magekillr

I just don't understand the obsession with possessions...what is the point in owning so much, while so many own so little? If everyone could own a lot, alright, fine...go pour your soul into vanity filled adventures with an overwhelming amount of [cabbage]. In reality, there must be poor for there to be rich. Why can't people just be happy with learning new things, educating others, feeding people, water, shelter...and just living and talking? Is there seriously more to life than that? I sure don't see any other purposes. My theoretical beliefs would embody communism; no private ownership. Reality would place some private ownership, some public, while emphasizing the need to help the poor. Sweden and Finland are two countries that embody my realistic beliefs. I just want this election to be over, and to graduate so I can begin paying off my loans. If it wasn't for the need to be a skilled worker in order to successfully emigrate, I wouldn't have even went to University in the United States.

So, if someone posts a news story done by CNN, is that something regurgitated by the media now, too? Dear lord. And, is that your explanation for this? By the by, as someone who works for this campaign, I do not believe the campaign has touched this.......yet.

John McCain currently lying? John McCain selling his soul for politics? John McCain making a 180? What?

When some American cities' wage disparities are approaching that of Kenya, there is SOMETHING seriously wrong with this picture: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oc ... ban-growth

Jack, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh by chance?

Get over MYSELF? Dude, don't you think it should be the other way around? Ginger and I have falsified almost every single one of your contempts for Obama, and you're still advocating that John McCain is the way to go. If anyone needs to just accept defeat, admit that they're wrong about who is right in this election, and get over themselves, it's you.

Who do the terrorists endorse again? http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5096 ... ks-mccain/

The Mayor Of Wasilla's responsibilities: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index ... america-in

What the hell does abortion have anything to do with infant mortality rates? Since you brought up abortion, let's discuss it: abortion rates were MUCH lower under President Clinton than President Bush. Why? Because he focused more on education and how to reduce abortions, rather than quarreling over how to make it illegal :roll: If you want abortions to go down, vote Democrat. The Iraq War necessary? Please. Military spending totaling what the rest of the world pays necessary? Please. Well, Republicans don't like vaccinations because they've been brainwashing people into thinking that vaccines are the cause of autism, when scientific research shows the opposite (although I've met some Democrats who thought this as well). Most Evangelicals are also Republicans, and these same people don't like vaccines because they believe them to be against "God's will". Yes, I do think the life expectancy will go up when we have nationalized health care. What evidence do you have that it will go down, besides Ronald Reagan's records of lies. The people who "can pay" are paying taxes. They are paying for their health care in a pool of others, reducing costs all around. Right, doctors in the UK are "poor" and have "poor hours". I mean, it's not like the US has less doctors per capita than other countries with nationalized systems rig...oh wait. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_p ... 000-people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_nur-health-nurses =D> :wall: I'm not discussing this here, there's plenty of other topics where this has been beat to death. I can assume, and I'm willing to bet that he did not live in a poor neighborhood. He probably lives with a middle class family that makes a decent living, well above the national average household (which is overinflated because of people like Bill Gates anyway). "There's a drug problem". Hey yeah, guess what? If we start treating them as people with health problems instead of criminals, maybe we'll see progress! The Republicans want to put these people in jail. Health care is a right, not a privilege. McCain is projected to have almost double any deficits that Obama would have. Hmmm, you're not entering the "knowing people", or the "born privileged", or the "luck factor" into any of this. This is why I hate living here. "AMURIHKA!!! F**K YEAH!!!"

