Why would you vote Obama or MCcain

[rushrock]

Obama wants to bring back the time when American politicians were more united and worked towards common goals. He's someone who, I think, can really make a difference. I think he can unite people.

 

I hear he says that, but I'm not sure. It could be I'm just blinded by his inexperience.

 

If you read The Audacity of Hope, it explains it in more depth. Well, actually, it explains his idea of politics, and how he thinks they need to be changed. I'm reading it right now. It's quite good.

 

 

 

People need to simplify things more. We're all people.

[Daviduhlich]

I'm not going to vote at all. The government will do what it wants anyway. Everyone knows the politicians are corrupt, scheming liars, so why do we all believe what they tell us? It's stupid. They're just going to do what's in their own best interest, no matter what we think, no matter how it affects us, and no matter what they told us. That all goes out the window as soon as they get elected.

 

 

 

Also, don't buy into what they say about it being your duty to vote. That is pure [cabbage]. Someone made it up so more of us would vote, even if we don't like the candidates. Don't be fooled into thinking that you owe it to your country to vote for someone you don't want to elect.

[Th3_Crusader]

I know nothing about politics but if McCain wins he'll send more people into the war, Obama, as said above. Rookie

[magekillr]

*Takes Deep Breath*

 

 

 

? If McCain picks Romney he's set. Romney is the kind of guy who could really fix this country. In Massachusetts he went from a 3 billion deficit to a 700 million surplus. And how on earth are vouchers awful?

 

 

 

Romney is exactly what's wrong with politics, he is the slime of slime. For one thing, he did raise taxes, although they weren't taxes, they were fees. Tuition for colleges increased, spending on education for public schools went down by a lot, and many other things "increased" with the fees. It's funny, doesn't McCain want to lower taxes? This is a game of semantics here, just to sound like he didn't increase taxes. Furthermore, he treated the state like he would a business: what's good for the state economy, but not the citizens.

 

 

 

The President picks the justices

 

 

 

Yeah, what's your point? The fact remains that this is a wedge issue, and Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned.

 

 

 

Who really knows how to compromise? Who has a long track record of going across the aisle? Who's walked the walk?

 

 

 

 

 

 

In another video that I cannot find atm, he said he agreed with Bush 90-95% of the time on all issues.

 

 

 

You sure don't reform campaign finance by saying you will take public financing and then going back on your word when it becomes politically convenient. You also don't do it by making up lies like when Obama said McCain and the RNC are "fueled" by lobbyists and pac's when in reality together less than 2% of their money from them. Or saying McCain has taken 2 million from oil companies when that has been illegal for almost 100 years.

 

 

 

Erm, McCain HAS taken that money from oil companies, this is a fact. Hey, I'm not an idiot: I know lobbyists and PACs don't affect your campaign money that much, but it's not a lie to say you're accepting all of your money from supporters and ignoring the PAC and Lobbyist interests.

 

 

 

Did I not say I was an Obama endorser? Jesus Christ...

 

 

 

Obama want to increase the military by something like 100,000 people. Good thing to me but I guess it wouldn't be to you.

 

 

 

92,000. I have no issues with this as long as we get rid of places like Halliburton buying the contracts and asking for the money they ask for, without any accountability.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Obama seems to be all talk. He keeps blabbering on about change but never explains how he's going to carry out his master plan.

 

 

 

Do you ever click cnn.com/livefeed for his townhall meetings? Or do you only happen to catch sound bites as you walk by your television? I mean, it's like people expect speeches and rallies to be about his stances on issues. Do some [bleep]ing research, it's 2008 for christ sake...all the information about his plans are at your fingertips, and you use this as a reason not to vote for someone. Get real. People who use this as a talking point never planned to vote for the man, they're just grasping for straws.

 

 

 

In case you're wondering: http://www.barackobama.com/issues

 

 

 

Far more in-depth than McCain's website about issues.

 

 

 

Besides that, he already flip flopped on troop withdrawal.

 

 

 

Source? I see no flip-flop on this, or anything even remotely close to it. I see "I'll listen to Patreus and the Generals, Maliki, and my own intelligence sources for making decisions. Maliki supports Obama's plan, what's more to say?

 

 

 

hat really makes me mad is how people are blaming Bush for the recession. It's just like when President Hoover was blamed for the Great Depression and shows how stupid people are. Recessions happen. It's part of the business cycle.

 

 

 

Yes, they happen, but it could have been prevented. Hoover is not to blame for the depression, Calvin Coolidge is. He did nothing as President, it's what he's known for. Germany made sub-prime mortgages illegal years ago, George Bush could have prevented it, just as Coolidge could have set limits on who banks were giving loans to.

 

 

 

McCain wants to build new nuclear power plants to take pressure off the energy crisis, but Obama says no.

 

 

 

I agree with McCain about nuclear power, disagree with him about drilling. The fact is, Nuclear power will do very little to curb the energy crisis as it stands. Why? Because last I heard, we're short on oil, not coal. Nuclear power provides power for homes, not cars. Obama says no? Where:

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iym-8Q7 ... /54/563366

 

 

 

Very end of the video he discusses Nuclear.

 

 

 

So what's the Democrats plan? NOTHING. They have nothing. They just say we need energy independence, but they don't say how. McCain's ideas may not be perfect or, hell, even good, but at least he's are trying.

 

 

 

Typical right wing ploys. It's funny, because for years, the Republicans have always only professed off-shore drilling, and consistently get ranked 0% by CAF. Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) (John McCain).

 

 

 

 

Until the Democrats get their crap together and offer some freaking ideas, I'm supporting McCain.

 

 

 

I've been working on this campaign for too long to know when I see a troll, and when I see someone who's legitimately seeking a candidate to support. You sir, are a clear troll acting to be innocently looking for a good candidate to support, and then just praising the right. So typical, you're nothing new.

 

 

 

Obama already showed his a flipflopper. Typical politician.

 

 

 

I agree about the typical politician. What's your point? He has to appeal to the right-wing (center in America). I mean, you're acting like he's not a politician, when he is.

 

 

 

Bush has done anything but make a smaller government with lower taxes.

 

 

 

You're right, because he's a neo-con. Well, he has lowered taxes for the wealthy, so your statement is either lying, or you're an idiot who's still lying. Take your pick.

 

 

 

He created homeland security (or at least substantially expanded it) as I recall, and a ton of other government agencies, that don't really seem worth the expense. We already have the FBI and CIA why do we need homeland security exactly? He has not exactly been the candidate I thought he would be, when he said the troops get to stay in Iraq for longer tours, and not get a raise it really got me mad at him. But this is not about bush, it's about his two likely successors.

