McCain Vs. Obama.

[Litofsky]

She has no foreign experience as far as I have found from any form of news, even local.

 

I'm gonna say if we talk pure experience, Obama + Biden = a hell of a lot more beneficial and meaningful experience.

 

Wah, so John McCain went to Vietnam. So did a lot of people, doesn't mean they can run a country. I'm sorry the guy got tortured, but what can I say, mercy voting because he's crippled just degrades everything.

 

Quote for truth. I'm not sure what will actually happen, but I know that Obama has the charisma and ideas that could make a significant positive difference, and Biden has the experience that adds credibility to the ticket.

 

If I could vote, I'd do so for Obama/Biden. Of course, I've gotta wait for the next election to vote.

[Tommycat]

This election is a great one. Honestly either way it goes this year it will be a historic first.

 

Obama wins, we have the first African-American president ever.

 

McCain wins, we have the first woman VP.

 

I'm happy that some boundaries are being broken down.

[Achilles]

Arcesious--the argument about experience would not be a wise one for the Obama campaign to bring up--he has 4 years' experience as a Senator...

Plus 7 years as a state senator. I say that his 7 years at state level beats her two and probably nulls her 8 years at city. Unless of course you want to argue executive vs legislative, which is probably a good argument to have but at the same time probably one that she won't win.

 

...which is not a whole lot when you're looking at McCain's 22 years.

*shrugs* As someone from his home state that has never voted for him, I think it's fair to say that I'm biased. With that said, I think "amount accomplished" is probably more important than "years served". Am I saying the McCain hasn't had any accomplishments or implying that he doesn't have a record to speak of? Not. But I am saying that that the numbers don't get to be an argument unto themselves.

 

There are better areas for the Obama campaign to focus on--health care, higher education, economy--all those are areas that need a lot more attention than Bush has been giving them.

Agreed!

[Totenkopf]

So does that mean John McCain does not have the experience for the executive branch, or is that only a Democratic handicap?

 

 

Since I'm not building up McCain, that bounces off my teflon postion. I'd say we've got a fairly even match in some ways. Two old white Senators and two others in their forties that can appeal to a "minority" base. Face it, there's nothing compelling about a Barak/Biden ticket (except to its choir---and yeah, the same goes for the other side too).

 

*shrugs* As someone from his home state that has never voted for him, I think it's fair to say that I'm biased. With that said, I think "amount accomplished" is probably more important than "years served". Am I saying the McCain hasn't had any accomplishments or implying that he doesn't have a record to speak of? Not. But I am saying that that the numbers don't get to be an argument unto themselves..........Plus 7 years as a state senator. I say that his 7 years at state level beats her two and probably nulls her 8 years at city. Unless of course you want to argue executive vs legislative, which is probably a good argument to have but at the same time probably one that she won't win.

 

So.....which is it? Number of years or not?

 

Also, exec exp pwns legislative when running for an executive office.

[Tommycat]

Wait.... I just read about Todd Palin... He's not tied to big oil like some are thinking. He's an oil worker. Blue collar guy, not some exec that would make money off big oil. If people go after him for his ties to big oil, that'd be stupid. And I would not want to mess with him. Big guy.

 

At any rate she has shown that she can break with the party line, She's more conservative on a few issues than McCain, and more believable on the anti abortion stance than McCain. See McCain was less anti abortion til he started going for the republican nod in the primary. But hey it's all in how you spin it right?

[Web Rider]

Also, exec exp pwns legislative when running for an executive office.

 

Well, she's not running for exec office, she's just tagging along. Bush W was a governor and we've seen the wonderful job he's done. Cheney has no exec exp unless you include Halliburton. Clinton Had several years as governor of Arkansas, so you could claim his(what is historically considered successful) presidency was bettered by governorship. Though you could draw ties to both Palin and Clinton having scandals due abuse of their position and have a whole "power corrupts" here.

 

George H Bush was not a governor, and possible correlations could be drawn about him not getting reelected because of it. Ronald Reagen was Govenor of California and we all saw the positive he did for the state and it's educational system.(/sarcasm) And the wonders that Reaganomics did for business and the middle class(/sarcasm), so paralells could again be drawn that having executive exp does not qualify one to be a good president, of course Reagen did a lot of good for the Cold War too, so a positive correlation could be drawn as well.

 

In short, over the last 4 presidents, executive experience has proven to be very iffy in terms of it actually making a better president. I'm sure the same will stand true continuing back in history. Perhaps it makes a statement about career politicians? But that wouldn't work as Clinton is generally regarded as a fairly effective presidency and Bush W is not.

