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.

 

 

 

Oh of course, I detest people who spat on our Vietnam veterans for doing what they were ordered to do, it's sickening. Calling them baby killers and murderers...yeah, horrible horrible.

 

 

 

Capitalistic socialistic democracy utopia? America has socialism: education, libraries, police, fire departments, medicaid, social security, medicare. I would just like to see progressive taxation to further the socialist policies...specifically health care, and I'd like "energy" to be government owned.

 

 

 

Germany, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Finland...etc. All socialistic countries, that implement democracy, and forms of capitalism. Not complete democracy, though, as some are Monarchy, with elected officials.

I meant soldiers from Iraq or Afghanistan, actually.

 

 

 

And I thought you meant complete socialist-capitalist-democracy, not what they're implemented in those nations (which has worked relatively well), as that would be a utopia.

 

 

 

EDIT: And I wouldn't mind health care and energy to be government-managed, that would probably fix a good deal of problems. Might create more jobs for electricians, too.

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*

 

 

 

 

Yep, I'm serious. I could make a big whole spiel about all my beliefs, but I don't need to waste all my time on a forum quoting everyone and telling them how they are wrong. I'm not going to attack you for your useless opinion, and I don't think you need to attack other people for theirs.

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?

 

 

 

Yes, it is flaming and yes, it is name calling. Sorry I take personal offense to being called something I'm not. Did you know that I registered as a Democrat, but then changed my mind on who I wanted to support because the campaign wasn't going the way I thought it would and I didn't like it? NO. SO STOP PRETENDING TO KNOW ME. And before you twist that around: can I not change my mind? Or do I have to jump on one bandwagon and stay there? Why does who I support automatically make me a radical right winger? I changed my mind because of the reasons in my first post. I could easily say you were a radical Left winger because all you have done here is pick apart peoples' posts, tell them how stupid they are, and say that only people who support Obama are right. Seems like you are the troll for mocking everybody's opinion that isn't the same as yours and make accusations without knowing the entire story.

 

 

 

Oh and sorry I don't conform to nerdy internet talk by saying that calling someone a troll is not name calling. SORRY GUYS. I guess I will get off the internet because I don't label people automatically. MY FREAKING BAD.

I'm Australian, but I've wanted Obama to be president from the start.

Aussie here, and I guess I'd vote for Obama, mainly because of all the media attention he has been getting. Whenever I flick on the news it is "Obama talks to the people of _____ - and McCain shook hands with some other person, but Obama done a really good speech!"

it seems tif is full of democrats

Thanks Mini Me for standing up for some of us who have been called Idiots and Liars by this guy.

 

 

 

Mage Killer you never apologized for that, and I am inclined to hold a grudge if you do not. Putting that asides for now, let us continue our argument in a civil manor.

 

 

 

First off I said I consider myself a reformist, but not one with a political affiliation. I am not a socialist, or a Marxist, and I do not know what they have to do with being a Reformist. I want reform in this country, does that not by definition make me a reformist? To me it's the same as being a conservative, if your here in America it's supposed to mean Right-Wing, Anti Abortion, Anti Tax and Big Government, Pro 2ND amendment and all that. But if you live in the Ex-Soviet union (well some of the breakaway countries at least) it means you are a communist. Conservatism is defending the status quo as I understand it. I do not like the status quo, that's why I chose the term Reformist.

 

 

 

About taxing the rich: did you know that one percent of the population pay's something like 20% of the taxes in this country? Seems that any one who is successful gets punished for it with high taxes. Personally I am in favor of a flat income tax that gradually reduces to nothing the lower you are from the poverty level (or something similar). I am opposed to the Estate and Inheritance tax, as well as property tax (why pay for something you don't make any money from?). Sales tax is tolerable, but I think it's double taxation since you already have to pay Income Tax. It would be really nice if they figured out a way to eliminate all federal taxes... I wonder if our great silver deposits to the south could be nationalized and produce Silver Dollars?

 

 

 

As for Health Care: Do you know how extraordinarily expensive it has become? The profit that is being made by this industry is excessive to say the least. If we did have universal health care, it would have to involve opening up government owned and run clinics and hospitals that do not have a profit motive. Doing what Canada did and outlawing healthcare for profit is a bad idea, as it puts the burden on the government and the taxpayers. People have to wait for months up their. Their is hope however, if the insurance company's and the government did not pay the bills so much, then it is very likely the industry would have to substantially lower the cost of providing health care to the masses- to a cost we could afford. It's already happening, did you see the 20-20 report on $25 doctor visits at the malls?

 

 

 

I must be off now; we shall continue our discussion later.

I love this American idea of 'capitalist socialism'. :lol:

 

 

 

It's like having a theocratic state that advocates free religion.

 

 

 

You may have some semi-Socialist policies (such as Medicaid), but don't kid yourself into thinking those are Socialist principles. Medicaid depends massively on contributions from charities. In a truly Socialist state, there is no need for charities since the state provides everyone's needs. Even the NHS depends on charities to a certain extent, mostly hospices.

 

 

 

The US is still hugely capitalist compared to other countries.

 

 

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you wanted to advance Medicaid to the next level, why didn't you support the candidate who has championed the idea of an NHS-style system in the US for the best part of two decades?

I honestly don't think our country is ready for a black president.

 

I'd vote for Obama just to see how fast he gets murdered if he is elected.

 

 

 

Other than that little comment, I'll leave US politic to those who live in the US and to those who know more of what they are talking about. The debate is too complicated to follow, especially when the mainstream europian/ finnish media clearly supports Obama. Is Obama really as loved in Europe as was shown in tv or is he so loved because he's shown in tv? Do they make McCain look like a grumpy old man or does he look like one because he actually is one? #-o

I would rather vote for Mccain because I Obama's few policies amount to socialism which i really disagree with. Along with abortion gun control energy and anything else that is a legitimate issue.

 

 

 

Also i actually trust that Mccain wants to help the country. I have some serious doubts about Obama's intentions, especially considering his former pastor that he claims he didnt agree with yet listened to forever.

 

 

 

Also I dont think Mccain could lie about something then talk his way out of it so he has to be honest

 

 

 

edit--to the post above Obama and Mccain are running fairly close in polls(highest lead ive heard recently was 5% which is margin of error. Obama has more excited supporters in general which makes him look more popular then he is. Mccain does have a bit of a temper but I wouldnt say grumpy more like he actually feels strongly in his opinions so seems a little angry at times. He is old though :P

I love this American idea of 'capitalist socialism'. :lol:

 

 

 

It's like having a theocratic state that advocates free religion.

 

 

 

You may have some semi-Socialist policies (such as Medicaid), but don't kid yourself into thinking those are Socialist principles. Medicaid depends massively on contributions from charities. In a truly Socialist state, there is no need for charities since the state provides everyone's needs. Even the NHS depends on charities to a certain extent, mostly hospices.

 

 

 

The US is still hugely capitalist compared to other countries.

 

 

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you wanted to advance Medicaid to the next level, why didn't you support the candidate who has championed the idea of an NHS-style system in the US for the best part of two decades?

 

 

 

I know Ginger, *sigh*. I'm just saying that we have taken "socialist ideas" and implemented them into our system already, so why do so many people fear more programs?

 

 

 

I responded to you before about Hillary, and I'll say the same thing as I said before: "If she failed once and gave into the special interests the first time, who's to say she won't do it again?" Moreover, Obama has said time and time again that he would add portions of her plan to his own, to perfect it. That's what his plan has been: get people who know what they're talking about to a round-table to discuss it, in front of the American people on CSPAN. Moreover, her plan would not have passed in the House or the Senate. It's too "communist" :wall:

 

 

 

By the by, before New Hampshire, Hillary WAS the candidate I supported, and I got turned off by her as the primary season went on.

 

 

 

Anyway, I disagree with single-payer anyway, and both Canada and Britain use a single-payer. Would I rather have that than what we have? Yes, especially because it would be an easier transition than to a completely public system.

 

 

 

I'll respond to the others when I have the energy.

I choose Obama, first and foremost because I'm a Chicago native, and second because I love how he turned away lucrative job offers to work with the communities of chicago. I love how he brought the fist bump to politics, and his wife brought it to the women of The View. Pretty soon it'll replace the hand shake. Michelle Obama is definitely a good first lady, she manages to handle some of Barack's publicity, her daughters, and assist in his campaign and somehow keep her sanity. Take that, Eleanor Roosevelt. I'm afraid I can't get into the current debate about capitalism and socialism, politics was never my strong side. So don't drag me into it.

none. not being racist, but people are voting for obama because he's black, which is not a reason to vote for someone. Also, not McCain because he wouldn't pull the troops out. And btw, age has nothing to do with him running.

And btw, age has nothing to do with him running.

 

If you mean Obama, its not his age, its his (lack of) experience.

 

 

 

EDIT: And why are people so afraid to be called "racist"? Kinda off-topic, but I've always been curious. I can understand blatant ignorance, but in most cases its harmless. :?

And btw, age has nothing to do with him running.

 

If you mean Obama, its not his age, its his (lack of) experience.

 

 

 

EDIT: And why are people so afraid to be called "racist"? Kinda off-topic, but I've always been curious. I can understand blatant ignorance, but in most cases its harmless. :?

 

Are you racist if you only hate negative stereotypes? If so I'm racist.

I'd vote for Obama, mainly because of all the media attention he has been getting.

 

 

 

I hate the goddam media, Obama if elected, will be the worst president we've ever seen. The media is the only reason he's even near McCain in the polls.

I'd vote for Obama, mainly because of all the media attention he has been getting.

 

 

 

I hate the goddam media, Obama if elected, will be the worst president we've ever seen. The media is the only reason he's even near McCain in the polls.

 

I don't know, Obama would have some pretty big shoes to fill.

[hide=]

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] 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.

[/hide]

 

 

 

This is just way too long and I'm not going to try to get to everything.

 

 

 

-When you talk about Mitt Romney cutting taxes during a war. Barack Obama raising taxes during a recession?

 

-And tax cuts go to everyone. The rich make more money off them because they pay more.

 

-The bill he sponsored with [bleep] Lugar I knew about and the one with Sen. Coburn is nothing really.

 

-Obama has taken 400,000 from oil companies if you count private contributions.

 

-Obama's campaign is organized but that doesn't make a difference in campaign reform.

 

-If you haven't seen the American energy act watch cspan. Thats all they talk about. It's not the speculators they've been around since way before prices went up.

 

-Barack Obama voted for the 2005 energy bill that gave oil companies tax breaks.

 

-McCain doesn't have ptsd. I didn't know you were a doctor.

 

-The D.C. gun ban is NOT constitutional. It being constitutional doesn't really get into enumerated or implied powers.

 

-"White felon has a better chance of getting a job then a clean african?" I honestly have no idea what your talking about.

 

-I honestly would support amnesty. My aunt in law and cousins are illegally here. They don't really deserve to go back to Mexico. As long as they close the border.

 

-And your whole commie rant.

 

-When you talk about capital gains tax being low. Raising it would lower the revenue from it. So thats meaningless. The rich are already overtaxed. A little more wouldn't hurt but how much is enough? The top 1% of wage earners pay like 40% of taxes. The top 10% pay like 70%. The bottom 40% pay NOTHING. And if you're jealous of Warren Buffet maybe you should get into the stock market. I pay a higher percentage than him. I don't think he should pay more. I should do what he does. I mean I guess socialist things for children and the elderly are fine by me but why able people? This is AMERICA. They can do anything they want. It's not that hard to go to a community college or trade school and get a very good job. If you think they are entitled to my money I guess that really depends on whether you are a subscriber to the U.S. constitution or the communist manifesto. Minimum wages cost jobs and so little a percentage of full time working adults make them for more than 1 year. And you talk about how the poor in France are so darn lucky. The average POOR persons house in America is 30% larger than the AVERAGE french persons house. And if poor people don't want to be poor they should work. The average poor household runs on something like less than 20 hours of work per week. If that were raised to 40, 3/4 of children in poverty would be lifted out. This is where open border people kind of get on my nerves with "jobs Americans won't do".

Obama if elected, will be the worst president we've ever seen.

 

 

 

He can't really [bleep] up worse than Mr. Bush unless he tried to.

I love this American idea of 'capitalist socialism'. :lol:

 

 

 

It's like having a theocratic state that advocates free religion.

 

 

 

You may have some semi-Socialist policies (such as Medicaid), but don't kid yourself into thinking those are Socialist principles. Medicaid depends massively on contributions from charities. In a truly Socialist state, there is no need for charities since the state provides everyone's needs. Even the NHS depends on charities to a certain extent, mostly hospices.

 

 

 

The US is still hugely capitalist compared to other countries.

 

 

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you wanted to advance Medicaid to the next level, why didn't you support the candidate who has championed the idea of an NHS-style system in the US for the best part of two decades?

 

The US is very different to Europe - the US doesn't want a nanny state.

I won't bother responding anymore, it's pointless. We have different views about all of that, and nothing I say will change it. We'd be here for years...

 

 

 

Anyway:

 

 

 

One thing is for sure, the first "3 am test", McCain failed miserably. This new outbreak with Russia and Georgia was an eye-opener (well, not really lol) about how the two candidates would have reacted.

 

 

 

One would have reacted in a trigger hasty manner: McCain, while the other would have taken a different outlook that favored the EU and Pentagon's stances: Barack.

 

 

 

Yes, John McCain is definitely the leader we need for foreign policy...

 

 

 

When the North Caucasus slid into war Thursday night, it presented John McCain and Barack Obama with a true 3 a.m. moment, and their responses to the crisis suggested dramatic differences in how each candidate, as president, would lead America in moments of international crisis.

 

 

 

While Obama offered a response largely in line with statements issued by democratically elected world leaders, including President Bush, first calling on both sides to negotiate, John McCain took a remarkably and uniquely more aggressive stance, siding clearly with Georgias pro-Western leaders and placing the blame for the conflict entirely on Russia.

 

 

 

The abrupt crisis in an obscure hotspot had the features of the real foreign policy situations presidents face not the clean hypotheticals of candidates white papers and debating points.

 

 

 

Russia has long attempted to reclaim now-sovereign parts of the former Soviet Union, stoking conflicts in the enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are universally recognized to be Georgian soil. Russia has also used the ensuing military tensions to set back Georgias bid to enter NATO.

 

 

 

But Georgia appears to have sparked the conflict by marching on the South Ossetian capital as Russias powerful Prime Minister Vladimir Putin headed to Beijing for the Olympic Games. Russia, in turn, welcomed the conflict, launching a large-scale attack on its smaller neighbor and sending tanks across its border.

 

 

 

Both American candidates back Georgias sovereignty and its turn toward the West. But their first statements on the crisis revealed differences of substance and style.

 

 

 

Obamas statement put him in line with the White House, the European Union, NATO and a series of European powers, while McCains initial statement which he delivered in Iowa and ran on a blog on his Web site under the title McCain Statement on Russian Invasion of Georgia put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bushs first term.

 

 

 

A McCain adviser suggested that Obamas statement constituted appeasement, while Obamas camp suggested that McCain was being needlessly belligerent and dangerously quick to judge a complicated situation.

 

 

 

I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict, Obama said in a written statement. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgias territorial integrity must be respected.

 

 

 

Obama added briefly that the international community should get involved. More than an hour later, as more details of Russias incursion into Georgia emerged, he cited Russia more directly: What is clear is that Russia has invaded Georgias sovereign has encroached on Georgias sovereignty, he told reporters in Sacramento.

 

 

 

McCains statement was longer, more detailed and more confrontational.

 

 

 

"[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.

 

 

 

The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.

 

 

 

John McCains top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCains direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis.

 

 

 

"Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here, he said, dismissing the notion that Georgias move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia.

 

 

 

He also criticized Obama for calling on both sides to show restraint, and suggested the Democrat was putting too much blame on the conflicts clear victim.

 

 

 

That's kind of like saying after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that Kuwait and Iraq need to show restraint, or like saying in 1968 [when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia] ... that the Czechoslovaks should show restraint, he said.

 

 

 

A foreign policy adviser for Obama, Ben Rhodes, said Obama was deliberately measured in response to the conflict, balancing his disapproval of Russias troubling behavior in its near-abroad region with the fact that we have to deal with Russia to deal with our most important national security challenges.

 

 

 

Rhodes declined to discuss McCains statement directly, but did indirectly criticize it.

 

 

 

"The temperature of your rhetoric isn't a measure of your commitment to Georgian sovereignty, he said, noting that the two candidates statements shared a substantive commitment to Georgias borders. You don't want to get so far in front of a situation that you're feeding the momentum of an escalation.

 

 

 

Critics of McCains stance said hed imposed ideology on a complicated situation in which both sides bear some blame.

 

 

 

McCain took an inflexible approach to addressing this issue by focusing heavily on one side, without a pragmatic assessment of the situation, said Mark Brzezinski, a former Clinton White House official and an informal adviser to Obama.

 

 

 

Its both sides fault both have been somewhat provocative with each other, he said.

 

 

 

A fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Ariel Cohen, praised McCains statement as robust and tough.

 

 

 

The candidates stances also reflected their broader goals in the region. Obama, Rhodes noted, has argued that the American interest in controlling nuclear material in the former Soviet Union and in other national security concerns means that the country should maintain a constructive relationship with Russia, even when Russia mistreats its population and threatens its neighbors.

 

 

 

McCain, meanwhile, has offered more sticks than carrots, and suggested that Russia will respond primarily to American toughness and resolve. Hes also called for Russia to be expelled from the Group of Eight industrial nations, a move unlikely to be supported by its other members, but one that makes his disapproval of Russias conduct very clear. Friday, as the crisis unfolded, he reiterated that stance.

 

 

 

The conflict in Georgia also brought attention to another complicating feature of McCains campaign: His ties to Republican operatives with extensive lobbying practices. Scheunemann was, until earlier this year, registered to lobby for the government of Georgia.

 

 

 

A public relations firm working for the Russian Federation pointed out Scheunemanns lobbying past to reporters a sign that McCains stance is not, for better or worse, being welcomed in Moscow as did Obamas campaign.

 

 

 

John McCains top foreign policy adviser lobbied for, and has a vested interest in, the Republic of Georgia and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government, said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan, noting that the appearance of a conflict of interest was a consequence of McCains too-close ties to lobbyists.

 

 

 

Scheunemann dismissed the criticism, saying he severed his ties to his firm and to his client on March 1 and noting that McCain has been a firm supporter of Georgias move toward the West, and away from Russia, since the Arizona senators first visit there in 1997.

He failed because he said Russia was the aggressor?

My vote goes for McCain

 

 

 

reasons:

 

 

 

I like his policies and how he handles with foreign powers better than Obama. Obama in my eyes is going to be somewhat of a dictator. he makes alliances with ppl u r just like wtf? why would u be partners with them. and he is changing his mind about the operations in the middle east. obama is always saying that going into iraq was a mistake, but the past was past and he has to decide wat hes going to do. he wants to withdrawl all the troops. and if that happens we will just be helping the terrorists. i say keep troops in iraq and make progress their and other countries.

McCain.

 

 

 

Getting out of iraq is a idiotic Idea, McCain wants to stay over there until Iraq will be able to take care of themselves.

 

Leaving now would be just leaving without finishing our business there, and that would be irresponsible. The whole time we've been over there, us Americans have been SAFE. The war is over and has been over. American deaths have been less, which shows progress...

 

 

 

Obama is a flip-flopper, first he said he was against drilling for oil, now he's for it.

 

 

 

 

 

There will be no "Change"

 

 

 

We won't be using wind and solar in the next four years

 

We will not be off the "evil" oil in the next four years

 

We will not have every American on health care in the next four years

 

We will NOT be out of iraq in the next four years

 

 

 

I hope Obama has a nice vacation :)

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Oh yeah I also love how your posts have to be "approved" to be viewed by the public on Obama's videos, unlike McCain's videos.