 

 

 

It is about Bush because McCain has said he agrees with Bush on those tax cuts, and foreign policy. It's a fair comparison. I am also talking about currently, not this election necessarily.

 

 

 

Myself I don't plan to vote for either of them. McCain comes off as somewhat weak, and he also worked with Ted Kennedy to try and pass the so-called comprehensive immigration reform. So-called because from what I heard tucked somewhere inside that monstrosity they called a bill was something that would of given amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Comprehensive immigration reform should be done one bill at a time, each addressing a different part of the problem.

 

 

 

Immigration could be solved in this country if the US really tried, it's just that the US needs illegals more than they need the USA.

 

 

 

Asides from that I think he's damaged goods- being held prisoner and tortured for so long by the Vietnamese... did any one watch the Manchurian candidate? This is not to say he is not a nice, likeable guy (a guy who served our country in the Vietnam War and suffered horribly at the hands of the Communists), I just don't think he is the right man for this particular job.

 

 

 

 

I agree. Didn't see the film though, so I cannot say anything about that.

 

 

 

Well their is his paster reverend Wright- that guy is guilty of sedition as far as I'm concerned. Obama took his sweet time to distance himself from that man when the recordings broke out.

 

 

 

I believe in my heart that Obama is a closet atheist, who joined this church to rally support in Chicago to propel him into politics. Furthermore, a lot of things Wright says I cannot say I disagree with, while he does say some other outlandish things. Adding onto that, there are many things my pastor has said about homosexuals, and other controversial issues that I didn't agree with...and really, until the election, I never took notice. I kind of just sat there, not really wanting to go, but going because of my parents. Well after all of the homosexual jargon, and creationism lies, I had enough and told my parents I'm not going anymore.

 

 

 

Do I think he left the church for political gain more than anything? Of course.

 

 

 

However, what he tried to do first and foremost was just distance himself from Wright, and this I did not see as political gain. Obama looked very hurt, and upset personally at this men, and I felt sorry for him.

 

 

 

If you want to talk guilt by association, let's not even begin to mention Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, John Hagee, and mass other pastors associating themselves around politicians.

 

 

 

I have also heard he is more radical than Hillary Clinton... if I didnt like Hilary, why would I like him?

 

 

 

You've "heard", nice.

 

 

 

He only has a few years experience as a senator, and what's more he's a man with very little history as I understand it. Can any one bring up something memorable that he did before running for president? Not that I would know as he is not from my state... and I don't follow politics all that well.

 

 

 

I have a list of things I can get you, if you'd like.

 

 

 

take away our guns

 

 

 

No, that's the Green/Progressive party and I, not the democrats. The democrats only seek for regulation and gun control, with background checks.

 

 

 

raise taxes

 

 

 

What's wrong with taxes?

 

 

 

impose affirmative action against the better judgment of the states

 

 

 

There's already affirmative action for well connected white people. Your dad calls up a friend, and you're set up with a cake job out of college. And that's not to say this is a white only thing. Hell, the job that I just started I got because I know somebody. Am I capable, do I have the bona fides? Sure, but having a friend that worked at the school gave me that little push I needed to get the job over someone else with similar stats on paper. Many of us are hired for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with our qualifications. Why is using race or gender any worse?

 

 

 

Impose the fairness doctern

 

 

 

Would love to have that back.

 

 

 

legalize the illegals

 

 

 

That would be great, because then they'd be paid the wages they should be paid, and be taxed. What's your plan? Deportation? Good luck with that.

 

 

 

raise our taxes.

 

 

 

You said that already.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, don't forget letting the military rot in order to pursue social programs

 

 

 

Like the GI bill that McCain and Bush were against? I mean you guys love the military to go out and fight your dirty wars, and when they come back they're on their own. Many homeless people fought in Vietnam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I like freedom of speech.

 

???? I don't know where this came from, but ironically, other countries that are more liberal have more freedom of speech than the US. I read a publication a while back that talked about this, and it was kinda funny. There's more censorship in the US for writings like newspapers, and in other venues.

 

 

 

I don't like either party because the Democrats are spineless, and the Republicans are thugs. What's your point? If you want to see change, then stop sitting around on the computer and do something. It's why I dislike the Green Party...they go straight for President instead of focusing on communities and changing the heads of people, one at a time.

 

 

 

I take it you're a Ron Paulite judging by your posts.

 

 

 

Let me ask you something: how many voters have you registered this year?

[meol]

If I could vote, it'd probably be for Obama. McCain is too much of a warmonger for me, and I'm fearing another war in the Middle East now that tensions in Israel are increasing. Obama's external policies look much better to me, and if he doesn't have enough experience, he can always get surrounded by a good Cabinet.

 

There's also this guy Ralph Nader, but I'm sure he doesn't stand a chance in a two-party system like yours.

[IvanZZ]

^^ magekill's post.

 

 

 

=D>. Owned. I agree with Magekill entirely on all his points. Although my opinion doesn't matter that much since I'm not an American citizen, if I COULD vote then i would go for Obama. He's not perfect, he tends to promise much more than he can probably do. But: he inspires. He actually explains most of his reasons. He's a brilliant public speaker. Mccain speaks horrible, i've watched them side by side, the latter makes me puke. He attracts media attention, gives the US a better international image. Most people talk of Obama's so called inexperience, but if you followed the democratic nomination more people voted for Obama than for Hillary Clinton, who is the epitome of experience. Quite the antithesis of Obama. Obama knows how to compromise (as previously stated). He was initally against offshore drilling or whatever but has decided to allow limited opportunities, at least to give the US more time to transform to using alternative energy sources.

 

As well, if i were to vote for Mccain he would probably reinstate harsher security measures, perhaps continuing along with path stuff similar to the Patriot Act. I don't personally have a problem with increased security but i think some of the measures in the patriot act infringe on the personal rights of citizens (no fly lists, incidences of partisan arrest, ability for INDEFINITE periods of arrest without a warrant or suspicion). I got most of these examples from a book my the American author Naomi Wolf "The End of America". It's not a "bash america" book it's a political analysis type of thing which is pretty boring but explains everything.

 

I also went to the republican party website. Main page: article lampooning Obama on how his tire gauge idea is idiotic. But wait, this idea is actually true (I knew this beforehand) and it can save up to 1 - 2% on fuel costs (which if everyone did would save a lot). So, now the republicans are stooping to plain [cabbage] just to insult Obama. Very sophisticated.