 

So I think that in the big picture, executive experience stands as a fairly minor or inconsequential factor in determining how good a president WILL be. Now I'm sure you'd get a more solid answer if you looked at the actual details of their pre-presidential executive experience, but I'm fairly certain that a successful political career, regardless of the actual position, will speak louder for the person than the level of position they held.

 

"Executive experience" is as empty a term as "political experience". Stalin, Mao, Hitler, JFK, Bush, they all have "political experiance", most have "executive experiance", but their records are all very different. And I'm sure you'd be more willing to elect Obama over Stalin even though Stalin has "executive experience".

[Totenkopf]

Well, she's not running for exec office, she's just tagging along. Bush W was a governor and we've seen the wonderful job he's done. Cheney has no exec exp unless you include Halliburton. Clinton Had several years as governor of Arkansas, so you could claim his(what is historically considered successful) presidency was bettered by governorship. Though you could draw ties to both Palin and Clinton having scandals due abuse of their position and have a whole "power corrupts" here.

 

George H Bush was not a governor, and possible correlations could be drawn about him not getting reelected because of it. Ronald Reagen was Govenor of California and we all saw the positive he did for the state and it's educational system.(/sarcasm) And the wonders that Reaganomics did for business and the middle class(/sarcasm), so paralells could again be drawn that having executive exp does not qualify one to be a good president, of course Reagen did a lot of good for the Cold War too, so a positive correlation could be drawn as well.

 

In short, over the last 4 presidents, executive experience has proven to be very iffy in terms of it actually making a better president. I'm sure the same will stand true continuing back in history. Perhaps it makes a statement about career politicians? But that wouldn't work as Clinton is generally regarded as a fairly effective presidency and Bush W is not.

 

So I think that in the big picture, executive experience stands as a fairly minor or inconsequential factor in determining how good a president WILL be. Now I'm sure you'd get a more solid answer if you looked at the actual details of their pre-presidential executive experience, but I'm fairly certain that a successful political career, regardless of the actual position, will speak louder for the person than the level of position they held.

 

"Executive experience" is as empty a term as "political experience". Stalin, Mao, Hitler, JFK, Bush, they all have "political experiance", most have "executive experiance", but their records are all very different. And I'm sure you'd be more willing to elect Obama over Stalin even though Stalin has "executive experience".

 

Actually, VP is an executive postion/office, so neither she nor Biden are just tagging along. At least during the post war era, almost all of the past presidents had some level of executive experience before assuming the presidency, which is more relevant than "successful political experience" (whatever that is) in evaluating someone's quals for the job. In the case of GHB, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that DQ and G's being suckered by duplicitous dems on the tax issue are a large part of what hurt his reelection chances. If Reagan had been such a detriment, that pathetic loser Dukakais would've won in '88.

 

I think you should remove your rosy glasses when discussing Clinton. And his tenure as gov of AR had little to show for it, less even than Reagan's of CA. As far as Obama and Stalin go......I'd vote Ron Paul first (I think the temp in hell just hit freezing. ). Beisdes, both being marxists at their core, I wouldn't have to worry b/c both would be at home in the modern dem party. That decision would more likely have been YOUR dilemma.

 

Ok, if someone ran for the office of dog catcher and held it over several "terms", that person would be as qualified as Obama and Biden?

 

Since I don't claim that "exec exp" gaurantees a president will be a good one (neither, however, does your nebulous qualifier of successful political exp), that seems largely irrelevant. I don't reject BO b/c I think he's less qualified in terms of intellectual capacity, but rather b/c I don't trust him and have low regard for the underpinnings of his political philosophy. It's apparent that many dems don't really know who they're voting for either (few of whom, here or elsewhere, have been able to identify any accomplishments by him).

[Arcesious]

I heard this in a random commerical on TV, but it is something I thought worth thinking about:

 

"As long as people can change, the world can change."

 

The question is- is the USA too 'fundamental' and the ideologies of people too 'dogmatic' to allow significant change?

[Totenkopf]

I heard this in a random commerical on TV, but it is something I thought worth thinking about:

 

"As long as people can change, the world can change."

 

The question is- is the USA too 'fundamental' and the ideologies of people too 'dogmatic' to allow significant change?

 

Depends on what type of change you're talking about, though, doesn't it...