Unfortunately, yes in the form of welfare - a program that needs to be cut to about 10% of its current expenditures, seeing as most of the money it gets is wasted. Where would you like to make cuts, I'd be delighted to hear them. If anything needs a cut and a complete dissolving of its being, it's the Department of Homeland Security that was established by Bush. I believe in a small government that takes the bare minimum necessary in taxes to ensure order and protect the rights of the people; not a state that gobbles up massively unnecessary amounts of MY hard-earned money just to waste it on inefficient (socialist) programs - exactly what Obama is proposing. Seeing as every time such programs are implemented they either fail miserably or waste massive amounts of the people's money, it is a much better idea to stay away from such things. What do you call inefficient? What do you propose, that would make it better? I'll respond to the rest of this at the end. Obama is proposing socialist programs ala Northern Europe, that for the good of the country can not be put into effect. While strictly speaking most of his policies are not as extreme as a true socialist (or even farther, a communist) he still has enough expensive proposals on the table to force a (large) increase in taxes and still wreck the budget. What socialist programs? Isn't public education "socialist"? You know what's so funny? Adam Smith proposed socialist programs as you call them, and he's the Father of Capitalism. Who is "you people"? Money spent on defense is used for one purpose - do defend the rights of the citizens of the United States. It has for more then 200 years, and still does fulfill that purpose. That is more then worth ~ 1% of the federal taxes I pay. What is not worth paying is ~30% of my TOTAL INCOME (as they do in much of Europe and Canada) to pay for the bureaucracy involved in a hopelessly inefficient, wasteful and ineffective public health care system. As a rule, if both private enterprise and government can do the same thing, then private businesses can do it better, cheaper and more efficiently. You people are Republicans, and other warmongers. Why does the United States spend nearly as much money on military as the rest of the world combined? Again, you [bleep] and complain about health care, education, and things that help people...and you in-turn take "defense" instead. Military spending makes up a good chunk of the budget, next to social security, medicare/medicaid...which btw, people pay for themselves anyway with their own taxes. What you call wasteful and "hopelessly" inefficient, I call a savior of millions of lives. If we're so efficient, why is our infant mortality rate so high? Why is our life expectancy so low? Why? I thought it was an efficient system. If it was so efficient, it should cost less so that people have access to the basic needs of health care. By the by, you pay for "nationalized" health care right now anyway. The United States still accepts people in the emergency room for things like colds and flus, and if the people don't have the money or resources, the US just takes the tab anyway. Talk about inefficiency, you're paying for these people already anyway, at a much larger cost. Private enterprise isn't doing it cheaper when we spend the most per capita on health care, and we still have people without access. The whole point is that the second amendment confers a right, not a privilege but a right to keep and bear arms. Rights are not negotiable, bannable because they are "scary" (as the democratic party is trying to do with their so called "assault weapons ban") or open to other annoying regulation - A right is a right. By his logic of allowing individual communities to pass laws ignoring constitutional rights, states could, at a whim, ban free speech or religion, the right to a jury trial or the right to due process. Does that sound OK to you? I hope Obama does ban guns, every last one of them. Amendment number 28: The 2nd amendment is repealed. Sick and tired of that amendment being taken out of context by gun nuts like yourself. Anyway, Obama won't do anything to the amendment anyway. Don't you listen to Joe Biden? http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... e-n-9.html Now, to address your earlier "points". What would you call "hard work"? Do you think that poor people just laze around, and don't work, while waiting for their welfare checks? Have you ever worked with the poor, do you know their situations? No, you do not. I would venture to guess you've never ultimately worked hard for much of anything, and you were quite privileged throughout your life. Was I privileged? Sure was. I lived fairly comfortably in a house with my mother and father and sister. My dad made about $40,000 a year when I was younger, but he was in the military so he received benefits. He later quit (back in '96), and now he makes around $80,000 per year (but he's a federal employee). So I lived in a middle class home worth around $250,000, I went to a public school in Spotsylvania, Virginia. My mom cared about my education, and I cared about it too. I didn't try much, and I received fairly high marks (like 14th out of 306 graduating). I now attend Virginia Tech, and my parents cannot afford to help me with any of my college. I paid for my first year in cash, my third semester in cash, and the rest in loans. I don't have any assets, I don't own a car, and I am going to have to see how I can pay for my next semester of college because banks aren't giving loans. Now, as much as I have "worked hard", I still haven't even experienced a minor BRUNT of what people in homes making $20,000 a year with no benefits have had to experience. Have you broken down what the cost of living even is like? These people can't afford health care, they can't afford to stop working to get educated, they can barely feed and clothe their children. And you have the audacious, the selfish, the disgusting attitude that "IT'S MINE!!!" while people suffer like this? What kind of person are you? These people work just as hard, if not harder than your rich CEO that is making millions of dollars a year to sit on his [wagon], paying people under him to invest his money, and hiring lawyers to find tax loopholes. Just because you "work hard", doesn't guarantee you health care, education, or anything of the sort. You're obsessed with efficiency, without looking at the costs of the citizens. The US has the greatest economy in the world, fantastic. Who cares? How are the lives of the people that live and toil there?