 

I traveled to the democratic party website (expecting the same thing) and instead i get a photo (below it a link to the actual website) of Obama and his supporters, encouraging the website viewer to "vote for change". Wow the democratic national congress is working the old fashioned way: encourage votes for your nominee. So simple. When i actually go to the website, the biggest article is a link to a video where a reporter asks Romney for one, yes only ONE example of an accomplishment for alternative energy in McCain's 26 year record in the senate (Obama has been in the senate for about 8 years i believe). And Mccain bses some random answer about how he's not a historian.... Again I find the republicans can't find ground to support their candidates but try at any dishonest tactic to grind the opposition. Great. Someone said that Obama had flip flopped on troop withdrawal. Obama was never for troop withdrawal, he was always against the war (from the start, just look at the wikipedia article) in Iraq because he believed the troops were better placed in Afghanistan. A CNN report like two weeks ago actually supported the fact that Osama bin laden is probably hiding in Afghanistan or pakistan, NOT in iraq. Finally, Since Obama wants to finish this war efficiently and quickly, al least he'd probably spend less time and not drag The US into the huge recession it is in currently. Which is all bush's fault for spending 10 billion or so a year on the war in Iraq. For what? a few specks of sand? Iraq will always be a wasteland, and the arraignment of American troops did not help ANYONE, except perhaps weapons manufacturers and the industrial complex that thrives within America. I really hope that voters vote for the right candidate this time. Also it turns out my post turned into a giant rant so I'm really sorry for all the eye soreness that will be caused. :?

[jackattack]

Romney is exactly what's wrong with politics, he is the slime of slime. For one thing, he did raise taxes, although they weren't taxes, they were fees. Tuition for colleges increased, spending on education for public schools went down by a lot, and many other things "increased" with the fees. It's funny, doesn't McCain want to lower taxes? This is a game of semantics here, just to sound like he didn't increase taxes. Furthermore, he treated the state like he would a business: what's good for the state economy, but not the citizens.

 

 

 

Romney's a beast. We need to get out of control spending under wraps. He's got a proven record of creating jobs, a keen understanding of the economy, and is a genius. I'm not really sure if Romneycare is working out though. He gave the top 25% of students completely free scholarships to public colleges.

 

 

 

In another video that I cannot find atm, he said he agreed with Bush 90-95% of the time on all issues.

 

 

 

Agreeing with him has nothing to do with being able to compromise and bring people together. He has shown he's not afraid to go after his party. He has a long history of working across the aisle. McCain-feingold, Immigration reform, global warming, going against the Bush administration when they were mishandling the war, the McCain detainee act, and the gang of 14. What has Obama done?

 

 

 

 

Erm, McCain HAS taken that money from oil companies, this is a fact. Hey, I'm not an idiot: I know lobbyists and PACs don't affect your campaign money that much, but it's not a lie to say you're accepting all of your money from supporters and ignoring the PAC and Lobbyist interests.

 

 

 

It's been illegal for almost 100 years.

 

 

 

92,000. I have no issues with this as long as we get rid of places like Halliburton buying the contracts and asking for the money they ask for, without any accountability.

 

 

 

Well I don't really have a problem with no bid contracts in themselves. They used no bid contracts in WW2. It gets stuff done faster and better but when companies abuse them thats when it should be reevaluated. I think Halliburton should have consequences but from what I've heard it was mainly KBR that over billed.

 

 

 

Source? I see no flip-flop on this, or anything even remotely close to it. I see "I'll listen to Patreus and the Generals, Maliki, and my own intelligence sources for making decisions. Maliki supports Obama's plan, what's more to say?

 

 

 

Maliki does not support Obama's plan. He said 16 months would be a good time for us to be out. I think it would be too but if the situation were to reverse we would have to stay longer. Obama just doesn't understand Iraq. He made up his mind before the surge even began. He wanted to retreat instead of surge. Who was right there?

 

 

 

I agree with McCain about nuclear power, disagree with him about drilling. The fact is, Nuclear power will do very little to curb the energy crisis as it stands. Why? Because last I heard, we're short on oil, not coal. Nuclear power provides power for homes, not cars. Obama says no? Where:

 

 

 

I haven't seen him come out against it but it won't be in expanded use like McCain is proposing. And Harry Reid goes after that repository in the Yucca mountains pretty tough.

 

 

 

Typical right wing ploys. It's funny, because for years, the Republicans have always only professed off-shore drilling

 

 

 

Look at what they are proposing now. The American energy act is a comprehensive bill with increased drilling, clean coal, oil shale, nuclear, natural gas, biofuels, coal to liquids, solar, wind, and conservation.

 

 

 

You're right, because he's a neo-con. Well, he has lowered taxes for the wealthy, so your statement is either lying, or you're an idiot who's still lying. Take your pick.

 

 

 

:wall: Bush is not a neocon. Even if that word meant anything he isn't. You could make that argument for guys like Doug Feith but neocon is just another hate word for jew. Almost all of the people I've heard called neocons are jews and David Duke uses that word interchangeably with jew. And he lowered taxes for everyone. The poor see a better percentage just less money. http://www.slate.com/id/2108201/

 

 

 

Immigration could be solved in this country if the US really tried, it's just that the US needs illegals more than they need the USA.

 

 

 

Who's tried to solve it?

 

 

 

I agree. Didn't see the film though, so I cannot say anything about that.

 

 

 

Thats just disgusting. You think he's damaged goods from serving our country as a hero? That would put you in the same boat as Bush supporters in 2000.

 

 

 

I believe in my heart that Obama is a closet atheist, who joined this church to rally support in Chicago to propel him into politics. Furthermore, a lot of things Wright says I cannot say I disagree with, while he does say some other outlandish things. Adding onto that, there are many things my pastor has said about homosexuals, and other controversial issues that I didn't agree with...and really, until the election, I never took notice. I kind of just sat there, not really wanting to go, but going because of my parents. Well after all of the homosexual jargon, and creationism lies, I had enough and told my parents I'm not going anymore.

 

 

 

You should probably find a different church then. And you can't disagree with Wright when he says white people created aids to kill blacks? or that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen? Or that God should damn the USKKKA?

 

 

 

 

 

I have a list of things I can get you, if you'd like.

 

Just random bills he co sponsored aren't really meaningful. he was in the senate for something like less than 150 days before he decided to run for president.

 

 

 

 

No, that's the Green/Progressive party and I, not the democrats. The democrats only seek for regulation and gun control, with background checks.

 

 

 

Well he did say that he thinks the D.C. gun ban was constitutional. Not too smart for a constitutional scholar. I could have told him that.

 

 

 

What's wrong with taxes?

 

 

 

Thats your money too.