[Web Rider]

At least during the post war era, almost all but the past presidents had some level of executive experience, which is more relevant than "successful political experience" (whatever the hell that is) in evaluating someone's quals for the job.

And which "post war" time was that? WWI? WWII? Korean War? Vietnam? Gulf War? Gulf War II?

 

If Reagan had been such a detriment, that sorry loser Dukakais would've won in '88.

If you had read my post, which you didn't, apparently, seeing as you aren't reading what I wrote, I left Reagan at 50/50.

 

I think you should remove your rosy glasses when discussing Clinton. And his tenure as gov of AR had little to show for it, less even than Reagan's of CA.

I don't know what you thought I wrote, but I only mentioned Clinton WAS governor of Arkansas, I didn't make comment on if it was a good or bad term.

 

As far as Obama and Stalin go......I'd vote Ron Paul first (I think the temp in hell just hit freezing. ). Beisdes, both being marxists at their core, I wouldn't have to worry b/c both would be at home in the modern dem party.

Okay, I admit it, that made me laugh and almost spit out my drink. Stalin, a marxist? That'd almost be funny if you didn't normally say smart things, as it is, that's just stupid. Stalin espoused Marxism to win the support of the people, he was a paranoid power hungry authoritarian. He'd be more likly to kill somebody who read a memo to him instead of letting him read it himself than support a workers revolution.

 

Ok, if someone ran for the office of dog catcher and held it over several "terms", that person would be as qualified as Obama and Biden?

Your parallel is stupid and frankly I have no idea what you're trying to say with it. Dog catcher? lolwut?

 

Since I don't claim that "exec exp" gaurantees a president will be a good one (neither, however, does your nebulous qualifier of successful political exp), that seems largely irrelevant.

My qualifier was "political experience". I did not state it as successful or unsuccessful. You did not claim it, but you would be lying to say that you did not imply that holding an executive position, regardless of how low on the totem pole it is, makes a person better prepared to be president(and would therefore imply they'd be a better president).

 

I don't reject BO b/c I think he's less qualified in terms of intellectual capacity, but rather b/c I don't trust him and have low regard for the underpinnings of his political philosophy. It's apparent that many dems don't really know who they're voting for either (few of whom, here or elsewhere, have been able to identify any accomplishments by him).

I didn't realize that these magical "accomplishments" made a better candidate. I better start accomplishing things right now! Oh look! I just accomplished a sentence! /sarcasm

 

So far you have made a series of vague statements indirectly implying a number of mystical "things" about people based on no factual basis and vague qualifiers that don't really mean anything. Point is: A lot of words seem to have come out of your mouth, but you don't seem to have said anything beyond: "Say no to Obama just 'cause."

[Totenkopf]

And which "post war" time was that? WWI? WWII? Korean War? Vietnam? Gulf War? Gulf War II?

 

The Boer War. Didn't realize you were so clueless. When people talk about the post war era in general (at least in the modern age), it's understood to be post 1945.

 

If you had read my post, which you didn't, apparently, seeing as you aren't reading what I wrote, I left Reagan at 50/50.

 

You're being slightly disingenous here. Your implication was that Bush might have been handicapped by lack of "exec exp" (though he did hold exec postions w/in several administrations, head of CIA being one of them) and that Reaganomics hurt the country and by extension Bush's chances.

 

Okay, I admit it, that made me laugh and almost spit out my drink. Stalin, a marxist? That'd almost be funny if you didn't normally say smart things, as it is, that's just stupid. Stalin espoused Marxism to win the support of the people, he was a paranoid power hungry authoritarian. He'd be more likly to kill somebody who read a memo to him instead of letting him read it himself than support a workers revolution.

 

That Stalin was a raving paranoid doesn't exclude the fact that he aligned himself with a bastardized marxist system. The beauty of being in absolute power is that you get to define what "supporting a workers revolution" is in the first place (till your dead, anyway.). Btw, did Stalin tell you he didn't believe in marxism/communism? Ftr, if you espouse a particular kind of philosophy, you can fairly be labled an adherent of it (your inner motivations notwithstanding, as they can only often be guessed at anyway).

 

 

Your parallel is stupid and frankly I have no idea what you're trying to say with it. Dog catcher? lolwut?

 

No, it points out how openended and meaningless an expression like "political experience" is anyway. I can only conclude from your statement that you irrationally believe that "unsuccessful" political experience is equally qualifying as "successful", as you make no attempt to assert otherwise. Seems equally silly to assume that unsuccessful political experience would somehow trump successful exec exp. in considering someone qualified.