Do you work? Do you pay taxes? Doesn't the government currently "spread the wealth around"? Do you believe in roads, public education, hospitals? Dear lord...people fearing "socialist ideals" in a capitalistic society are quivering to the point that they're calling Obama a socialist is just pissing me off. I (capital I with a huge emphasis) am a socialist. Obama, is no socialist. You people have no problem spending billions of dollars on a war and bombs that kill people, yet you throw your hands up in arms for taxes that would give people treatment that should be a right in any first world country. Disgusting. Listen to Powell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPVHnMPnqc He attacks your ideas that Obama is a "socialist".

Jack, Saruman, Powell just put you in your place:

Let's see, McCain is finished unless the Republicans start pulling massive illegal activity at the polls. Obama has raised over 100 million for the month of September, and he's now moving into Kentucky. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/po ... ref=slogin He can afford to. Start moving into states he won't win... THIS TIME Set up 2012. Let em get to know you. Help dems downticket. Help the future of the party. There is no reason NOT to leave all that money laid on the table, building infrastructure and establishing a long term majority. McCain, Republicans...you're done.

Well, I think McCain still has a chance, simply because of Obama and ACORN's voter fraud in 17 (I think its 17) different states. Most people don't know about it though. If the people in that video I posted (the ignorant idiots from Ohio) know what ACORN is (or at least they think they know what it is), I'm pretty sure the "informed" voters know what it is, or at least what the McCain campaign is accusing it of. God damn, you probably don't even know what ACORN is. You guys are missing the big picture here: these are all NON-ISSUES! Obama's "relationship" with Bill Ayers, "Tony Rezko" who has nothing to do with Obama and all money donated by him was returned the second he discovered what Rezko was guilty of, Jeremiah Wright is a non-issue who dominated the airwaves way back in March. Don't you get it? Jesus christ, if you're thinking people are going to vote because of these characters, then you're out of touch with what most of America, and the independent voters (the ones that sway elections), care about. Who cares who McCain slept with while he was married? I sure don't. It's none of my business. Who cares that McCain had a relationship with Gordon Liddy, I don't...but shouldn't you, Jack? You love bringing up Ayers and Rezko and Wright, but if anyone McCain is associated with is brought up, you turn a blind eye. In case anyone is wondering, Liddy was one of the main people involved in the Watergate Scandal. Obama's message of hope and positivity is what is bringing John McCain down, and it's why he shocked the world and beat Hillary in Iowa. The American people are tired of negativity, and they want a leader that leads and guides, rather than tears down and divides. McCain's problem is that he can't even attack in any battle ground states. Obama hit the ground running and made him defend RED states. When he has to defend Indiana and Georgia, whilst withdrawing from Wisconsin, Colorado, and Michigan, he is in big trouble. McCain didn't withdraw from Colorado, but the RNC did. The RNC was where most of McCain's help was expected to come from. This is why I thought Obama had a better chance than Hillary Clinton did. His map is so damn diverse that it makes McCain/RNC spend all of their resources DEFENDING states they normally wouldn't even be campaigning in. He can't even attack any states, he's stuck defending Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri. Not only is Obama draining McCain's funds, but he's draining the RNC's funds. Guess who else the RNC funds? The Senators and Representatives running for re-election. Obama has not only beaten John McCain in the GE (at this time), he has beaten the entire Republican National Committee, winning us Senate and House seats. Al Franken was soooo far behind a month ago. Franken is currently WINNING now. This is like Christmas...the whole Republican Party is in shambles because of three men: George Bush, John McCain, and most importantly, Barack Obama. I love it. Huge edit...gd Obama is brilliant. You cannot touch him Saru, sorry:

