McCain Vs. Obama.

[Totenkopf]

@jmac--so, you're merely a sniping troll? But if you object to this observation, perhaps you should be silly elsewhere. Otherwise...still waiting (probably forlornly) for your explanation of how BO will make us safer.

 

@sithy--BS your ass pal. There's ultimately no substitute for troops on the ground, unless annihilation is your intent. Technology is all nice and fine, but just like we learned in the intelligence arena, all that stuff isn't worth as much as people in the right place. As far as Iraq goes, I think they should've used more troops too if they knew they were going to be hanging around for the next several years (though the Clinton cutbacks made that unlikely). I really don't see BO as any better than Clinton, and probably a lot worse. I have yet to hear anyone put forth any real examples of accomplishments or "leadership" (unless you count empty rhetoric in that category) by this man in his political career. He appears to be little more than an un(der)vetted cypher.

[El Sitherino]

Believe what you want, but you should also remember the Iraq debacle was created by the Bush administration.

 

Just a little thought.

[zelda 41]

If it were legal for me to vote, Obama.

Mccain, in my opinion, is a bit....narrowminded, on some issues; especially same-sex marrige.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

@jmac--so, you're merely a sniping troll? But if you object to this observation, perhaps you should be silly elsewhere.

No thanks.

Otherwise...still waiting (probably forlornly) for your explanation of how BO will make us safer.

I already gave you an explanation. Your response was essentially that since all the other government expenditures are filled with pork and useless crap it's okay for the defense budget to spend massive amounts of money on useless crap. Truly an example of FLAWLESS LOGIC.

[mimartin]

@mimartin--You're forgetting one thing though, Clinton left the military too small to do anything other than take Rummy's/Frank's approach (or nothing at all) as they no longer had the force structure to do anything else.

Wrong. We had the troops, we just did not call them up. Let’s give Rumsfeld and Franks some credit. They had the right amount of troops to take out a 2nd rate military such as the Iraqi Military was. What their plan lacked was the foresight to deploy enough troops to keep the peace after the military campaign was won. Rumsfeld was naive enough to believe an invading army would be welcomed as conquering heroes.

 

Lehrer: Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?

 

Rumsfeld: There's obviously the Shia population in Iraq and the Kurdish population in Iraq have been treated very badly by Saddam Hussein's regime, they represent a large fraction of the total. There is no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda would not let them do. Saddam Hussein has one of the most vicious regimes on the face of the earth. And the people know that.

 

Now, is there a risk when that dictatorial system isn't there that there could be conflicts between elements within the country, get even type things, yes. And we've got to be careful to see that that doesn't happen. [/Quote]

 

 

Of course, Rumfeld denies every saying this, but you can judge for yourself as there is a Transcript of the interview on the Department of Defense website.

 

The Commander and Chief has the ultimate responsibility. If the military was in such dire need of replenishment, why open up a second front? I do hope this is one instance where McSame differs from Bush. I believe McSame will listen to the military personal on the ground. However, I honesty hope I do not get the opportunity to prove my theory.

 

Believe what you want, but you should also remember the Iraq debacle was created by the Bush administration.

 

Just a little thought.

Not in the Republican version of things, in their version it is Clinton, Carter or Congress’ fault. Problem with blaming Congress this time is that at the time it was control by the Republicans, so Clinton becomes the scapegoat.

[Web Rider]

@jmac--so, you're merely a sniping troll? But if you object to this observation, perhaps you should be silly elsewhere. Otherwise...still waiting (probably forlornly) for your explanation of how BO will make us safer.

 

It's not a matter of what he will do so much as a matter of what he won't do. I know you asked somebody else to answer this but I wanted to pick up on it anyway. Bush did a wonderful job of pissing people off and getting a good portion of the world angry at us when they were previously apathetic. What was one of his first moves? Oh yeah, announcing which countries he thought were an "axis of evil".

 

Yeah, the government knew that, the people knew that, but you don't announce those things to your enemies, it's stupid. And the neighbors you seek are the neighbors you'll find, everything the Administration has done in the last 8 years has done nothing to make me feel safer and personally, has done nothing to make this country safer.

 

and don't say "oh well there wasn't another 9/11!!" Yeah, that's cause the "bad guys" are too busy blowing us up over there to do it here. If that's saftey, count me out.

 

Barack Obama can do a lot to make us safer, by simply not being an idiot and claiming to be doing everything to make us "safer". I would be much happer if a president worked to make our economy stronger than our borders more secure.

[Jae Onasi]

OK, loves, I'm seeing more expletives in these posts than is necessary (i.e. it's getting to be too frequent). Use something more creative and clean, please. It's also getting a bit heated with the baiting remarks. There's no reason to be sniping at each other. Thanks.

[Arcesious]

There's no reason to be sniping at each other.

 

Aw man... But sniping's fun!