 

My qualifier was "political experience". I did not state it as successful or unsuccessful. You did not claim it, but you would be lying to say that you did not imply that holding an executive position, regardless of how low on the totem pole it is, makes a person better prepared to be president(and would therefore imply they'd be a better president).

 

Here I'm going to have to figure you have trouble reading:

Since I don't claim that "exec exp" gaurantees a president will be a good one (neither, however, does your nebulous qualifier of successful political exp), that seems largely irrelevant.

 

I didn't realize that these magical "accomplishments" made a better candidate. I better start accomplishing things right now! Oh look! I just accomplished a sentence! /sarcasm

 

Needs work....

 

So far you have made a series of vague statements indirectly implying a number of mystical "things" about people based on no factual basis and vague qualifiers that don't really mean anything. Point is: A lot of words seem to have come out of your mouth, but you don't seem to have said anything beyond: "Say no to Obama just 'cause."

 

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. I've not implied anything specific about anyone. Perhaps the mysticism derives from your own inferences. You, however, have yet to offer anything, really, as a reason to vote for BO in the first place, which basically affirms my point that many of his supporter know little to nothing about the cypher they've chosen for Nov.

[El Sitherino]

LOL OBama is a communist!!!11!!

[Druganator]

i think that if Obama was a communist that it wouldve been made public considering he does hold public office. The last thing america needs is a 70sum year old dude dying leaving the country in the hands of a 44 year old governor with 3 years experience.

[Nedak]

i think that if Obama was a communist that it wouldve been made public considering he does hold public office. The last thing america needs is a 70sum year old dude dying leaving the country in the hands of a 44 year old governor with 3 years experience.

 

BUT SHE'S SO PRETTY!

 

 

[Totenkopf]

LOL OBama is a communist!!!11!!

 

 

His major political influences are marxists. Your own ignorance about the man you support is telling. However, if you're implying I'm saying he belonged to the communist party, that's something you obviously inferred. It still strikes me as interesting that you guys have yet to come up with anything that supports BO fitness (not his right to run, mind you) to be elected. Most of the comments here fall into the category that BO ain't Bush/McCain and that seems to be enough. Others into nebulous claims that somehow BO will talk the rerst of the world into liking us again, b/c gosh, he's such an eloquent speaker with all these "new" ideas.

[Arcesious]

Marxism isn't entirely bad... Sure, it's got some retarded concepts in it with relation to communism, but it does have some good concepts that can be used to improve a capitalist democracy to be more fair to people.

[Corinthian]

Wow. The hypocrisy here is making me choke. You're lambasting Palin because...she's not especially experienced.

 

Isn't that the same kind of thing that the Democrats get pissed about when it's said about Obama?

 

Ugh. I need to go wash my mouth out.

[Druganator]

She's even more inexperienced than Obama She's got 3 years of experience as governor of Alaska, my county has more people in it than the entire state of Alaska, and before she was governor she was a mayor, the republicans are being hypocritical by claiming Obama is not ready to lead and then choosing her as vice president. Typical Republican bull****, but McCain is a good Candidate i just don't agree with his policies, and Obama has great ideas, but thats just it they're ideas and i dont think they will become a reality because of the way congress works now, as you can tell i don't want either but i dislike mcain more than Obama so I choose the lesser of two evils. Go Obama

[Corinthian]

Obama has no experience in the Executive branch whatsoever. All of her experience is in the Executive branch. See the difference?

[Astor]

She's even more inexperienced than Obama She's got 3 years of experience as governor of Alaska, my county has more people in it than the entire state of Alaska, and before she was governor she was a mayor, the republicans are being hypocritical by claiming Obama is not ready to lead and then choosing her as vice president. Typical Republican bull****, but McCain is a good Candidate i just don't agree with his policies, and Obama has great ideas, but thats just it they're ideas and i dont think they will become a reality because of the way congress works now, as you can tell i don't want either but i dislike mcain more than Obama so I choose the lesser of two evils. Go Obama

 

 

But really, at the end of the day, they're al inexperienced. None of them (both Presidential and VP candidates) have any experience of being President.

 

They're all unknown quantities until they actually get to sit in the big chair.

[Druganator]

Congressional Experience is better than being the governer of Alaska, the president is gonna have to deal with congress in order to get anything done. and I personally think the most qualifying job to have if u want to run for president would be the CEO of a large corporation because its essentially the same thing

[Web Rider]

His major political influences are marxists. Your own ignorance about the man you support is telling.

