wants to do.

    Anyhow, next topic because I'm sure that is all over the place and not all up in the grammar.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • There are so many issues that are rolled up with the two parties that it's impossible to say one is right and the other wrong.
    The republicans have been more wrong more often. They're on the bad side of almost every social issue.
  • edited April 2008
    McCain used to be pretty awesome and I might have voted for him in 2000, however now he's just pandering to the conservative base to get elected.

    WHAT MCCAIN STANDS FOR: THEN AND NOW

    Abortion

    THEN: McCain Opposed Overturning Roe: It Would Force Women To Seek Illegal Abortions. (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/20/99)

    NOW: McCain Wouldn’t Be Bothered By Supreme Court Ban On Abortion, Would Sign South Dakota’s Abortion Ban. (CBS News, 1/25/06; ABC News, 3/29/06; ABC News, 2/26/06; NationalJournal.com, 2/28/06)

    Evil

    THEN: McCain Called Falwell “Evil Influence” on GOP. (Kansas City Star, 5/28/05)

    NOW: McCain Met With Falwell To Lay Groundwork for 2008 Run And Agreed To Speak At Falwell’s Liberty University. (US News and World Report, 11/14/05; Lynchburg News & Advance, 3/28/06)

    Tax Cuts

    THEN: McCain Opposed Bush Tax Cuts. (Baltimore Sun, 5/27/01; Statement, 3/18/03)

    NOW: McCain Voted For Bush Tax Cuts. (New York Times, 2/21/06)

    Gay Marriage

    THEN: McCain Opposed Federal Gay Marriage Ban. (Los Angeles Times, 1/25/05 3/8

    NOW: McCain Said He’s Willing To Support A Federal Marriage Amendment. 1/8Meet the Press, 4/2/06)

    Standing Up to Racism

    THEN: McCain Condemned Bush For Failing to Denounce Racist Beliefs At Bob Jones University. (Fox, 2/24/00)

    NOW: McCain Endorsed George Wallace Jr., Keynote Speaker at White Supremacist Group Gathering. (AP, 11/17/05; 6/6/05)

    Creationism / Intelligent Design

    THEN: McCain: Local Schools Should Decide on Teaching Creationism. (Times Union, 8/28/99)

    NOW: McCain: “Young People Have the Right to Be Told” About Intelligent Design, Refused To Exclude It From Science Classes. (Courier Journal, 12/20/05; Arizona Daily Star, 8/28/05; NPR, 11/7/05)

    Campaign Finance

    THEN: McCain Was A Champion For Campaign Finance Reform. (New York Times, 10/22/01)

    NOW: McCain Laying the Groundwork To Opt Out Of Campaign Finance System For ‘08 Campaign. (National Journal, 12/17/05; Hotline On Call, 12/16/05)

    AND LET’S NOT FORGET LOBBYING REFORM

    McCain Said He Voted Against Lobbying Reform Bill Because It Was “Weak”… “Senator John McCain… who has long pressed for tougher laws on lobbying, called the 1/8recently passed 3/8 bill ‘very, very weak.’” (New York Times, 3/30/06) But He Previously Rejected More Robust Lobbying Reform Bill. Previously when Feingold pushed a bill with “more robust disclosure of lobbyists’ activities,” McCain “had considered the idea, but viewed it as ‘too onerous’ on the lobbying community.” (The Hill, 3/8/06; San Francisco Chronicle, 1/18/06)


    Host George Stephanopoulos asked McCain why he supported the measure, saying it “actually denied any government benefits to civil unions or domestic partnerships. Are you against civil unions for gay couples?”

    First McCain said: “No, I’m not.”

    “I think that initiative did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others,” he said. “I think that there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of that constitutional amendment in Arizona.”

    “So you’re for civil unions?” Stephanopoulos asked.

    “No,” he said. “I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal,” he repeated. “But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people have relationships can enter into.”

    Later, he came back: “I just want to point out again: I believe that gay marriage should not be legal. OK?”

    Miltary Bills McCain has voted against

    Now, I'm not one to point out every flip flop and say it's a bad thing, but every time he changes his mind on a issue these days it tends towards the stupid.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • Damn, I hate getting in to these threads late. Where to start where to start.

    Ok Iraq, What hasn't been said, If you believe that any of the current presidential candidates are going to cut and run on Iraq you've got to be smoking something. Everyone of them has said they would consult with military leaders to decide when the best time is to reduce troop levels. Regardless of whether we have a democrat or a republican involved we will be there for at least another couple of years at the earliest a couple of decades at the latest.