[El Sitherino]

Can I join?

 

Sure--you get the ones on the left, I'll get the ones on the right. --Jae

[Rev7]

I don't entirely agree with either canidates, to tell you the truth. :/

[mimartin]

I don't entirely agree with either canidates, to tell you the truth. :/

Does anyone entirely agree with the candidate they vote for on every position? The only person that entirely agrees with McCain is McCain and the only person that entirely agrees with Obama is Obama. If you ever want to cast your vote for someone you entirely agree with then you better run for president yourself because that will be the only way you will ever agree entirely with a candidate. That is, unless you are one of those that allow others to tell you what you think.

 

Find the candidate who best mirrors your position on key issues. If I were honest McCain before he became McSame mirrors my positions best, but in this election my biggest issues are: the war, education, economy, health care, veteran care, illegal immigration, American’s world image and terrorism.

 

While I don’t agree with Obama entirely, in most of these key issues he does seem to be closer to me than McCain. He also has the gift to inspire and even though some are critical about that gift, I believe that is important gift for the leader of the free world to have. Imagine if George Bush would have had that gift after September 11, 2001. He could have mobilized this entire nation to action for the greater good instead of telling us to go shopping.

[Web Rider]

Find the candidate who best mirrors your position on key issues. If I were honest McCain before he became McSame mirrors my positions best, but in this election my biggest issues are: the war, education, economy, health care, veteran care, illegal immigration, American’s world image and terrorism.

 

While I don’t agree with Obama entirely, in most of these key issues he does seem to be closer to me than McCain. He also has the gift to inspire and even though some are critical about that gift, I believe that is important gift for the leader of the free world to have.

 

That is undoubtedly almost my exact sentiments regarding the candidates today. Up until this election, I had always regarded McCain as "the only republican I'd vote for(for president)."

[Rev7]

Does anyone entirely agree with the candidate they vote for on every position? The only person that entirely agrees with McCain is McCain and the only person that entirely agrees with Obama is Obama. If you ever want to cast your vote for someone you entirely agree with then you better run for president yourself because that will be the only way you will ever agree entirely with a candidate. That is, unless you are one of those that allow others to tell you what you think.

Well, of course you never agree entirely with the canidate.

Find the candidate who best mirrors your position on key issues. If I were honest McCain before he became McSame mirrors my positions best, but in this election my biggest issues are: the war, education, economy, health care, veteran care, illegal immigration, American’s world image and terrorism.

Yes those are very key issues. I have been talking to my dad a little bit about who he wants as president. He has said that he really doesn't want either, but if he had to choose it would be McCain. My Dad thinks that if Obama were president he would be exactly like Carter. I don't remember all of the details though...

[mimartin]

My Dad thinks that if Obama were president he would be exactly like Carter.

It is not about what your dad thinks, it is about what you think.

 

I don't set much stock about political predictions. Eight years ago, when I stepped into that voting booth, I never would have predicted I was voting for arguably the worst President in American history, but I did. Saying Obama will be exactly like Carter, would be like me saying McCain will be exactly like Nixon, farfetched at best.

[Rev7]

It is not about what your dad thinks, it is about what you think.

 

I don't set much stock about political predictions. Eight years ago, when I stepped into that voting booth, I never would have predicted I was voting for arguably the worst President in American history, but I did. Saying Obama will be exactly like Carter, would be like me saying McCain will be exactly like Nixon, farfetched at best.

Yes; however, it doesn't matter all that much, other than it is/would be my opinion, because I am not old enough to vote yet, so...

 

Yeah, that is what makes them predictions. My Dad believes that Obama will set this country back, so

[Arcesious]

So, what would be the best candidate, if it could be someone tailored to each of our veiws?

 

My custom candidate:

 

*Lots of political experience.

*Good economic backround, good with forieng relations.

*A peacemaker, but not a pacifist.

*A tactical and economical genius.

*Has both political degrees and some minor degrees in various realms of

science and buisness.

*Reasonable, logical, realistic.

*Civil rights activist backround.

*Motivational speaker, who isn't a pandering faker.

*Independent, liberal leaning.

*Be a/an Athiest/Agnostic/Deist

*Works for advanced technology and peaceful global solutions.

*Plans to pull out of most of the other countries and focus all military force within US territory as defense.

*Advance military tech, get rid of old military tech, cut defense budget by transitioning to more easily and cheaply maintained military tech.

*Progress relationships with neighboring countries

*Work to break foriegn dependences

*Build self-sustaining, efficient, enviroment-friendly country

*Balance tax budget, fix education and healthcare

*Eliminate insurance and loans over time

*Stay out of other people's buisness until the country has the stability and strength to help the world again.

 

and much, much more...

 

What would your custom candidate be?

[Rev7]

*Advance military tech, get rid of old military tech, cut defense budget by transitioning to more easily and cheaply maintained military tech.

Huh? We have the most advanced military in the world, Arc..

 

You definately cannot cut the defense budget by transitioning to even more advanced military technology. It would go up considerably.

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

One of these babies cost $137 million. One! It is the most advanced military fighter jet in the world, and the most expensive. Boy they are advanced, I have seen what they can do first hand, but that is a different story.

Why not upgrade the planes (equipment in general) that we already have? ex. upgrade the F-15 Eagle, F-16 ect.

What would your custom candidate be?

• politically experianced
  
• become less (much) dependant on oil/create and use alternative energy
  
• is realistic, and a resonable person
  
• Civil Rights
  
• Better Education plan
  
• Foreign relations
  
• Educated Person
  
• Great speaker, motivational
  
• Actually follow-through and do what he/she says
  
• Better Health Care
  
• Environmental friendly country
  
• Experianced leader
  
• Puts money to use in a wise fashion
  
• Keep the military strong/make stronger
  
• Tactical
  
• Takes care of veterans
  
• Less dependant on foreign countries (I don't think that we can fully be dependant )
  
• Takes care of his people
  

 

...just a few that I can think of that the moment...

[Litofsky]

What would your custom candidate be?

 

Ah, so we're fantasizing? Although I'm nearly sure that our 'custom candidates' will never fully appear, I'd want my candidate to have a majority of the following qualities:

 

• Smart
  
• Willing to change. Staying with a belief that's been proven wrong or is just ineffective isn't in the benefit of the populace.
  
• Plans to completely revamp our education system. Right now, we're setting ourselves up for failure.
  
• Plans to reduce our dependence on oil (not just foreign), and make renewable sources account for over 50% of our energy consumption by 2018.
  
• Cuts unnecessary spending.
  
• Stands up for what s/he believes in, and doesn't bend to the will of their party.
  

 

There's a bit more that would help, such as experience, but those are my major concerns.

[Nedak]

I would say Obama is the lesser of the evils

 

On the McCain commercials it uses the fact that Obama may raise taxes as a concern.

 

I'm sure the families who are losing their loved ones in "The War on Terror" don't care about their taxes being raised, as long as their loved ones come back alive.

[mimartin]

On the McCain commercials it uses the fact that Obama may raise taxes as a concern.

Well if McCain plans to keep the war going for another 100 years, he is going to have to raise taxes too. The rest of the world is not going to loan us money forever.

[Litofsky]

Well if McCain plans to keep the war going for another 100 years, he is going to have to raise taxes too. The rest of the world is not going to loan us money forever.

 

I'm surprised other countries continue to do so! Either way, if I had to choose between the candidates, I'd go with Obama. He seems more sensible than McCain. But that's just from what I've seen.

[Nedak]

Well if McCain plans to keep the war going for another 100 years, he is going to have to raise taxes too. The rest of the world is not going to loan us money forever.

 

Also a good point.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Huh? We have the most advanced military in the world, Arc..

 

You definately cannot cut the defense budget by transitioning to even more advanced military technology. It would go up considerably.

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

One of these babies cost $137 million. One! It is the most advanced military fighter jet in the world, and the most expensive. Boy they are advanced, I have seen what they can do first hand, but that is a different story.

Why not upgrade the planes (equipment in general) that we already have? ex. upgrade the F-15 Eagle, F-16 ect.

 

 

The cost of the original equipment isn't as great as the upkeep. Although I would discourage extravagant expenditures of money on pointless fighters like the F-22, it would make more sense to reduce the level of upkeep required to operate so many fighters.

 

And fighters are only a small fraction of the whole military budget. Consider the sheer number of people the military employs and stack that on top of fuel, food, equipment, repairs, and other expenses and you'll realize that the capital costs don't represent all the spending that goes on in the military.

 

PS. The F-15's and F-16's are decades old and upgrading them can't conquer their age. I encourage it before buying a generation 5 fighter, but aging fighters eventually have to be retired.

[Da_Man_2423]

Well if McCain plans to keep the war going for another 100 years, he is going to have to raise taxes too. The rest of the world is not going to loan us money forever.

 

I've read that 40% of the money is being borrowed from China. They need our consumer money, so they ain't cutting us off anytime soon. Raising U.S. taxes = less money for the Chinese. Who else is loaning us money, and in what percentages?

 

@Darth_Yuthura and Rev: Aren't you guys a bit off topic?

[mimartin]

I am sorry, but you cannot borrow and spend indefinitely and maintain a viable economy. No economy = no jobs = no consumer spending = no money for China (in more than one way, trade, loan payments or interest payments)

 

With our dependence on foreign oil and our competition with China for that addiction to oil, we do not want to continue our dependence for their money. It makes no economic sense. It does not take an Ivy League education to figure that out.

 

This country has constantly put off our problems until tomorrow, one of these days we are going to wake up and it will be tomorrow.