 

 

 

There's already affirmative action for well connected white people. Your dad calls up a friend, and you're set up with a cake job out of college. And that's not to say this is a white only thing. Hell, the job that I just started I got because I know somebody. Am I capable, do I have the bona fides? Sure, but having a friend that worked at the school gave me that little push I needed to get the job over someone else with similar stats on paper. Many of us are hired for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with our qualifications. Why is using race or gender any worse?

 

Why is it any better? Shouldn't we be against it completely? Just because it happens we should institutionalize unfairness?

 

 

 

Would love to have that back.

 

 

 

Your anti-free speech?

 

 

 

 

That would be great, because then they'd be paid the wages they should be paid, and be taxed. What's your plan? Deportation? Good luck with that.

 

 

 

It would be great and who worked on that bill?

 

 

 

Like the GI bill that McCain and Bush were against? I mean you guys love the military to go out and fight your dirty wars, and when they come back they're on their own. Many homeless people fought in Vietnam.

 

 

 

We've been through that. They only opposed it because they wanted a bill that wouldn't hurt retention. McCain had his own bill that I think had more money and wouldn't have hurt retention. Once they changed the bill McCain supported it and the President signed it.

[Tom_Servo]

 

 

 

Obama seems to be all talk. He keeps blabbering on about change but never explains how he's going to carry out his master plan.

 

 

 

Do you ever click cnn.com/livefeed for his townhall meetings? Or do you only happen to catch sound bites as you walk by your television? I mean, it's like people expect speeches and rallies to be about his stances on issues. Do some [bleep] research, it's 2008 for christ sake...all the information about his plans are at your fingertips, and you use this as a reason not to vote for someone. Get real. People who use this as a talking point never planned to vote for the man, they're just grasping for straws.

 

 

 

In case you're wondering: http://www.barackobama.com/issues

 

 

 

Far more in-depth than McCain's website about issues.

 

 

 

Half of that is about discrimination, which cannot be directly controlled by the government. You can't fix ignorance with pretty words.

 

And another thing is that a lot of those goals, while good on paper, will be incredibly hard to carry out in reality. And exactly how they will be carried out remains elusive.

 

 

Besides that, he already flip flopped on troop withdrawal.

 

 

 

Source? I see no flip-flop on this, or anything even remotely close to it. I see "I'll listen to Patreus and the Generals, Maliki, and my own intelligence sources for making decisions. Maliki supports Obama's plan, what's more to say?

 

[hide=What happened to immediate?]

 

now it's 16 months...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MriH5ae6fkQ

 

granted it is Fox News, which is known for distorting the truth, but you can't deny what he said in his own words.[/hide]

 

I guess he realized it was unrealistic. But he should never of said it without a sit-rep.

 

McCain wants to build new nuclear power plants to take pressure off the energy crisis, but Obama says no.

 

 

 

I agree with McCain about nuclear power, disagree with him about drilling. The fact is, Nuclear power will do very little to curb the energy crisis as it stands. Why? Because last I heard, we're short on oil, not coal. Nuclear power provides power for homes, not cars. Obama says no? Where:

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iym-8Q7 ... /54/563366

 

 

 

Very end of the video he discusses Nuclear.

 

Here:

 

And if we use nuclear power for homes, there can be more natural gas available to use as a band-aid for cars.

 

 

 

 

So what's the Democrats plan? NOTHING. They have nothing. They just say we need energy independence, but they don't say how. McCain's ideas may not be perfect or, hell, even good, but at least he's are trying.

 

 

 

Typical right wing ploys. It's funny, because for years, the Republicans have always only professed off-shore drilling, and consistently get ranked 0% by CAF. Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) (John McCain).

 

 

 

Times change, so do people. And a person isn't immortally bound to the rest of his party's stance. I still see NO viable solutions form the other side, which was my point in the first place....

 

 

 

 

 

Until the Democrats get their crap together and offer some freaking ideas, I'm supporting McCain.

 

 

 

I've been working on this campaign for too long to know when I see a troll, and when I see someone who's legitimately seeking a candidate to support. You sir, are a clear troll acting to be innocently looking for a good candidate to support, and then just praising the right. So typical, you're nothing new.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? I said I was probably going to vote for McCain at the beginning of my post and then stated why. If you actually read my post and not just skimmed it for stuff to criticize, you would of seen that.

 

 

 

I'm not going to bother with further responses, I wasn't looking for a flame war I'm sorry you turned it into that with your childish name calling.

[ThurinEthir]

Aw, meol (I think) beat me to naming Ralph Nader. Oh well. I guess I can still say Ron Paul. :

 

I can't vote, but I'd guess I'd vote for Obama. I agree with him on more issues, mainly war. And I like his personality better. In my opinion, he's more likable. McCain is your typical old white guy. Yeah, I have great reasons.

[dsavi]

If McCain wins, we'll have a nearly dead Bush clone.

 

 

 

If Obama wins, we'll have a government that's taken seriously by other countries and a president with integrity.

 

 

 

Need I say more? Yes, I know that quite a few of you disagree with me on both points.

[Ginger_Warrior]

If the rest of the world had a vote, Obama would win by a landslide. It's not just a media storm, or a cult of personality as some have tried to make out. We genuinely feel a connection with him.

 

 

 

Although that feeling is more anti-right wing America than pro-Obama.

 

 

 

We don't want another Bush, and that's exactly what McCain is. You can argue against me on that judgement, but it would be irrelevant. That's what the rest of the world believes - McCain is a war-loving ex-Vietnam veteran who wants to scale up the war in the Middle East. Despite having been a victim of torture himself, he approves of torture against people who have no right to Habeas Corpus (waterboarding and Guantanamo).

 

 

 

We don't want to be a part of that.

[oegly41]

The only thing I care about is the Iraq War. McCain says he can stay in Iraq for 100 more years, while Obama wants to end it right away and try to rebuild Iraq.

 

 

 

Obama - the lesser of two evils!

 

 

 

Ch-ch-changes!

[En_fuego]

I'm going to end up voting for Mccain. One of my biggest issues is abortion and I have the same views as most conservatives on that. I'm curious to also see a little more on the social security issue, I don't think either has really addressed it too much this election.

[assassin_696]

McCain has some qualities that I admire, but i'm far closer to Obama ideologically than anyone else. Of course he isn't perfect, but no candidate ever is and you just have to weigh up the good and the bad that comes with each and make a rational decision based off that.

[jackattack]

If the rest of the world had a vote, Obama would win by a landslide. It's not just a media storm, or a cult of personality as some have tried to make out. We genuinely feel a connection with him.

 

 

 

Although that feeling is more anti-right wing America than pro-Obama.