I suppose I shouldn't find it strange, but I still do, continually hearing "you're wrong and you know nothing" coming from your posts. Yet, you, like us, have been lacking in providing any evidence to show us you know what you're talking about. Perhaps you would like to support YOUR claims before you tell us that our claims are wrong? If not, I respectfully request you stop calling us all ignorant.

 

It still strikes me as interesting that you guys have yet to come up with anything that supports BO fitness (not his right to run, mind you) to be elected. Most of the comments here fall into the category that BO ain't Bush/McCain and that seems to be enough. Others into nebulous claims that somehow BO will talk the rerst of the world into liking us again, b/c gosh, he's such an eloquent speaker with all these "new" ideas.

It strikes me as interesting that you have yet to provide any evidence against him except a vague allusion to him being a communist, and that he doesn't have enough experience. A qualification you seem to only apply to Democratic candidates. Palin, who has fewer years than Obama, either is also lacking in experience, or you are being hypocritial.

 

To be honest, considering your strategy in simply saying "you're wrong!" or "obama is evil!" I'm hesitant to waste my time pulling up facts and figures about Obama's plans as President. I'm not going to go around and get these things just to sit here and have you go: "lol he's stupid."

 

But really, at the end of the day, they're al inexperienced. None of them (both Presidential and VP candidates) have any experience of being President.

 

They're all unknown quantities until they actually get to sit in the big chair.

 

QFT

 

We can go on and on about how Obama might be worse or Palin might be better ot McCain might do the wrong thing or how Biden might help but in the end, we're simply grasping at straws. None of them have been president, and unlike previous candidates like Al Gore, none of them have been close enough to the executive office to even wager a guess at how well they might do.

[Astor]

none of them have been close enough to the executive office to even wager a guess at how well they might do.

 

Exactly.

 

To use a crude expression, the only thing you can do is make a choice, stick your head between your legs and hope it's the right one.

[SD Nihil]

I know I've come late to this thread, but let me see if I can catch up.

 

I'm voting for McCain because he will make the tax cuts that Bush did permanent. When you have more money in your pocket you have more money to spend. You can use it to buy more and overall that stimulates the economy.

Oboma wants to tax those that make more than 150 thousand a year. It sounds more than it is when you talk about gas prices being so high. Also the cost of living, and house ownership is high. 150 thousand is actually the new mid class income. 200 thousand slightly above mid clas.

 

Simply because you are successful in this system of capitalism and in life is no reason to punish you for working hard. We live in a free country where we are free to persue self determinatin.

 

If you feel jelous that someone has more then get out there and work. If you have to live out of your car do it. Make more to get an appartment. Work. Freedome doesn't mean a hand out. It means free to live as poor or as rich as "you" strive to be.

 

Oboma is wrong when he says McCain wants to give a tax break to the wealthyest 1 percent. McCain has said he wants to give "everyone" the bush tax cuts.

 

Oboma wants to retreat from Iraq. Or as he puts it redeploy elsewhere. Most Americans by most polls show that we when we go into a war want to fight to win. The majority of us do not want our troops to be in arms way. But if they are we should support them.

 

You can support your troops and still disagree with a war. Infact just this week I heard on the radio that Anbar provence we plan to Sep 1st had over complete control to the Iraqies. No news is good news as they say. Meaning you didn't hear this on the public news channels.

 

It's not Veitnam. Were winning. McCain is for us finishing in Iraq. Oboma is for leaving. We are doing so well there that the Iraq government is starting to talk about us leaving. This is not a typical war. It's a gorila type warefare. Not a conventinal war like WWII where you were fighting a true army. So comparing it to WWII that it's taken longeris not an appropriate comparison.

 

We went into Iraq because Saddam disobayed the cease fire. This may be news to some of you, but the Gulf War never ended. Saddam agreed to surrender. We said okey Saddam we'll stop beating the snot out of you if you A get out of Kuwait, and B let inspectors in.

 

The inspectors were to make sure he didn't create any new weapons that could harm his neighbors. Meaning to prevent another Kuwait type situation. For a time he agreed. Then Saddam would drag his feet saying we can't go here or there yet. They would make our inspctors wait and stall us. Maybe Saddam's guys were moving weapons out and hiding them, or maybe he was just being a jerk.

 

So one time our inspectors say you better let us in. We get kicked out. We then say Saddam your violating the cease fire agreement we made. Saddam is like no you can't come in.

 

We then impose sanctions. Still no you can't come in. We pass 14 resolutions. Which are basically warnings saying Saddam you better let us in or we are coming in. Then we invaded.

 

9/11 simply escalated this. We were going in anyway. We didn't go in immediatly because Clinton cared more about his popularity than making the unpopular decision. All he did was send over some cruise missiles sending Saddam back a couple years.

 

Again maybe he had weapons, or maybe he didn't. Doesn't matter though. Saddam already had proven to be untrustworthy.

 

Think of it this way. Your child brings to school a knife that he had in his room and threatens another child. We take the knife away. We say to the child we are going to be coming into their room to make sure they have no more knives. For a while the child agrees. Then they don't want to. You punish them. Still no you can't come in from the child. Then we come into the child's room that he had locked. Same thing. An untrustworthy individual that wasn't being forthcoming.

 

From our intel it told us what he had. All Saddam had to do is produce documentation about what thy did to destroy the weapon, take us to where he destroyed the weapon, and then we'd just check that off the list. We can test for the weapon.

 

WMD doesn't simply mean bio or nuke. It means even a simple long range missile that could strike the soil of a neighbor of Iraq. Again trying to prevent anothe Kuwait.

 

Here's how it wasn't about oil. If were after oil we would've invaded Saudi Arabia which is where we are getting oil from. We are vulnerable to the whim of those there that sell us the oil. They can ask how much they want us to pay them to get their oil. Since we reley on them. The very people that we are fighting they are jacking up the prices. If were so afte oild why haven't we drilled at home yet. It's because we listen to a few environmental extremists. McCain's running mate Paten is for us drilling in Alaska and Anwar. Had we starting drilling in Anwar back when Cliinton was in office and it was on the table to drill, but was never done. It would've only taken 10 years to start. We would'n't have this problem now if we had started back thn with gas prices.

 

Oh and if our intel on Saddam's weapons was wrong it's Clinton's fault. He doesn't like the military and our intelligence agrncies. He cut funding and chiped away at the FBI and CIA.

 

Now onto McCain's VP Govoner Paten. She alone has more executive experience than the deomocrate presidential candidate Oboma. Her approval rating in Alaska is 88 percent before her public VP announcement. Now it's over 90 percent. She can speak with experience on the oil drilling issue since Alaska is full of oil.

 

Oboma after McCain picked Paton said that McCain is putting a Mayor of a town of only 9000 a few feet away from the prsidency.

 

How foolish of a statement. She's a Govoner. That's like saying SD Nihil is an elementary student that has gotten 2 B's. I'm a College Grad.

 

Paten use to be a Mayor and is now a Govoner. Has fought corruption in even the Republican party of her state.

 

Oboma says she has no foreign experience. The only experience Oboma has had is on the campaign trail going over to Iraq or so. The facts are clear that when you look at Senator Oboma's presidential creditinals and Patens she alone has more than he does.

 

Oboma has charisma and can speak very elequently. He's good at dodging questions too, but in the end what speaks louder words or actions. Actions speak louder than words.

 

Aside from talking about redepolying and redistribution of wealth we don't know how Oboma plans to do this or that. Never in my life have I seend a man take an hour to talk about that he's going to do this and that, but never tell how he's going to do this and that.

 

I know my post is long, but please before you respond to it read it. To speak without reading what the other has said is ignorant. Not dumb, but ignorant. Ignorant meaning there's knowledge there, but you chose not to look at it.

 

I hope I've persauded some to vote for McCain. Let me know why your still voing for Oboma and I'll try to educate you some more.

[Nedak]

I'm voting for McCain because he will make the tax cuts that Bush did permanent. When you have more money in your pocket you have more money to spend. You can use it to buy more and overall that stimulates the economy.

.

 

This is what I just gathered.

 

You want McCain because you want tax cuts?

 

Is that what life is these days? Is it just based on money? What about the soldiers in Iraq who want to come home? A lot of them don't even think we should be there. How about the fact McCain wants to stay in Iraq, kill more Americans for an unjust war, and maybe even war Iran. Doesn't that sound dandy!?

 

But I'm sure money is worth more then all of those people's lives.

 

Or how about other countries starting to hate us because of our "bully" status? I bet they're just delusional as well.

 

In the long run, all the money we will be spending on war.. His tax cuts won't help.

 

EDIT: P.S There is no winning or losing when we don't even know why we're there in the first place.