    There is no Winning in Iraq without it being split into three different countries. The British artificially created the country after world war II and it has only survived by having a dictator who can keep the other two groups in line. George bush senior knew this In 1996, Bush Sr. wrote, “Removing [Saddam] from power might well have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order. Had we elected to march on Baghdad, our forces might still be there.”. Regardless, lets review the facts on Iraq. Some claim that by attacking Iraq we attacked Al Qaeda and prevented them from attacking us.Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is DismissedThe rebuttal to this is well, at least NOW al qaeda is busy in Iraq instead of over here. But I ask you were they not busy in Afghanistan. Did we not already have a country to secure and hold and even work with Pakistan to find Osama bin laden. Al Qaeda would have been busy fighting us in Afghanistan while we dealt with the Taliban thereTaliban making gainsinstead now we are losing afganistan again as we moved our forces out of that country while we were making progress. But But, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Well to this date we've only found out-dated degraded chemical weapons that were left over from the Iran-Iraq war and were most likely forgotten.Report concludes no WMD

    Now the only argument left for Iraq is that we broke it and now we have to fix it. But will we be able to do this effectively. Most conservatives believe that giving handouts to people makes them dependent. Well we are doing the same with Iraq. We are paying insurgents to not fight us. We have mismanaged the reconstruction and are relying on profit seeking companies to the job for us. If we got out of Iraq and spent about 20% in education that we gained by not fighting we would have a first rate education system and we would not be talking about the dumbing down of the US. Obama could lower taxes if we cut the spending for Iraq and still have money left to do many of the other things he wants to do.

    Anyhow, next topic because I'm sure that is all over the place and not all up in the grammar.
    I have nothing to argue, I thought Iraq was a bad idea. It's amazing how quickly the whole WMD thing just kinda vanished. I thought Afghanistan was enough of a statement and we were making good progress there too. I fall in the "well were there and we have to fix it now" camp. The reason I don't like Obama is that he is campaigning on pulling out of Iraq, where McCain is committed to doing whatever needs to be done there. I suppose you're right in that no candidate is gonna pull us out very quickly (well maybe the Libertarians.)
    Now, I'm not one to point out every flip flop and say it's a bad thing, but every time he changes his mind on a issue these days it tends towards the stupid.
    Damn it, you sir have ruined my day. My only hope is that he's pandering to get elected and won't follow through with most of this nonsense.
    There are so many issues that are rolled up with the two parties that it's impossible to say one is right and the other wrong.
    The republicans have been more wrong more often. They're on the bad side of almost every social issue.
    I'm Republican for fiscal and government theory reasons, I've never liked their stances on social issues.

  • Damn it, you sir have ruined my day. My only hope is that he's pandering to get elected and won't follow through with most of this nonsense.
    I think it's kinda funny that you are going to vote for someone hoping they don't go through with their presidential candidate platform.
  • I think it's kinda funny that you are going to vote for someonehopingthey don't go through with their presidential candidate platform.
    I should just start supporting Obama, shouldn't I? But I really don't like a lot of his platform. *cries*
  • edited April 2008
    Let's just have a VAT, since that's fair to everyone.
    NOOO! You think people complain about high prices now, just wait and see what happens when we add a federal sales tax.

    On a separate note altogether, I find it funny that the wealthy who complain about taxes ask the government to bail them out when their companies go under. One reason I believe the economy is in shambles is due to corporations and investors who take risks and refuse to accept the consequences for their failure.

    Another argument: Republicans state that big government is the problem and that we need to cut spending. Rationally, this makes no sense. America is about 3,794,066 square miles and occupied by 281,421,906 people (according to the 2000 Census and Wikipedia). Do you honestly think a small government is such a good idea with a population density of 74 people per square mile? In order to have an effective government, you need an appropriate amount of resources. That may require more taxes, and since the poor and middle class already have enough of a burden, guess who needs to face reality? [Note: this is not a response to gedavids.]

    One thing I really hate: class stratification. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
    Post edited by Diagoras on
  • NOOO! You think people complain about high prices now, just wait and see what happens when we add a federal sales tax.
    That was sarcastic, cause everyone seems to want to be fair so if we put a tax on everything nonessential then we'll have money and everyone will be happy, yeah right. :P
    On a separate note altogether, I find it funny that the wealthy who complain about taxes ask the government to bail them out when their companies go under. One reason I believe the economy is in shambles is due to corporations and investors who take risks and refuse to accept the consequences for their failure.
    I'm not exactly sure what the heck you're referencing here.
    Another argument: Republicans state that big government is the problem and that we need to cut spending. Rationally, this makes no sense. America is about 3,794,066 square miles and occupied by 281,421,906 people (according to the 2000 Census andWikipedia). Do you honestly think a small government is such a good idea with a population density of 74 people per square mile? In order to have an effective government, you need an appropriate amount of resources. That may require more taxes, and since the poor and middle class already have enough of a burden, guess who needs to face reality? [Note: this is not a response to gedavids.]
    I think each state is better suited to meet the needs of it's population. I know state's rights went out of style at the end of the civil war, but I still prefer this style of government. It gives people greater freedom, (example, if you like guns you can live in PA, but if you hate guns you can live in NJ.)
  • On a separate note altogether, I find it funny that the wealthy who complain about taxes ask the government to bail them out when their companies go under. One reason I believe the economy is in shambles is due to corporations and investors who take risks and refuse to accept the consequences for their failure.
    I'm not exactly sure what the heck you're referencing here.
    The mortgage crisis, among others.
Sign In or Register to comment.