 

 

 

We don't want another Bush, and that's exactly what McCain is. You can argue against me on that judgement, but it would be irrelevant. That's what the rest of the world believes - McCain is a war-loving ex-Vietnam veteran who wants to scale up the war in the Middle East. Despite having been a victim of torture himself, he approves of torture against people who have no right to Habeas Corpus (waterboarding and Guantanamo).

 

 

 

We don't want to be a part of that.

 

 

 

Well he's against waterboarding and wants to close guantanamo. :? And he doesn't want to scale up the war. #-o

[RSBDavid]

I honestly don't think our country is ready for a black president.with that being said, I am not racist. I don't support MCcain either. He wants to continue the war which I've opposed since the start of it.

[Range_This11]

I think our country was ready for Ron Paul.

[dusqi]

I am from the UK. Americans seem to view it as a downside if people in other countries argue for a specific candidate, so I don't bother getting involved. I look forwards to a day when no one else has to care which candidate that Americans elect!

[user1991]

I am from the UK. Americans seem to view it as a downside if people in other countries argue for a specific candidate, so I don't bother getting involved. I look forwards to a day when no one else has to care which candidate that Americans elect!

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Its a shame they have so much influence.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well he's against waterboarding and wants to close guantanamo. :? And he doesn't want to scale up the war. #-o

 

I was merely stating common belief. Politicians in general have always changed their mind once in power.

 

 

 

I am from the UK. Americans seem to view it as a downside if people in other countries argue for a specific candidate, so I don't bother getting involved. I look forwards to a day when no one else has to care which candidate that Americans elect!

 

Amen to that.

 

 

 

Instead we'll have to worry about China's elect... oh no, they don't have any.

[l0l0lpur32]

I am from the UK. Americans seem to view it as a downside if people in other countries argue for a specific candidate, so I don't bother getting involved. I look forwards to a day when no one else has to care which candidate that Americans elect!

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Its a shame they have so much influence.

 

I would rather have the US being the #1 world power than it being China or Russia.

[user1991]

I am from the UK. Americans seem to view it as a downside if people in other countries argue for a specific candidate, so I don't bother getting involved. I look forwards to a day when no one else has to care which candidate that Americans elect!

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Its a shame they have so much influence.

 

I would rather have the US being the #1 world power than it being China or Russia.

 

 

 

As would I.

 

 

 

But still, we live in a world where the "#1 world power" (quite an overstatement) has influence over pretty much every other country on the planet. THAT, is my problem.

[Bufoman]

Okay first off I would like to make it clear that when I said "Damaged Goods" I am referring to the psychological trauma that must have occurred during McCains years of torture at the hands of the vietnese. I am not trying to put him down or anything like that, as a matter of fact I respect him for not cracking (or at least we think he never cracked). But if you watched the Manchurian Candidate you would be a little worried about having him as president.

 

 

 

Now putting that aside let me Rebuff you on a few things Mage killer. First off I dislike this statement you had:

 

 

 

You're right, because he's a neo-con. Well, he has lowered taxes for the wealthy, so your statement is either lying, or you're an idiot who's still lying. Take your pick.

 

What exactly do neo-cons have to do with true conservatives? Not that I consider myself a conservative exactly... I am more of a reformist. At any rate you obviously lost the spirit of my statement about "Bush has done anything but make a smaller government with lower taxes." How about addressing the part about smaller government before you call me an Idiot and a Liar?

 

 

 

I would like that list of memorable things Obama has done before running for president- just give me the big 3 if you care to post it here.

 

 

 

No, that's the Green/Progressive party and I, not the democrats. The democrats only seek for regulation and gun control, with background checks.

 

I could argue about that one with you. Theirs allot of Anti Gun sorts in the democrat party, Al Gore for instance.

 

 

 

What's wrong with taxes?

 

 

 

Asides from the fact that everyone hates them? Where does the money go exactly? Allot of it goes to corporate welfare... what was it $160 Billion for the rich?

 

 

 

There's already affirmative action for well connected white people. Your dad calls up a friend, and you're set up with a cake job out of college. And that's not to say this is a white only thing. Hell, the job that I just started I got because I know somebody. Am I capable, do I have the bona fides? Sure, but having a friend that worked at the school gave me that little push I needed to get the job over someone else with similar stats on paper. Many of us are hired for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with our qualifications. Why is using race or gender any worse?

 

 

 

 

First off My dad does not call up a friend to get me a "cake job", and why exactly do you assume that I am white? or was this just a scenario? I believe in liberty, the right of the people to chose, be their choice good or be it bad. Forcing others to accept some one only leads to resentment, and when you throw in a quota can keep qualified people out because you do not have enough minorities. Before you yell at me about calling minority's ignorant consider that not all area's have many of them, so if you need one black for every ten whites in an area where whites outnumber blacks 1000 to one, you may very well have a hard time finding enough blacks (or others) who are qualified. Imagine the outrage blacks would feel if they where told by a employer "sorry, but we simply do not have enough whites"- if the system was truly fair then that could very well happen in area's where the 1000 to one (all right, maybe not 1000) is black to white.

 

 

 

You would love to have the fairness doctern would you? How would you like to have Dr. Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, and others come on every liberal talk show in the country once a week to force their point of view upon the audience? I doubt very much you would, nor would I like to have Howard Stern or any of the others forced on me- I like to chose who I listen too thank you very much.

 

 

 

Both parties are guilty of neglecting the GI's needs, but the democrats have a bad track record. Does any one remember the low funding during the Clinton years? Or how about how the mayor of New Orleans deemed it more important to spend money on public parks than levy maintaince? I would say that the levies can be compared to the armed forces in this regard.

 

 

 

When I said freedom of speech I was referring to among other things the "Fairness Doctern"... and does any one remember how recently Nancy Pelosi turned off the lights on the republicans?

 

 

 

I resent you trying to put me in a group, I am not a Ron paulite, or a Neo Con, nor do I campaign for any one. Why don't you share with us your political athileations, and what you have done in politics instead of making comments like this

Let me ask you something: how many voters have you registered this year?

[magekillr]

I'm going to end up voting for Mccain. One of my biggest issues is abortion and I have the same views as most conservatives on that. I'm curious to also see a little more on the social security issue, I don't think either has really addressed it too much this election.

 

 

 

One issue voters, on an issue that will NEVER be overturned, when we're on the brink of another war and a continued war, with an economy teetering on recession...are you serious? Seriously? Really?

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/us/po ... ref=slogin

 

 

 

*sigh*

 

 

 

And exactly how they will be carried out remains elusive.

 

 

 

Which issue? And may I ask, how McCain's are any better?

 

 

 

While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

 

 

 

 

Now, tell me, how is he going to pay for it, and have this happen? Does he tell you on his website? No? Why not? It's "elusive" no? I mean he let's you know where it's coming from, but at what expense? He's continuing the war for god knows how long, and there's a health care tax credit being issued? Tax credits don't solve problems, they reduce spending HEAVILY somewhere else at the expense of the tax credit.

 

 

 

Why should Obama be any different?

 

 

 

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange

 

to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog

 

group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance

 

plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers

 

would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend on

 

how healthy you are. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new

 

public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and

 

make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public

 

 

 

I mean, I don't know about you, but I'd say this is far more specific, and it's something he can do: he can establish new departments if he so wishes.

 

 

 

Does he tell you how he'll establish it or pay for it? The progressive tax plan he proposes that most other countries have would be apart of it :roll:

 

 

 

What happened to immediate?

 

 

 

It was NEVER immediate. He has ALWAYS stated: "We need to be as careful getting out of Iraq, as we were careless getting in". ALways, ALWays, ALWAYS!

 

 

 

Here:

 

And if we use nuclear power for homes, there can be more natural gas available to use as a band-aid for cars.

 

 

 

Fail soundbite is fail. Oh yeah, a sound-clip of him taken out of context. I would imagine that he went on to say, "BUT! I would not be against an energy plan that has nuclear options on the table." :roll:

 

 

 

Tmes change, so do people. And a person isn't immortally bound to the rest of his party's stance. I still see NO viable solutions form the other side, which was my point in the first place....

 

 

 

 

You don't? What don't you see? I see investing billions into research for new energy sources which should have been going on YEARS ago, an option for Nuclear, and EVEN an option for drilling, but people who aren't naive about the drilling will know that's just a Republican wedge issue, just as abortion is.

 

 

 

Besides, 17% voting record for energy independence, this is not good. "Times change, people change." They do? I mean, the man has a voting record of being 90-95% alongside Bush, while the Republicans are 100% alongside him, except for Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel. He's saying he is Bush, the world sees him as Bush, and yet Americans are still too thick headed to not see it.

 

 

 

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/E ... tSheet.pdf

 

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? I said I was probably going to vote for McCain at the beginning of my post and then stated why. If you actually read my post and not just skimmed it for stuff to criticize, you would of seen that.

 

 

 

I took all of your reasons, and responded to them. Dude, you are a right winger making it sound like you'd give someone on the left a chance. That's called trolling, and I know it when I see it. I've been on this campaign for over a year, and I've talked to too many people...don't try and take me for a fool.

 

 

 

I called you out as a troll, if that's name-calling, then get off the internet. I responded to all of your claims, and this is flaming?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Romney's a beast. We need to get out of control spending under wraps. He's got a proven record of creating jobs, a keen understanding of the economy, and is a genius. I'm not really sure if Romneycare is working out though. He gave the top 25% of students completely free scholarships to public colleges.

 

 

 

 

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/02-26-2003

 

 

 

Looks like he was a gambling man to me. He also wants to re-instate Reaganomics, which are rubbish.

 

 

 

Well, the list is very long. The last time we had a recession, President Bush recognized the best thing you can do is lower taxes and put forward a tax bill. And John McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against it. He does not understand the first lesson of Reaganomics, which is, you cut taxes to grow the economy.

 

 

 

Lol? Lower taxes, while we're at war...is he serious? Yeah, by cut taxes he means for the billionaires who do not need them. It's almost like we ignored the sub-prime mortgages just so the Republicans would have a talking point later.

 

 

 

Taxes are going up, it's just a fact of life. John McCain knows it, and that's why he said what he recently said about them. He is in a pickle, he can't fully admit that taxes are going up because that would probably make him lose in a landslide right about now, but he knows they will be increasing.

 

 

 

Agreeing with him has nothing to do with being able to compromise and bring people together. He has shown he's not afraid to go after his party. He has a long history of working across the aisle. McCain-feingold, Immigration reform, global warming, going against the Bush administration when they were mishandling the war, the McCain detainee act, and the gang of 14. What has Obama done?

 

 

 

Except, "times change, people change". All of his now-talking points are a repeat of Bush. What does a record matter if he's just continuing Bush's policies?

 

 

 

S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) today hailed the Senate's passage of the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.

 

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-senate_passes_c/

 

 

 

Authored by U.S. Sens. [bleep] Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

 

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lugar-obama_non/

 

 

 

I will find you more, there's just too much for me to respond to atm.

 

 

 

It's been illegal for almost 100 years

 

 

 

not for the execs to give him it:

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01891.html

 

 

 

Besides, the grassroot campaign that Obama has run has been a total change in campaign reform. You can bash his stances all you want, but you cannot deny that this is the most organized campaign in recent memory...

 

 

 

Maliki does not support Obama's plan. He said 16 months would be a good time for us to be out. I think it would be too but if the situation were to reverse we would have to stay longer. Obama just doesn't understand Iraq. He made up his mind before the surge even began. He wanted to retreat instead of surge. Who was right there?

 

 

 

Both Ginger Warrior and I have explained to you about this in the Iraq thread, there is no need to carry it on here.

 

 

 

I haven't seen him come out against it but it won't be in expanded use like McCain is proposing. And Harry Reid goes after that repository in the Yucca mountains pretty tough.

 

 

 

I agree he isn't as much of a proponent as I'd like him to be, I have made a long post on the "Nuclear Power" thread, or maybe it was Chernobyl, either way I made a long post about why I support Nuclear Power. Obama, and many others, have a fear of the waste, so once he is educated by the scientists about the art of recycling it, then he could be a bigger proponent. I suggest we talk to Canada about sharing the Canadian Shield for waste storage...possibly buying pieces of the land, and that money is re-invested in other energies.

 

 

 

Again, I'm not as Pro-Obama as you think I am, I am really anti-Republican/conservative, and I am Pro-bridging gaps in American politics so we can move America back to the center/left when FDR was in office.

 

 

 

Look at what they are proposing now. The American energy act is a comprehensive bill with increased drilling, clean coal, oil shale, nuclear, natural gas, biofuels, coal to liquids, solar, wind, and conservation.

 

 

 

I don't see these propositions, and they're kind of forced to now that America is realizing what a big deal energy is. Gas went up like $1.50 out of nowhere thanks to speculators.

 

 

 

Bush is not a neocon.

 

 

 

Wow...really? Really?

 

 

 

I mean, it's not like I like to cite wiki, but it is monitored 24/7 with legitimate sources, and has footnotes, so I will cite it anyway:

 

 

 

It (neo-conservatism) influenced the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the transition of some liberals to the right of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being 'new' conservatives.

 

 

 

 

Who's tried to solve it?

 

 

 

??? I don't know what you're asking, or why you're asking. There's nothing to solve. It's a fact: America needs illegals more than they need us. They do the jobs that Americans refuse to do for that kind of pay, so until they're citizens to be taxed and on official pay-rolls, they will be here to stay.

 

 

 

Thats just disgusting. You think he's damaged goods from serving our country as a hero? That would put you in the same boat as Bush supporters in 2000.

 

 

 

Sorry, I should have said what I specifically agreed about. I agreed with him that he is unfit to be President because of his experiences over there. I feel he has issues with PTSD that were unresolved.

 

 

 

You should probably find a different church then. And you can't disagree with Wright when he says white people created aids to kill blacks? or that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen? Or that God should damn the USKKKA?

 

 

 

The sad thing is, a lot of churches in America are like this, and many black liberal churches have a "political" singe to them. Furthermore, I said I can't disagree with SOME of the things he says, I said "other controversial issues that I didn't agree with".

 

 

 

Just random bills he co sponsored aren't really meaningful. he was in the senate for something like less than 150 days before he decided to run for president.

 

 

 

Oh, so anything he has done isn't meaningful? What does it matter how long he's been there, he did things, and all of the sudden because he hasn't been there "that long" that his resume is disqualified?

 

 

 

Well he did say that he thinks the D.C. gun ban was constitutional. Not too smart for a constitutional scholar. I could have told him that.

 

 

 

It is constitutional. Different interpretations lead to different assertions. I believe the Father of the Constitution believed in a lax-interpretation :P

 

 

 

Thats your money too.

 

 

 

Yep, and I LOVE taxes, love them. Just thinking about them makes me salivate. See, unlike you, I like to see the government re-distribute the wealth, not the corporations.

 

 

 

 

Why is it any better? Shouldn't we be against it completely? Just because it happens we should institutionalize unfairness?

 

 

 

White felon has a better chance at getting a job than a "clean" African. Something's wrong there. It's not institutionalizing unfairness, people who don't understand it are the ones who advocate this. I shall dedicate a thread to AA after this.

 

 

 

Your anti-free speech?

 

 

 

You're free to speak what you want, but you have to give the opposition air-time to present a rebuttal. Seems fair to me.

 

 

 

It would be great and who worked on that bill?

 

 

 

So you don't want to deport them? Or are you just saying this because McCain worked on the bill? My favorite Senator ALSO worked on the bill, and that would be Russ Feingold. What's your point? I support what it advocated, while I doubt you do, you're just using it as a weapon because McCain supported it.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

What exactly do neo-cons have to do with true conservatives? Not that I consider myself a conservative exactly... I am more of a reformist. At any rate you obviously lost the spirit of my statement about "Bush has done anything but make a smaller government with lower taxes." How about addressing the part about smaller government before you call me an Idiot and a Liar?

 

 

 

If part of your statement is a lie, then that would make the entire thing a lie in my eyes, as you tried to force it off as truth in one big snippet. He has lowered taxes for the wealthy, this is a fact. Smaller government? That's the opposite of neo-conservatism, which is what Bush is...making my statements quite true :?

 

 

 

American Conservatism has no definition, it's the most evanescent chameleon in world politics.

 

 

 

 

I would like that list of memorable things Obama has done before running for president- just give me the big 3 if you care to post it here.

 

 

 

Big 3? I don't know what you would consider big, and what I would consider big. Most people, before going into politics, start out on school boards, and in communities. The man was a community organizer for years, and I see that as something very big because of the leadership aspect of getting people involved. It's beyond just being a leader, it's doing what a President does on the small scale: giving hope to Americans that they're the ones with the power to change and reform. Change occurs from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

 

 

Do you want bills? Legislation? Speeches? I mean, how vague can you get?

 

 

 

What allows someone to pass the test to be President? Video made by my friend at UVA:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could argue about that one with you. Theirs allot of Anti Gun sorts in the democrat party, Al Gore for instance.

 

 

 

I'll concede there are a few, but the Democratic party as a whole, and a VAST majority, not just a simple 51%, oppose banning guns altogether. Point taken, though.

 

 

 

Asides from the fact that everyone hates them? Where does the money go exactly? Allot of it goes to corporate welfare... what was it $160 Billion for the rich?

 

 

 

I love taxes, and so does the rest of the Western World. Ok, if you wanna be real, of course no one LIKES taxes, but we support their purpose. Corporate welfare, hmmm...well as much as I hate to buyout places like FannieMae, the costs would be far more detrimental to let them sink. Maybe if Bush intervened in the first place, it could have been avoided.

 

 

 

I shall make an AA thread.

 

 

 

You would love to have the fairness doctern would you? How would you like to have Dr. Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, and others come on every liberal talk show in the country once a week to force their point of view upon the audience? I doubt very much you would, nor would I like to have Howard Stern or any of the others forced on me- I like to chose who I listen too thank you very much.

 

 

 

Fine by me.

 

 

 

Both parties are guilty of neglecting the GI's needs, but the democrats have a bad track record. Does any one remember the low funding during the Clinton years? Or how about how the mayor of New Orleans deemed it more important to spend money on public parks than levy maintaince? I would say that the levies can be compared to the armed forces in this regard.

 

 

 

I'll look into these things more. The fact is, McCain is not liked among veterans, and I won't go into this further because jackattack will quote me again and talk about it when we just disagree, so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

 

I resent you trying to put me in a group, I am not a Ron paulite, or a Neo Con, nor do I campaign for any one. Why don't you share with us your political athileations, and what you have done in politics instead of making comments like this

 

 

 

A reformist...reformists are typically socialist democracy advocates. How can you be a reformist, followers of many Marxist ideals, yet dislike many of the things you've stated. More and more, you're looking like a libertarian.

 

 

 

What have I done? Well, I've been registering new voters for over a year, and making calls every weekend to states that are polling bad for Obama. I've canvassed, I've held actual voter drives, I helped get Jim Webb elected...is that enough? I am a student in school, I do everything I can.

 

 

 

My political athileations, well asthileaton isn't a word, but I assume you're asking what I believe...so here goes:

 

 

 

I had a friend PM me: "I almost changed to a liberal today..."

 

 

 

He said:

 

 

 

I was walking home and was SO close to becoming a Liberal it was scary. I thanked the bus driver, and immediately I felt terrible for everyone like him, who had to work hard hours and get underpaid, and not appreciated by society, will probably never be remembered or change history.

 

 

 

I have made it a habit to thank bus drivers for the past year, I think it makes a difference.

 

 

 

Is there any economic idea/plan anywhere in the world that could help people like him?

 

 

 

I just want everyone to be happy, successful, and get as much out of life that I do.

 

 

 

Here was my response:

 

 

 

If you truly felt this way, you would detest conservatism because what conservatism and capitalism advocate are the complete opposite.

 

 

 

What they advocate is that, despite how much you want this man to succeed and be appreciated, there's really nothing you can do but hope that he feels that he can succeed, and will have the will power to make it on his own. That's all they advocate: "you're on your own, I wish I could help you, but I have my own desires to succeed and it's not my fault that you don't have the same amount of ability to make it like I do."

 

 

 

You know, I've always thought that most of you and who you were was like Bush: a person who really does care deep down, they've just been led/taught/raised astray in a different world of thought, and haven't really been able to give up what they have to make the difference.

 

 

 

Perhaps this will change when you reach the college level, I don't know. College students in general tend to be "idealistic", but most people in America, just flat out don't understand socialistic policy due to McCarthy and the Red Scare. You say "Is there any economic plan for this to happen?", and it's sitting right there in socialist democracy, and you dismiss it.

 

 

 

People don't seem to like taxes in America, people like my Dad included. They're afraid of a government becoming too powerful, and I can understand this fear. However, the way America is set up, I do not think we should fear an "all be all" government; it's simply not possible in a realistic view point for it to happen. They also don't think it's fair for the government to be the one dispersing the wealth, "Is that fair for the government to do that?" Well, who says it's fair for the corporations to do that? At least with government, we elect and choose our officials; they represent us. The corporations represent their stock holders, and will almost always do what is in the best interest of the company. If that just so happens to benefit the people, then great. If not, well too bad. This is why I feel a government levying the taxes, and directing where the wealth goes is a much better idea: they have accountability on the voters. If we don't like them, we don't elect them again. One thing that needs to happen inside Washington outside of elected officials, however, is a mass form of "accountability". As of right now, we have useless departments because people simply cannot get fired unless they punched their boss in the face. If there was new management in how things were done, and people worked like they would in a company (where if they [bleep]ed around, they'd be fired), then we would be all set.

 

 

 

So herein lies the conundrum: how do we bring the poor closer to the rich, without totally creating a Nanny state, and without encouraging greed?

 

 

 

I mean, granted, there will ALWAYS be poor and rich in every society unless it's a Communist Utopia...which as we all know 1.) can't happen, and 2.) I personally would not like for it to happen. I would not like for that to happen because as much as I want everyone to be equal, I'm aware that not everyone is willing to put in the same effort, and I don't believe hard work is rewarded through Communism; there's no way of getting ahead. This leads to eventual "work just hard enough to not get fired" mindsets, and it's not healthy for progress or society.

 

 

 

However, even though there will always be disparity between the rich and the poor, it is and will always continue to be, a large distance in America. If you took a city like Baltimore, and looked at their poor, and then took a city like Paris, and looked at their poor, you would see a much greater difference. The poor in Paris are still poor, sure, but their quality of life is much greater. They have access to medicine, and education, and shelter, and even food...and vacation times. They're still poor, but they still have access and their quality of life is much greater. People in Baltimore are not so lucky, and they're completely on their own.

 

 

 

This is a common misconception about socialism: that you somehow still can't be rich, and that your hard work is not rewarded. My dad has this misconception...when he thinks socialism, he thinks Russia and China, which are not socialist states whatsoever. If I told him Germany was a socialist state, he probably would not believe me. It's very possible to be rich in socialism, just as it is possible to be poor. The difference is, the poor and middle class have better qualities of life, at the expense of some of the riches' wealth. It's like owning 10 houses and 5 cars with capitalism, and owning 7 houses and 3 cars with socialism; the only difference is that with capitalism there is a sheer vanity and greed for more that is never ending. Why the need for so much? Just because you can? Just because you want?

 

 

 

I mean if you take most rich people, they're not rich because of the businesses they own, but because of their assets and investments. Yet, Canada has a 50% capital gains tax...and yet, your father is still wealthy no? Germany has 0% capital gains tax under many circumstances, but gets as high as 28%. Iceland, probably the most socialist country on earth, has 0% capital gains tax...0%.

 

 

 

I mean, some people might not think it's fair for the rich to be taxed in greater numbers than the poor, and maybe they're right. However, I do not think just because something is fair, means that it is right. I think it's disgusting to see a gold plated Porsche, and I see my Aunt without access to health care; a woman who hasn't seen a doctor in over 7 years because she can't afford to. I think it's disgusting to see our troops serving this country with all their heart and soul, to return home to people metaphorically spitting on them by not giving them treatment for their PTSD or decapitations, or a house to sleep in, or food to eat. I think it's disgusting to see myself be taxed 23%, a person who can't afford school or food or laundry who works 12 hours a day of hard work every day, and see someone like Warren Buffet be taxed 17% of his assets because of loopholes that are easily exploited.

 

 

 

So maybe for an economy, capitalism is the best way...I concede that point. However, socialism in a socialist democracy can be mixed with capitalism...and I see the two converging to the middle to be a far better way for the citizens. What is the point of a booming economy, if 90-95% of its citizens who lay toil to the work everyday reap none of the rewards? I mean, the US has the greatest economy by far...great. Now, how are the lives of its citizens? If their lives are not being lived happily, what the hell is the point of such a great economy? So a few rich [wagon] can sit at home doing nothing while Wall Street increases their assets, venturing out on rich-filled vacations full of [cabbage] that really does not matter, or should not matter at least, while hard working Americans work 8-16 hours every day for minimum wage, receive no benefits, and go home hungry with no access to education or health care? No, I'm sorry, I cannot bear or be apart of a system that is so corrupt that it would rather see its economy booming to the point that it can control the world, leaving a few people very rich, while the rest of the country suffers.

 

 

 

That is why I am a socialist, and that is why I am a liberal.

[Lenticular_J]

Quite a post, mage. I only have one thing to say, as I'm really not involved in there. Well, a few things.

 

 

 

You say it's disgusting when people metaphorically spit on them. What about when people literally spit on them? When protesters swarm funerals, and bodyguards are actually required? Just wanted your opinion on that. I'm guessing you find it as terrible as anyone.

 

 

 

A capitalistic, socialistic democracy would be a complete utopia. But, in the world's current state, it's impossible. People are too greedy, and too unwilling to give up quite a bit, even if it is for the greater good (which I sort of believe in, sort of don't).

 

 

 

Just my two cents. Well, four. That's how many "paragraphs" I used, so, quite.