Obama is my President, if he wins or if he loses: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 62874.html

No [cabbage]. That letter I provided is from the lead prosecutor of Ayers in the trial that he was put on. The prosecutor said it's absolutely ridiculous to scrutinize Obama's relationship with Ayers, when he has proven to be a "responsible citizen". The other article I provided tells that if you didn't know Ayers past, you wouldn't even know he did what he did...if you met him now.

They're referring to his relationship with Bill Ayers. I have already provided an article from Slate on another thread discussing Bill Ayers, and on this thread I posted a letter from the lead prosecutor of Ayers during his trial.

I still fail to see how that's a applicable analogy in this particular instance. A more suitable analogy would be what I referenced: death penalty. Perhaps it's just two different thought processes failing to understand one another, I don't know. At either rate, let's end it here. I'm not "mad" either lol.

I mean I understand your analogy, I'm just saying I don't understand how it applies here lol. It's a poor comparison. Would you call the person who injects the needle into a prisoner a killer? I wouldn't call him a killer either, but I still think it's wrong for him to put the needle in, and to be put in that moral conundrum.

Well, I don't know if that would account for "killing". I mean, if someone builds guns and they are used to take lives, is he considered a killer? I'm not so sure I understand your analogy, or how it could possibly be of any relevance.

Against. Some people might like to die, even in good mental health. However, no one has the right to kill, even if that's not the intention of the doctor. It's not fair to put the doctor in this position or the entire medical field for that matter, and I don't see it along the same lines as abortion simply because these people are for without a shadow of a doubt human lives. I suppose if the doctor would agree to do it, then allow them, but I know if I were a doctor it's not something I could personally handle. All and all, I'm with 1_man_army for his reasons.

Actually, you won't find many "troofers" at an Obama rally. You'd have to stick with Ron Paul rallies.

Mark Warner is almost EXACTLY like Obama in his policies, and his methodology. Have you even read Obama's book about what kind of politics he dreams of? He and Mark Warner are almost identical: they're trying to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats with compromise. I mean, sure, Obama pissed me off with some of his votes like FISA...but if you read his book, you'll understand why he votes the way he does on certain bills. Warner successfully bridged the gap in Virginia for the better, and that's why he's leading Gilmore by like 30 points (last I checked). Obama is exactly the same as Warner when it comes to the type of politics that they want to see, although I would say Warner is slightly less liberal in a few areas, and slightly more liberal in others (which is expected...). Please, Obama's race helps him in some regards, this I will admit (especially for winning the nomination). However, in the General Election, for the most part, it is hurting him. West Virginia is not a Republican state, they should be Democrat this election, but his race is causing him to be behind by a few points. Obama's numbers are getting better there (and Ohio's are looking better too).

Your main argument against Obama was "Universal Health Care". Obama is not bringing that, and then you didn't have much of anything. By the by, I'm not necessarily attacking Republicans, I'm attacking Reagan Democrats. These are the people who LOVE people like Mark Warner, but won't vote for Obama despite them having the same political ideology. The only explanation for that is, race, and his name. Jack, sorry, but you trying to use the race card in favor of Obama won't get you anywhere. It's a known fact that black people and minorities support the Democratic Party in overwhelming numbers regardless of the race of the candidate. Kerry got 88% of the black vote, and I expect Obama to get around the same. Also, that doesn't address the hatred that Ginger was discussing either. This is what Ginger is describing: