The Offical TIF American Elections thread

[Lordjake]

I went and saw Mccain today, shook his hand and got interviewed by the Associated press and CNN. I must say, compared to his performances on TV which are "meh", his live ones are much much much better; even better then Obama's live speeches (who I saw a week or two ago now, live) It seems that now that Mccain is quite far behind in the polls he is starting to drop all of the posturing and other political BS in his speeches, and by saying what he actually thinks sounds much better. If I could vote right now I would definitely go for Mccain, particularly because the more I hear about Obama's policies the more he scares me. From this idea of ignoring the constitution and banning guns to "spreading the wealth around" AKA socialism; he has a hell of a lot of charisma but some horrible actual policy ideas.

 

I do agree that McCain seems more... alive, during his rallies. He doesn't make those weird grimaces so he looks more friendly and presidential. (Although I wouldn't say he's reached the same level as Obama's speeches.)

 

 

 

As for Obama ignoring the Constitution, I haven't heard anything like that on the news so I'd like to see where you heard that.

 

McCain, however.... back in June he protested a Supreme Court ruling which upheld habeas corpus (which is protected in the Constitution).

 

 

 

Obama has never said that he wants all guns banned. He believes in the 2nd amendment, but if a local community decides for itself that it wants to issue a ban on firearms, then it should be allowed.

 

Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures."

 

That doesn't mean no firearms at all... it means Mr. Johnson from down the street might not be allowed that bazooka he always wanted.

 

 

 

"Speading the wealth around" - Taxing the very wealthy companies/individuals a bit more, and helping out the less fortunate families that need that extra $500 or $1000 (or however much it is) more than the millionaires and billionaires.

 

The rich still have a lot of money, and the poor have a better chance of paying for groceries or education or whatever.

 

Sure it sounds socialist, but there isn't much difference between this and donating money to charity. The wealthy pay money, and the poor receive it. It's just that the rich won't feel as warm and fuzzy when they file their tax forms.

 

Obama isn't suggesting we ditch capitalism and set up communes all over the country.

[trapical]

"Speading the wealth around" - Taxing the very wealthy companies/individuals a bit more, and helping out the less fortunate families that need that extra $500 or $1000 (or however much it is) more than the millionaires and billionaires.

 

The rich still have a lot of money, and the poor have a better chance of paying for groceries or education or whatever.

 

Sure it sounds socialist, but there isn't much difference between this and donating money to charity. The wealthy pay money, and the poor receive it. It's just that the rich won't feel as warm and fuzzy when they file their tax forms.

 

Obama isn't suggesting we ditch capitalism and set up communes all over the country.

 

The higher taxes actually suck quite a bit. My dad is a psychiatrist supporting a family of six, and his taxes will go up $90,000 a year. That's a lot of hard earned money that is simply taken from you.

 

 

 

When you donate $40,000 to an homeless shelter you get to see what the fruits of you labor are doing to help people. Higher taxes on the other hand are just taken from you and sent to Washington. Sure they are used for good things like roads and Medicare, but you get the feeling that your hard earned cash is being given to people who had all the fun in school and dropped out while you were studying your [wagon] off.

 

 

 

Again, let me emphasize the fact that this is simple how most upper class people feel, thats not the whole truth about welfare, as many of you have made points to on this thread.

[Ginger_Warrior]

And GW, just an odd bit. You say you're a marxist correct? Then why do you agree so much with Obama if he's not a marxist? Also: Obama's mother and father were marxists.

 

I'm a Marxist, not a bigot.

 

 

 

I suppose the reason I support Obama is through a total dislike of the Republican Party and what it stands for at the moment. You know, remove all the "maverick" rubbish Palin tries to dress McCain as, he really isn't any different to Bush aside from a few (10%) minor details.

 

 

 

He believes the war should continue, all the while being paid for through taxes, when the war is of questionable worth. You might win, but what's the point in the war when you're dying from a terminal illness you can't afford to pay to treat anyway? At least with Medicare, you know that money's going towards the health of your fellow countrymen, which in turn, improves production and makes for a happier and stronger economy.

 

 

 

His beliefs (or at least Palin and most of the GOP) are quite clearly rooted deeply in theology, and as we know, mixing religion and politics is generally considered a bad idea. To force theological beliefs by denying certain rights on those who aren't religious is wrong, just as it would be wrong for me as an Agnostic to call for Churches and all their charities to be closed down, on the grounds of "immorality".

 

 

 

His campaign is riddled with hypocrisy, smears and lies. To have Palin swanning around, trying to affiliate Obama with terrorism, to have activists trying to dig up rumours that he's a Muslim, or to try and give the idea that Obama is a socialist is misleading. Control by fear is the sign of a poor manager. If he's this dishonest on his campaign, imagine what he'd be like as President.

[Saru Inc]

[hide=]

And GW, just an odd bit. You say you're a marxist correct? Then why do you agree so much with Obama if he's not a marxist? Also: Obama's mother and father were marxists.

 

I'm a Marxist, not a bigot.

 

 

 

I suppose the reason I support Obama is through a total dislike of the Republican Party and what it stands for at the moment. You know, remove all the "maverick" rubbish Palin tries to dress McCain as, he really isn't any different to Bush aside from a few (10%) minor details.

 

 

 

He believes the war should continue, all the while being paid for through taxes, when the war is of questionable worth. You might win, but what's the point in the war when you're dying from a terminal illness you can't afford to pay to treat anyway? At least with Medicare, you know that money's going towards the health of your fellow countrymen, which in turn, improves production and makes for a happier and stronger economy.

 

 

 

His beliefs (or at least Palin and most of the GOP) are quite clearly rooted deeply in theology, and as we know, mixing religion and politics is generally considered a bad idea. To force theological beliefs by denying certain rights on those who aren't religious is wrong, just as it would be wrong for me as an Agnostic to call for Churches and all their charities to be closed down, on the grounds of "immorality".

 

 

 

His campaign is riddled with hypocrisy, smears and lies. To have Palin swanning around, trying to affiliate Obama with terrorism, to have activists trying to dig up rumours that he's a Muslim, or to try and give the idea that Obama is a socialist is misleading. Control by fear is the sign of a poor manager. If he's this dishonest on his campaign, imagine what he'd be like as President.

[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

1) I never called you a bigot. :(

 

 

 

2) "under God" has been in the Pledge of Alliegance for a while now.

 

 

 

3) McCain's campaign smears, true, but so does Obama's, and every single politician in History.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh, woops, I know you didn't call me a bigot. I'm just saying Marxism is only an economic viewpoint, but there's so much more to both Barack and McCain.

 

 

 

And yes, there is a certain amount of smearing from both sides in an election. That's the nature of democracy.

 

 

 

But I think with Obama it's also a genuine interest to change things for the better, whilst with McCain, every move he takes seems to be an attempt to keep hold of power. I can't see what good he's gonna do if he gets into that role, except some vague promise to end terrorism and protect "morality" (which is foolish anyway given everyone has different morals), while Obama has policies which are in the interests of humanitarianism.

 

 

 

I actually supported Hillary from the beginning, for her promise of national healthcare. Healthcare is one of the issues right in the heart of leftist politics, as is shown by the NHS in this country, which is a key issue in every election here, and that's why I feel so strongly for it. Obama's nowhere near Hillary's level, but he's somewhat better than McCain who would still allow people to go without treatment when there's resources available because all the money's going to Iraq.

[magekillr]

I went and saw Mccain today, shook his hand and got interviewed by the Associated press and CNN. I must say, compared to his performances on TV which are "meh", his live ones are much much much better; even better then Obama's live speeches (who I saw a week or two ago now, live) It seems that now that Mccain is quite far behind in the polls he is starting to drop all of the posturing and other political BS in his speeches, and by saying what he actually thinks sounds much better. If I could vote right now I would definitely go for Mccain, particularly because the more I hear about Obama's policies the more he scares me. From this idea of ignoring the constitution and banning guns to "spreading the wealth around" AKA socialism; he has a hell of a lot of charisma but some horrible actual policy ideas.

 

 

 

Do you work? Do you pay taxes? Doesn't the government currently "spread the wealth around"? Do you believe in roads, public education, hospitals?

 

 

 

Dear lord...people fearing "socialist ideals" in a capitalistic society are quivering to the point that they're calling Obama a socialist is just pissing me off. I (capital I with a huge emphasis) am a socialist. Obama, is no socialist.

 

 

 

You people have no problem spending billions of dollars on a war and bombs that kill people, yet you throw your hands up in arms for taxes that would give people treatment that should be a right in any first world country. Disgusting.

 

 

 

Listen to Powell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPVHnMPnqc

 

 

 

He attacks your ideas that Obama is a "socialist".

[Saru Inc]

Oh, woops, I know you didn't call me a bigot. I'm just saying Marxism is only an economic viewpoint, but there's so much more to both Barack and McCain.

 

 

 

And yes, there is a certain amount of smearing from both sides in an election. That's the nature of democracy.

 

 

 

But I think with Obama it's also a genuine interest to change things for the better, whilst with McCain, every move he takes seems to be an attempt to keep hold of power. I can't see what good he's gonna do if he gets into that role, except some vague promise to end terrorism and protect "morality" (which is foolish anyway given everyone has different morals), while Obama has policies which are in the interests of humanitarianism.

 

 

 

I actually supported Hillary from the beginning, for her promise of national healthcare. Healthcare is one of the issues right in the heart of leftist politics, as is shown by the NHS in this country, which is a key issue in every election here, and that's why I feel so strongly for it. Obama's nowhere near Hillary's level, but he's somewhat better than McCain who would still allow people to go without treatment when there's resources available because all the money's going to Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

here's the thing, NO ONE wants nationalized healthcare. It is a horrible horrible idea; the waiting lines are so long in places like France, Canada and Britain, my mom once had a friend die waiting in line to get some simple healthcare in Britain, it woulda taken her 30 mins to get in US, and would have saved her life. But she died wating DAYS to recieve the treatment. The problem is, while yes, nationalized healthcare is a good *idea* realisticly, it's just not probable.

 

 

 

Also, you didn't really answer how, if you're a marxist, and you agree with Obama's economic policy, that doesn't make his views similar to yours? (marxist?)

[baron8000]

Oh, woops, I know you didn't call me a bigot. I'm just saying Marxism is only an economic viewpoint, but there's so much more to both Barack and McCain.

 

 

 

And yes, there is a certain amount of smearing from both sides in an election. That's the nature of democracy.

 

 

 

But I think with Obama it's also a genuine interest to change things for the better, whilst with McCain, every move he takes seems to be an attempt to keep hold of power. I can't see what good he's gonna do if he gets into that role, except some vague promise to end terrorism and protect "morality" (which is foolish anyway given everyone has different morals), while Obama has policies which are in the interests of humanitarianism.

 

 

 

I actually supported Hillary from the beginning, for her promise of national healthcare. Healthcare is one of the issues right in the heart of leftist politics, as is shown by the NHS in this country, which is a key issue in every election here, and that's why I feel so strongly for it. Obama's nowhere near Hillary's level, but he's somewhat better than McCain who would still allow people to go without treatment when there's resources available because all the money's going to Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

here's the thing, NO ONE wants nationalized healthcare. It is a horrible horrible idea; the waiting lines are so long in places like France, Canada and Britain, my mom once had a friend die waiting in line to get some simple healthcare in Britain, it woulda taken her 30 mins to get in US, and would have saved her life. But she died wating DAYS to recieve the treatment. The problem is, while yes, nationalized healthcare is a good *idea* realisticly, it's just not probable.

 

 

 

Also, you didn't really answer how, if you're a marxist, and you agree with Obama's economic policy, that doesn't make his views similar to yours? (marxist?)

 

 

 

You realise we have both nationalised AND privatised healthcare in the UK right? Its just as possible to pay money and recieve instant healthcare in the UK as it is in the US. Thats the brilliance of the system - those that can afford a higher level care will pay for it and people that cannot pay for medical treatment are not chucked out on the street and ignored.

[Ginger_Warrior]

here's the thing, NO ONE wants nationalized healthcare. It is a horrible horrible idea; the waiting lines are so long in places like France, Canada and Britain, my mom once had a friend die waiting in line to get some simple healthcare in Britain, it woulda taken her 30 mins to get in US, and would have saved her life. But she died wating DAYS to recieve the treatment. The problem is, while yes, nationalized healthcare is a good *idea* realisticly, it's just not probable.

 

That's your humble opinion. The NHS has huge public support in the UK. It's not perfect, but we're a lot better for it. If you wanna go private, you still can with BUPA and the like. If your mum's friend would have gone to A&E at any hospital (since it was after all an emergency) she'd have been seen to in a couple of hours.

 

 

 

Also, you didn't really answer how, if you're a marxist, and you agree with Obama's economic policy, that doesn't make his views similar to yours? (marxist?)

 

Why do you like Rise Against when you're a right-wing Republican? Obama's economic views are not close to my own, but they're closer than McCain's. It is possible to support things outside of your own political scope.

[Saru Inc]

here's the thing, NO ONE wants nationalized healthcare. It is a horrible horrible idea; the waiting lines are so long in places like France, Canada and Britain, my mom once had a friend die waiting in line to get some simple healthcare in Britain, it woulda taken her 30 mins to get in US, and would have saved her life. But she died wating DAYS to recieve the treatment. The problem is, while yes, nationalized healthcare is a good *idea* realisticly, it's just not probable.

 

That's your humble opinion. The NHS has huge public support in the UK. It's not perfect, but we're a lot better for it. If you wanna go private, you still can with BUPA and the like. If your mum's friend would have gone to A&E at any hospital (since it was after all an emergency) she'd have been seen to in a couple of hours.

 

 

 

Also, you didn't really answer how, if you're a marxist, and you agree with Obama's economic policy, that doesn't make his views similar to yours? (marxist?)

 

Why do you like Rise Against when you're a right-wing Republican? Obama's economic views are not close to my own, but they're closer than McCain's. It is possible to support things outside of your own political scope.

 

 

 

As hard as it may be, I'm not a Republican, but a moderate. And, me and all of my friends think their views are [developmentally delayed]ed. And they need to get a life. But I see what you're saying about the economy. But I still think nationalized healthcare is bad.

[das1330]

 

Doesn't the government currently "spread the wealth around"?

 

 

 

Unfortunately, yes in the form of welfare - a program that needs to be cut to about 10% of its current expenditures, seeing as most of the money it gets is wasted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe in roads, public education, hospitals?

 

 

 

I believe in a small government that takes the bare minimum necessary in taxes to ensure order and protect the rights of the people; not a state that gobbles up massively unnecessary amounts of MY hard-earned money just to waste it on inefficient (socialist) programs - exactly what Obama is proposing. Seeing as every time such programs are implemented they either fail miserably or waste massive amounts of the people's money, it is a much better idea to stay away from such things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear lord...people fearing "socialist ideals" in a capitalistic society are quivering to the point that they're calling Obama a socialist is just pissing me off. I (capital I with a huge emphasis) am a socialist. Obama, is no socialist.

 

 

 

Obama is proposing socialist programs ala Northern Europe, that for the good of the country can not be put into effect. While strictly speaking most of his policies are not as extreme as a true socialist (or even farther, a communist) he still has enough expensive proposals on the table to force a (large) increase in taxes and still wreck the budget.

 

 

 

 

You people have no problem spending billions of dollars on a war and bombs that kill people, yet you throw your hands up in arms for taxes that would give people treatment that should be a right in any first world country. Disgusting.

 

 

 

 

Who is "you people"? Money spent on defense is used for one purpose - do defend the rights of the citizens of the United States. It has for more then 200 years, and still does fulfill that purpose. That is more then worth ~ 1% of the federal taxes I pay. What is not worth paying is ~30% of my TOTAL INCOME (as they do in much of Europe and Canada) to pay for the bureaucracy involved in a hopelessly inefficient, wasteful and ineffective public health care system. As a rule, if both private enterprise and government can do the same thing, then private businesses can do it better, cheaper and more efficiently.

 

 

 

 

 

Obama has never said that he wants all guns banned. He believes in the 2nd amendment, but if a local community decides for itself that it wants to issue a ban on firearms, then it should be allowed.

 

 

 

 

The whole point is that the second amendment confers a right, not a privilege but a right to keep and bear arms. Rights are not negotiable, bannable because they are "scary" (as the democratic party is trying to do with their so called "assault weapons ban") or open to other annoying regulation - A right is a right. By his logic of allowing individual communities to pass laws ignoring constitutional rights, states could, at a whim, ban free speech or religion, the right to a jury trial or the right to due process. Does that sound OK to you?

[dangeresque]

Urgh, that's another reason I want McCain to loose. So all the conspiracy theories and people saying "Bush will declare martial law on election day and not give up power" will finally shut up. Do people honestly think that could even remotely happen?

 

It will be a glorious day when I see Bush leave office, not because I hate Bush, but because then I can turn to 40% of the internet and say "told ya so"

 

 

 

lets see several senators and house represntatives writing ariticles and telling jornalists that if they didn't pass the bail out bush would declare marshal law didn't convince you?

 

 

 

or this

 

mr speaker i understand we are under martial law as declared by the speaker last night

 

You obviously have no idea of how much manpower it would take to declare martial law all over the country, do you?

[Ginger_Warrior]

As hard as it may be, I'm not a Republican, but a moderate. And, me and all of my friends think their views are [developmentally delayed].

 

Nice. Somewhere we agree.

 

 

 

But I see what you're saying about the economy. But I still think nationalized healthcare is bad.

 

Fair enough. America still remains a centre-right country though, so you have to be careful about analysing anything in America through the prism of socialism. You guys would call the Labour Party in this country socialist when there's absolutely no way it is socialist by our standards. The NHS is a socialist idea, I'll concede that much (kinda ironic how it gains so much support though), Medicare certainly is not a socialist idea - it's a compromise. The NHS also took a large amount of commitment from the old Labour Party (namely, Nye Bevan), a War, and the Beveridge Report to be created - no chance of that happening any time soon in America.

 

 

 

Also, about Obama's "spreading the wealth" thing. That's not really socialist either. What it is is a recognition that a wide gap between the rich and the poor is not good for any economy, capitalist or socialist, except possibly a fascist one where minorities become the poor. The reason being that if the poor become richer, they'll spend more as consumers, and that will drive up tax revenues, boost business, and generally get more money flowing around the economy. It also raises the poverty line, meaning less people suffer from absolute poverty.

[magekillr]

 

Doesn't the government currently "spread the wealth around"?

 

 

 

Unfortunately, yes in the form of welfare - a program that needs to be cut to about 10% of its current expenditures, seeing as most of the money it gets is wasted.

 

 

 

Where would you like to make cuts, I'd be delighted to hear them. If anything needs a cut and a complete dissolving of its being, it's the Department of Homeland Security that was established by Bush.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe in roads, public education, hospitals?

 

 

 

I believe in a small government that takes the bare minimum necessary in taxes to ensure order and protect the rights of the people; not a state that gobbles up massively unnecessary amounts of MY hard-earned money just to waste it on inefficient (socialist) programs - exactly what Obama is proposing. Seeing as every time such programs are implemented they either fail miserably or waste massive amounts of the people's money, it is a much better idea to stay away from such things.

 

 

 

What do you call inefficient? What do you propose, that would make it better?

 

 

 

I'll respond to the rest of this at the end.

 

 

 

 

Dear lord...people fearing "socialist ideals" in a capitalistic society are quivering to the point that they're calling Obama a socialist is just pissing me off. I (capital I with a huge emphasis) am a socialist. Obama, is no socialist.

 

 

 

Obama is proposing socialist programs ala Northern Europe, that for the good of the country can not be put into effect. While strictly speaking most of his policies are not as extreme as a true socialist (or even farther, a communist) he still has enough expensive proposals on the table to force a (large) increase in taxes and still wreck the budget.

 

 

 

What socialist programs? Isn't public education "socialist"? You know what's so funny? Adam Smith proposed socialist programs as you call them, and he's the Father of Capitalism.

 

 

 

 

You people have no problem spending billions of dollars on a war and bombs that kill people, yet you throw your hands up in arms for taxes that would give people treatment that should be a right in any first world country. Disgusting.

 

 

 

 

Who is "you people"? Money spent on defense is used for one purpose - do defend the rights of the citizens of the United States. It has for more then 200 years, and still does fulfill that purpose. That is more then worth ~ 1% of the federal taxes I pay. What is not worth paying is ~30% of my TOTAL INCOME (as they do in much of Europe and Canada) to pay for the bureaucracy involved in a hopelessly inefficient, wasteful and ineffective public health care system. As a rule, if both private enterprise and government can do the same thing, then private businesses can do it better, cheaper and more efficiently.

 

 

 

You people are Republicans, and other warmongers. Why does the United States spend nearly as much money on military as the rest of the world combined? Again, you [bleep] and complain about health care, education, and things that help people...and you in-turn take "defense" instead. Military spending makes up a good chunk of the budget, next to social security, medicare/medicaid...which btw, people pay for themselves anyway with their own taxes.

 

 

 

What you call wasteful and "hopelessly" inefficient, I call a savior of millions of lives. If we're so efficient, why is our infant mortality rate so high? Why is our life expectancy so low? Why? I thought it was an efficient system. If it was so efficient, it should cost less so that people have access to the basic needs of health care.

 

 

 

By the by, you pay for "nationalized" health care right now anyway. The United States still accepts people in the emergency room for things like colds and flus, and if the people don't have the money or resources, the US just takes the tab anyway. Talk about inefficiency, you're paying for these people already anyway, at a much larger cost. Private enterprise isn't doing it cheaper when we spend the most per capita on health care, and we still have people without access.

 

 

 

 

 

Obama has never said that he wants all guns banned. He believes in the 2nd amendment, but if a local community decides for itself that it wants to issue a ban on firearms, then it should be allowed.

 

 

 

 

The whole point is that the second amendment confers a right, not a privilege but a right to keep and bear arms. Rights are not negotiable, bannable because they are "scary" (as the democratic party is trying to do with their so called "assault weapons ban") or open to other annoying regulation - A right is a right. By his logic of allowing individual communities to pass laws ignoring constitutional rights, states could, at a whim, ban free speech or religion, the right to a jury trial or the right to due process. Does that sound OK to you?

 

 

 

I hope Obama does ban guns, every last one of them. Amendment number 28: The 2nd amendment is repealed. Sick and tired of that amendment being taken out of context by gun nuts like yourself.

 

 

 

Anyway, Obama won't do anything to the amendment anyway. Don't you listen to Joe Biden?

 

 

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... e-n-9.html

 

 

 

Now, to address your earlier "points".

 

 

 

What would you call "hard work"? Do you think that poor people just laze around, and don't work, while waiting for their welfare checks? Have you ever worked with the poor, do you know their situations? No, you do not. I would venture to guess you've never ultimately worked hard for much of anything, and you were quite privileged throughout your life.

 

 

 

Was I privileged? Sure was. I lived fairly comfortably in a house with my mother and father and sister. My dad made about $40,000 a year when I was younger, but he was in the military so he received benefits. He later quit (back in '96), and now he makes around $80,000 per year (but he's a federal employee).

 

 

 

So I lived in a middle class home worth around $250,000, I went to a public school in Spotsylvania, Virginia. My mom cared about my education, and I cared about it too. I didn't try much, and I received fairly high marks (like 14th out of 306 graduating). I now attend Virginia Tech, and my parents cannot afford to help me with any of my college. I paid for my first year in cash, my third semester in cash, and the rest in loans. I don't have any assets, I don't own a car, and I am going to have to see how I can pay for my next semester of college because banks aren't giving loans.

 

 

 

Now, as much as I have "worked hard", I still haven't even experienced a minor BRUNT of what people in homes making $20,000 a year with no benefits have had to experience. Have you broken down what the cost of living even is like? These people can't afford health care, they can't afford to stop working to get educated, they can barely feed and clothe their children. And you have the audacious, the selfish, the disgusting attitude that "IT'S MINE!!!" while people suffer like this? What kind of person are you?

 

 

 

These people work just as hard, if not harder than your rich CEO that is making millions of dollars a year to sit on his [wagon], paying people under him to invest his money, and hiring lawyers to find tax loopholes. Just because you "work hard", doesn't guarantee you health care, education, or anything of the sort.

 

 

 

You're obsessed with efficiency, without looking at the costs of the citizens. The US has the greatest economy in the world, fantastic. Who cares? How are the lives of the people that live and toil there?

[Saru Inc]

 

Doesn't the government currently "spread the wealth around"?

 

 

 

Unfortunately, yes in the form of welfare - a program that needs to be cut to about 10% of its current expenditures, seeing as most of the money it gets is wasted.

 

 

 

Where would you like to make cuts, I'd be delighted to hear them. If anything needs a cut and a complete dissolving of its being, it's the Department of Homeland Security that was established by Bush.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe in roads, public education, hospitals?

 

 

 

I believe in a small government that takes the bare minimum necessary in taxes to ensure order and protect the rights of the people; not a state that gobbles up massively unnecessary amounts of MY hard-earned money just to waste it on inefficient (socialist) programs - exactly what Obama is proposing. Seeing as every time such programs are implemented they either fail miserably or waste massive amounts of the people's money, it is a much better idea to stay away from such things.

 

 

 

What do you call inefficient? What do you propose, that would make it better?

 

 

 

I'll respond to the rest of this at the end.

 

 

 

 

Dear lord...people fearing "socialist ideals" in a capitalistic society are quivering to the point that they're calling Obama a socialist is just pissing me off. I (capital I with a huge emphasis) am a socialist. Obama, is no socialist.

 

 

 

Obama is proposing socialist programs ala Northern Europe, that for the good of the country can not be put into effect. While strictly speaking most of his policies are not as extreme as a true socialist (or even farther, a communist) he still has enough expensive proposals on the table to force a (large) increase in taxes and still wreck the budget.

 

 

 

What socialist programs? Isn't public education "socialist"? You know what's so funny? Adam Smith proposed socialist programs as you call them, and he's the Father of Capitalism.

 

 

 

 

You people have no problem spending billions of dollars on a war and bombs that kill people, yet you throw your hands up in arms for taxes that would give people treatment that should be a right in any first world country. Disgusting.

 

 

 

 

Who is "you people"? Money spent on defense is used for one purpose - do defend the rights of the citizens of the United States. It has for more then 200 years, and still does fulfill that purpose. That is more then worth ~ 1% of the federal taxes I pay. What is not worth paying is ~30% of my TOTAL INCOME (as they do in much of Europe and Canada) to pay for the bureaucracy involved in a hopelessly inefficient, wasteful and ineffective public health care system. As a rule, if both private enterprise and government can do the same thing, then private businesses can do it better, cheaper and more efficiently.

 

 

 

You people are Republicans, and other warmongers. Why does the United States spend nearly as much money on military as the rest of the world combined? Again, you [bleep] and complain about health care, education, and things that help people...and you in-turn take "defense" instead. Military spending makes up a good chunk of the budget, next to social security, medicare/medicaid...which btw, people pay for themselves anyway with their own taxes.

 

 

 

What you call wasteful and "hopelessly" inefficient, I call a savior of millions of lives. If we're so efficient, why is our infant mortality rate so high? Why is our life expectancy so low? Why? I thought it was an efficient system. If it was so efficient, it should cost less so that people have access to the basic needs of health care.

 

 

 

Infant mortality rate so high? Why, could it be how pro-choice Democrats are?

 

 

 

And you're adding an ingredient to the mix that never existed. 90% of Republicans DON'T like the war; but we think it's necessary.

 

 

 

And do you really think your life expectancy will go up when you're waiting days to get a flu shot because the nationalized health care that you prayed fails.

 

 

 

 

By the by, you pay for "nationalized" health care right now anyway. The United States still accepts people in the emergency room for things like colds and flus, and if the people don't have the money or resources, the US just takes the tab anyway. Talk about inefficiency, you're paying for these people already anyway, at a much larger cost. Private enterprise isn't doing it cheaper when we spend the most per capita on health care, and we still have people without access.

 

Well of course, it's reasonable, I think for the Gov't to pay for people who legitamately can't pay for it themselves, but for the gov't to pay for people who can pay? What ever happened to people who wanted to become doctors? Well, now they'll be forced to go under federal rules, [cabbage]ty hours, and [cabbage]ty pay. And while yes, all doctors whould go into that profession, only to help people, and the money comes second, don't think there aren't people who go into it for the money.

 

 

 

 

 

Obama has never said that he wants all guns banned. He believes in the 2nd amendment, but if a local community decides for itself that it wants to issue a ban on firearms, then it should be allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point is that the second amendment confers a right, not a privilege but a right to keep and bear arms. Rights are not negotiable, bannable because they are "scary" (as the democratic party is trying to do with their so called "assault weapons ban") or open to other annoying regulation - A right is a right. By his logic of allowing individual communities to pass laws ignoring constitutional rights, states could, at a whim, ban free speech or religion, the right to a jury trial or the right to due process. Does that sound OK to you?

 

 

 

 

I hope Obama does ban guns, every last one of them. Amendment number 28: The 2nd amendment is repealed. Sick and tired of that amendment being taken out of context by gun nuts like yourself.

 

 

 

Anyway, Obama won't do anything to the amendment anyway. Don't you listen to Joe Biden?

 

 

 

 

Think, the 2nd Amendment is fitting. You know the people who are absuing guns,. and killing people? Guess what, they got their guns illegally. 90% of the time, so if yuo take away the 2nd amendment, the gangsters and killers still havr the guns, but the tax paying hard working citizens can't possess them.

 

 

 

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... e-n-9.html

 

 

 

Now, to address your earlier "points".

 

 

 

What would you call "hard work"? Do you think that poor people just laze around, and don't work, while waiting for their welfare checks? Have you ever worked with the poor, do you know their situations? No, you do not. I would venture to guess you've never ultimately worked hard for much of anything, and you were quite privileged throughout your life.

 

 

 

 

You can't assume he hasn't, for all you know, he lived in a poor nieghbrohood. You can't just throw stuff out at people, without thinking.

 

And, I HAVE lived around poor people. I'm surrounded by ghettos, and yes, there are some families there, who work their butts off, but still need welfare, and they're honest families. And then, everyone else, spends the food stamps and wlefare checks on weed and crack, there is such a drug problem because of it. And it's ignorant to say that it's not abused.

 

 

 

 

Was I privileged? Sure was. I lived fairly comfortably in a house with my mother and father and sister. My dad made about $40,000 a year when I was younger, but he was in the military so he received benefits. He later quit (back in '96), and now he makes around $80,000 per year (but he's a federal employee).

 

 

 

So I lived in a middle class home worth around $250,000, I went to a public school in Spotsylvania, Virginia. My mom cared about my education, and I cared about it too. I didn't try much, and I received fairly high marks (like 14th out of 306 graduating). I now attend Virginia Tech, and my parents cannot afford to help me with any of my college. I paid for my first year in cash, my third semester in cash, and the rest in loans. I don't have any assets, I don't own a car, and I am going to have to see how I can pay for my next semester of college because banks aren't giving loans.

 

 

 

Now, as much as I have "worked hard", I still haven't even experienced a minor BRUNT of what people in homes making $20,000 a year with no benefits have had to experience. Have you broken down what the cost of living even is like? These people can't afford health care, they can't afford to stop working to get educated, they can barely feed and clothe their children. And you have the audacious, the selfish, the disgusting attitude that "IT'S MINE!!!" while people suffer like this? What kind of person are you?

 

 

 

Well, then give those people health care, but don't give health care to everyone. You say the War put us in a deficit? This is nothing if Obama becomes president.

 

 

 

 

These people work just as hard, if not harder than your rich CEO that is making millions of dollars a year to sit on his [wagon], paying people under him to invest his money, and hiring lawyers to find tax loopholes. Just because you "work hard", doesn't guarantee you health care, education, or anything of the sort.

 

 

 

You're obsessed with efficiency, without looking at the costs of the citizens. The US has the greatest economy in the world, fantastic. Who cares? How are the lives of the people that live and toil there?

 

 

 

You know why the Rich CEO is sitting on his [wagon]? because he worked his [bleep]ing [wagon] off earlier in his life. DELAY PLEASURE. Work your [wagon] off for the first 40-50 years of your life, and chill and enjoy the fuits of your labor. So are you saying it's not ok for him to reap what he sow'd? Oh please, get over yourself. The lives of Americans are millions of times better than anywhere else in the world.

[jackattack]

I've missed a lot of stuff. I'm not going to even try to get to all of it. On Colin Powell, that was just hims trying to get his rep back after making the case for the war. I doubt it had much to do with race, seeing as Powell escaped the racism directed at other members of the Bush administration. And dude, I don't know who you are talking to but CEO's don't sit on their [wagon]. They work harder than pretty much anybody. That's why they ,ale the big bucks. And not every poor person is a single mother with 3 kids working 2 jobs. Most really are just lazy. And it's really not that hard to be successful. I really think that if I was just dropped off in the tenderloin with no money, no high school degree, and no anything I could make it at least to where I am. I mean, when I talk to homeless people I am always thinking "why on earth do you not have a job?" I see absolutely no reason why they don't work other than laziness. And there is something fundamentally wrong with forcibly taking something from one person to give it to someone else who just didn't feel like working.

[meol]

I've missed a lot of stuff. I'm not going to even try to get to all of it. On Colin Powell, that was just hims trying to get his rep back after making the case for the war. I doubt it had much to do with race, seeing as Powell escaped the racism directed at other members of the Bush administration. And dude, I don't know who you are talking to but CEO's don't sit on their [wagon]. They work harder than pretty much anybody. That's why they ,ale the big bucks. And not every poor person is a single mother with 3 kids working 2 jobs. Most really are just lazy. And it's really not that hard to be successful. I really think that if I was just dropped off in the tenderloin with no money, no high school degree, and no anything I could make it at least to where I am. I mean, when I talk to homeless people I am always thinking "why on earth do you not have a job?" I see absolutely no reason why they don't work other than laziness. And there is something fundamentally wrong with forcibly taking something from one person to give it to someone else who just didn't feel like working.

 

I really can't talk for you, since we have totally different backgrounds, but I'd say that there's something fundamentally wrong in thinking people are poor because they're lazy. I'd say it's wrong in being so lenient to having poor people have their illnesses treated when your country is the richest in the world -especially when your Christian upbringing tells you to help the needy and to share your wealth.

[chris1216]

I've missed a lot of stuff. I'm not going to even try to get to all of it. On Colin Powell, that was just hims trying to get his rep back after making the case for the war. I doubt it had much to do with race, seeing as Powell escaped the racism directed at other members of the Bush administration. And dude, I don't know who you are talking to but CEO's don't sit on their [wagon]. They work harder than pretty much anybody. That's why they ,ale the big bucks. And not every poor person is a single mother with 3 kids working 2 jobs. Most really are just lazy. And it's really not that hard to be successful. I really think that if I was just dropped off in the tenderloin with no money, no high school degree, and no anything I could make it at least to where I am. I mean, when I talk to homeless people I am always thinking "why on earth do you not have a job?" I see absolutely no reason why they don't work other than laziness. And there is something fundamentally wrong with forcibly taking something from one person to give it to someone else who just didn't feel like working.

 

 

 

1) The claim that the homeless/poor are lazy is a fallacy

 

 

 

2) The claim that "I could get to where i at if i were dropped off in the middle of nowhere" holds no water because you got to where you at based on the priviledges you experienced. The poor or homeless didn't experience however many years of whatever level of priviledge you experienced before they became poor or homeless.

 

 

 

3) A conservative estimate is that 1 in 3 homeless people are veterans. Source: http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm

 

 

 

 

Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. And nearly 400,000 experience homelessness over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that Glenn Beck says poor people are lazy certainly says something about your very ignorant argument.

 

 

 

 

 

Additionally, Bill O'Reilly also believes poor people are lazy. This is a key point because of his argument:

 

 

 

Discussing former President Ronald Reagan's handling of "racial politics," O'Reilly made clear that he believes all people in poverty are "irresponsible and lazy" and explained that laziness, drug addiction, and lack of education are the only causes of poverty:

 

 

 

Lack of education- something that everyone agrees on. If they don't get the educational opportunity you do, what chance do they have?

 

 

 

But its not just education. Children need more than a school that is willing to teach them. They need health care, they need food, they need everything that you and I got but they don't have the chance to get.

 

 

 

Obama said that health care is a right, and McCain says its a responsibility. So when the child can't get fed or get medicine because their parents let them down, a "health care is a responsibility" policy just leaves them hanging.

[jackattack]

2) The claim that "I could get to where i at if i were dropped off in the middle of nowhere" holds no water because you got to where you at based on the priviledges you experienced. The poor or homeless didn't experience however many years of whatever level of priviledge you experienced before they became poor or homeless.

 

Not really. Because I said without anything I had before. Really, the worst neighborhood in the city would probably be the best place to be homeless. And are talking about poor, not just homeless. I think any veteran should be taken care of. That is different from the guy who sits in front of safeway everyday. And just because Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly say something means it is automatically wrong? So puppies aren't cute?

 

 

 

I've missed a lot of stuff. I'm not going to even try to get to all of it. On Colin Powell, that was just hims trying to get his rep back after making the case for the war. I doubt it had much to do with race, seeing as Powell escaped the racism directed at other members of the Bush administration. And dude, I don't know who you are talking to but CEO's don't sit on their [wagon]. They work harder than pretty much anybody. That's why they ,ale the big bucks. And not every poor person is a single mother with 3 kids working 2 jobs. Most really are just lazy. And it's really not that hard to be successful. I really think that if I was just dropped off in the tenderloin with no money, no high school degree, and no anything I could make it at least to where I am. I mean, when I talk to homeless people I am always thinking "why on earth do you not have a job?" I see absolutely no reason why they don't work other than laziness. And there is something fundamentally wrong with forcibly taking something from one person to give it to someone else who just didn't feel like working.

 

I really can't talk for you, since we have totally different backgrounds, but I'd say that there's something fundamentally wrong in thinking people are poor because they're lazy. I'd say it's wrong in being so lenient to having poor people have their illnesses treated when your country is the richest in the world -especially when your Christian upbringing tells you to help the needy and to share your wealth.

 

 

 

I do share my wealth and my time. That is my prerogative not the governments.

[michel555555]

Urgh, that's another reason I want McCain to loose. So all the conspiracy theories and people saying "Bush will declare martial law on election day and not give up power" will finally shut up. Do people honestly think that could even remotely happen?

 

It will be a glorious day when I see Bush leave office, not because I hate Bush, but because then I can turn to 40% of the internet and say "told ya so"

 

 

 

lets see several senators and house represntatives writing ariticles and telling jornalists that if they didn't pass the bail out bush would declare marshal law didn't convince you?

 

 

 

or this

 

mr speaker i understand we are under martial law as declared by the speaker last night

 

You obviously have no idea of how much manpower it would take to declare martial law all over the country, do you?

 

 

 

and you think bush was ever good at numbers?

 

 

 

his very own comander in afganistan said that he needed 400k troops to get the job done right, how any are there now?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I've missed a lot of stuff. I'm not going to even try to get to all of it. On Colin Powell, that was just hims trying to get his rep back after making the case for the war. I doubt it had much to do with race, seeing as Powell escaped the racism directed at other members of the Bush administration. And dude, I don't know who you are talking to but CEO's don't sit on their [wagon]. They work harder than pretty much anybody. That's why they ,ale the big bucks. And not every poor person is a single mother with 3 kids working 2 jobs. Most really are just lazy. And it's really not that hard to be successful. I really think that if I was just dropped off in the tenderloin with no money, no high school degree, and no anything I could make it at least to where I am. I mean, when I talk to homeless people I am always thinking "why on earth do you not have a job?" I see absolutely no reason why they don't work other than laziness. And there is something fundamentally wrong with forcibly taking something from one person to give it to someone else who just didn't feel like working.

 

Your complete ignorance to the world around you astounds me more and more every time you post.

 

 

 

Firstly, poor people are not poor simply for being lazy. I have no idea where you've got that myth, because not even the GOP would support that comment. No Christian church service I've ever been to has insinuated that either.

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, Newsnight (on the BBC) had a report from Paul Mason last night from Michigan. Apparently, the top three jobs there are:

 

• [*:w9pgumk5]Restaurant/fast food outlet worker
   
  [*:w9pgumk5]Shop assistant
   
  [*:w9pgumk5]Cashier

 

Neither of which earn more than $10 an hour on average. This isn't even an economically challenged area either - it's post-industrialist America. For context, that amount is effectively below the legal minimum wage in this country for 16 year olds.

 

 

 

The issue is not that poor people are lazy, it's that the gap between the rich and the poor is too wide. If your myth was true, that most poor people are lazy, the economy would grind to a halt since no one would be working for middle-class business owners.

 

 

 

As for the homeless, I'd have thought it obvious why a homeless man can't apply for a job without a home address.

[magekillr]

nfant mortality rate so high? Why, could it be how pro-choice Democrats are?

 

 

 

What the hell does abortion have anything to do with infant mortality rates? Since you brought up abortion, let's discuss it: abortion rates were MUCH lower under President Clinton than President Bush. Why? Because he focused more on education and how to reduce abortions, rather than quarreling over how to make it illegal :roll:

 

 

 

If you want abortions to go down, vote Democrat.

 

 

 

And you're adding an ingredient to the mix that never existed. 90% of Republicans DON'T like the war; but we think it's necessary.

 

 

 

The Iraq War necessary? Please. Military spending totaling what the rest of the world pays necessary? Please.

 

 

 

And do you really think your life expectancy will go up when you're waiting days to get a flu shot because the nationalized health care that you prayed fails.

 

 

 

Well, Republicans don't like vaccinations because they've been brainwashing people into thinking that vaccines are the cause of autism, when scientific research shows the opposite (although I've met some Democrats who thought this as well). Most Evangelicals are also Republicans, and these same people don't like vaccines because they believe them to be against "God's will". Yes, I do think the life expectancy will go up when we have nationalized health care. What evidence do you have that it will go down, besides Ronald Reagan's records of lies.

 

 

 

Well of course, it's reasonable, I think for the Gov't to pay for people who legitamately can't pay for it themselves, but for the gov't to pay for people who can pay? What ever happened to people who wanted to become doctors? Well, now they'll be forced to go under federal rules, [cabbage] hours, and [cabbage] pay. And while yes, all doctors whould go into that profession, only to help people, and the money comes second, don't think there aren't people who go into it for the money.

 

 

 

The people who "can pay" are paying taxes. They are paying for their health care in a pool of others, reducing costs all around. Right, doctors in the UK are "poor" and have "poor hours". I mean, it's not like the US has less doctors per capita than other countries with nationalized systems rig...oh wait.

 

 

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_p ... 000-people

 

 

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_nur-health-nurses

 

 

 

=D> :wall:

 

 

 

Think, the 2nd Amendment is fitting. You know the people who are absuing guns,. and killing people? Guess what, they got their guns illegally. 90% of the time, so if yuo take away the 2nd amendment, the gangsters and killers still havr the guns, but the tax paying hard working citizens can't possess them.

 

 

 

I'm not discussing this here, there's plenty of other topics where this has been beat to death.

 

 

 

You can't assume he hasn't, for all you know, he lived in a poor nieghbrohood. You can't just throw stuff out at people, without thinking.

 

And, I HAVE lived around poor people. I'm surrounded by ghettos, and yes, there are some families there, who work their butts off, but still need welfare, and they're honest families. And then, everyone else, spends the food stamps and wlefare checks on weed and crack, there is such a drug problem because of it. And it's ignorant to say that it's not abused.

 

 

 

 

I can assume, and I'm willing to bet that he did not live in a poor neighborhood. He probably lives with a middle class family that makes a decent living, well above the national average household (which is overinflated because of people like Bill Gates anyway).

 

 

 

"There's a drug problem". Hey yeah, guess what? If we start treating them as people with health problems instead of criminals, maybe we'll see progress! The Republicans want to put these people in jail.

 

 

 

Well, then give those people health care, but don't give health care to everyone. You say the War put us in a deficit? This is nothing if Obama becomes president.

 

 

 

Health care is a right, not a privilege. McCain is projected to have almost double any deficits that Obama would have.

 

 

 

You know why the Rich CEO is sitting on his [wagon]? because he worked his [bleep] [wagon] off earlier in his life. DELAY PLEASURE. Work your [wagon] off for the first 40-50 years of your life, and chill and enjoy the fuits of your labor. So are you saying it's not ok for him to reap what he sow'd? Oh please, get over yourself.

 

 

 

Hmmm, you're not entering the "knowing people", or the "born privileged", or the "luck factor" into any of this.

 

 

 

The lives of Americans are millions of times better than anywhere else in the world.

 

 

 

This is why I hate living here. "AMURIHKA!!! F**K YEAH!!!"

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well, now they'll be forced to go under federal rules, [cabbage] hours, and [cabbage] pay. And while yes, all doctors whould go into that profession, only to help people, and the money comes second, don't think there aren't people who go into it for the money.

 

Ooo, I missed this.

 

 

 

Did I mention some 90% of doctors in the UK work for the NHS, and they actually still remain self-employed?

 

 

 

See, that's the thing. Because so few people actually choose private health care, the NHS is also a huge source of jobs in the public sector. The NHS is the third biggest employer in the world, after Walmart and the US DoD, employing 1.3 million people.

 

 

 

In fact come to think of it, if we go back to basic Keynesian economics, there's one possible way to solve the unemployment problem as global recession starts to kick in. I can't think of a better public works project.

 

 

 

EDIT: I'm sorry, I just had to lol at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ ... 681168.stm

[dangeresque]

Urgh, that's another reason I want McCain to loose. So all the conspiracy theories and people saying "Bush will declare martial law on election day and not give up power" will finally shut up. Do people honestly think that could even remotely happen?

 

It will be a glorious day when I see Bush leave office, not because I hate Bush, but because then I can turn to 40% of the internet and say "told ya so"

 

 

 

lets see several senators and house represntatives writing ariticles and telling jornalists that if they didn't pass the bail out bush would declare marshal law didn't convince you?

 

 

 

or this

 

mr speaker i understand we are under martial law as declared by the speaker last night

 

You obviously have no idea of how much manpower it would take to declare martial law all over the country, do you?

 

 

 

and you think bush was ever good at numbers?

 

 

 

his very own comander in afganistan said that he needed 400k troops to get the job done right, how any are there now?

 

MAybe not the best, but trust me, he's not dumb enough to declare martial law, no matter how much you want him to.

[warri0r45]

Just in case anyone hasn't seen this, here's the BBC's poll tracker.

 

 

 

Obama ahead in all of them.