McCain Vs. Obama.

[Web Rider]

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.

My parents, who's combined income is probably around 90k(thanks to mom bringing home the bacon at 70k), are pretty solid middle class, and you wanna know how much we got out of the Bush "tax cuts"? $1,200, give or take. We used it to pay a month's rent.

 

Yeah, we really stimulated the economy. /sarcasm

 

Obama 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 class

$150 is not the new middle class income. It's still very high upper middle class. $200k(which my aunt alone makes) can allow her to rent a home, put her daughter through Berkley, pay $1000+ monthy child support, and a number of other things. She lives a very comfortable lifestyle, something most middle class people still see as the "american dream".

 

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.

You know what's funny? My aunt works for the state. Tax cuts have hampered my education, yet employees in her field continue to get raises. Hmmm, at least tax and spend makes sense. Taxing makes the government money, then it spends that money. Lowering taxes and spending seems to FAIL at the logic that in order to spend, you need money, spending more with less income does not work. That's why we're so indebted to China atm.

 

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.

Would you like a pulpit to go with that soapbox?

 

Obama 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.

Okay, I've corrected it twice, it's Obama O-B-A-M-A. And lets see, considering that my family is solid middle class, and at making almost 100k a year we only got 1200 back, that means that most of the country would get squat.

 

Obama 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 harms way. But if they are we should support them.

So, we should support people we don't want in harms way by putting them in the way of more harm? That doesn't make sense. Also: we need to start withdrawing for the good of the Iraqi's, they need to start running their country now. We also need to refocus. Where's Bin Laden? You know, the mastermind of 9/11? Or did we forget 9/11 was his doing? And it's Obama, with an "A" after the "B".

 

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.

Yes, and once we hand it over, we need to start leaving.

 

It's not Vietnam. Were winning. McCain is for us finishing in Iraq. Obama 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 warfare. Not a conventional war like WWII where you were fighting a true army. So comparing it to WWII that it's taken longer is not an appropriate comparison.

yes, a war like Vietnam, where we didn't know where our enemy was and we weren't sure if our friends were our enemies or not. I agree that a WWII comparason is wrong. And maybe, if their government is talking about us leaving, maybe we should do so.

 

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

Um, Saddam didn't attack any other countries.

 

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.

Hey, Putin's a jerk too! Lets attack Russia! Oh, Sarkozky is a jerk too, damn Frenchie, lets attack France too! And Hugo Chavez! Now there's a jerk, lets attack him too.

 

Face it, you don't attack countries 'cause their leader is a jerk. Bush is a jerk to a lot of people, under your logic, most of the world would be OK to attack us.

 

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.

That would be an agreement made through the UN, and action taken against Saddam should be done THROUGH THE UN.

 

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.

Yeah, 'cause passing resolutions in your own country really make other leaders give a ****.

 

9/11 simply escalated this. We were going in anyway. We didn't go in immediately 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.

Maybe 'cause, here's a surprise, Saddam used to be out puppet.

 

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

gawd I hate people like you. You think everyone should just kiss America's ass. jeeze, every heard of national sovereignty? It means a country can make it's own decisions, they don't have the OK with the US.

 

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.

SOVEREINGTY! Jeeze, would you like the UN telling the US what to do? no? I didn't think so. What gives the US the right to tell everyone else what to do? And don't say "might gives us the right" because Russia and China might want to take you to par with that.

 

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.

Okay, why are you giving us a play-by-play replay of how we went into Iraq? This is about McCain and Obama. There will be no Iraq discussion from here on out.

 

Now onto McCain's VP Governor Palin. She alone has more executive experience than the Democrat presidential candidate Obama. 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.

Okay, I'm going to ask: are you dyslexic? It's "Governor" "Palin" and "Obama" and "democrat". Lol, so is California. I guess Arnie should get the VP spot if he was native born.

 

Obama after McCain picked Palin said that McCain is putting a Mayor of a town of only 9000 a few feet away from the presidency.

"Obama" "Palin" "presidency". And he is correct.

 

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

She WAS mayor of a tiny town of about 8000. Of course, since you don't even know her name, or Obama's, I wouldn't expect you to know this.

 

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

Yes and?

 

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

lolwut? Palin has no foreign experience, Obama has no foreign experience. This puts them ON THE SAME LEVEL. It does not make Palin sit higher.

 

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

You know that about 6 years ago McCain supported things like abortion rights? Equality for gays? And not letting his party be run by "agents of intolerance" like the religious right? I'd say McCain's actions of dropping all the things he believed in to get the love of the religious right speak louder than his previous words.

 

Aside from talking about redeploying and redistribution of wealth we don't know how Obama 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.

then you don't watch enough politics. Which doesn't surprise me considering McCain and Saddam are the only names you've spelled right so far.

 

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 persuaded some to vote for McCain. Let me know why your still voting for Obama and I'll try to educate you some more.

hahahaha, man, that's funny. You can't spell most of the people's names you're talking about, you've spelled "Palin" as "Paton" and "Paten" and consistently spelled Obama's name wrong. You've wandered from a discussion about the candidates into a play-by-play of Iraq. Speaking of ignorance, you've shown a great deal of it.

 

You've only persuaded me that I am right to side against people like you who would vote for McCain.

[Corinthian]

Okay, just going to say one thing.

 

The U.N. can't tell the U.S. what to do - the United Nations is a powerless entity that doesn't do jack squat. Whereas the United States, love it or hate it, is one of the most powerful nations on the face of Earth, militarily, with a pretty significant economy, recession or no, and a LOT of nukes.

[Web Rider]

Okay, just going to say one thing.

 

The U.N. can't tell the U.S. what to do - the United Nations is a powerless entity that doesn't do jack squat. Whereas the United States, love it or hate it, is one of the most powerful nations on the face of Earth, militarily, with a pretty significant economy, recession or no, and a LOT of nukes.

 

So might makes right? So it's OK for Russia to conquer Georgia if nobody feels like stopping them? After all Russia is one of the most powerful nations on the earth.

[Corinthian]

Of course Might Makes Right. What world do you think you're living on? This isn't Paradise, this is Earth. The world doesn't care about what's right or wrong, only about what is beneficial. If Russia had really tried to conquer Georgia, nobody would have stepped in unless they either feared that Russian territorial ambitions would eventually effect them, or they decided they wanted a piece of the Georgian pie.

[Astor]

Maybe 'cause, here's a surprise, Saddam used to be out puppet.[/Quote]

 

Yeah, it was only around 25 years ago that we (the UK and the US, and France, too) were selling arms to Iraq at a discounted rate so they could fight Iran. Back then Saddam was a freedom fighter, bravely facing the oppression of a larger country.

 

Perceptions change over time. I seem to remember that Bush was being hailed in 2001 for steering the country through a difficult and harrowing time. Now, you'd think he's the most hated man in the world.

 

You think everyone should just kiss America's ass. jeeze, every heard of national sovereignty? It means a country can make it's own decisions, they don't have the OK with the US.[/Quote]

 

"Ummm, excuse me, America? Can I go play with my new warplanes?"

[Web Rider]

Of course Might Makes Right. What world do you think you're living on? This isn't Paradise, this is Earth. The world doesn't care about what's right or wrong, only about what is beneficial. If Russia had really tried to conquer Georgia, nobody would have stepped in unless they either feared that Russian territorial ambitions would eventually effect them, or they decided they wanted a piece of the Georgian pie.

 

Okay, remind me to tell you to suck it when you get beat up next time.

 

And you know why we're still in a world like that? Because people like who who are too ignorant to think there's any other way to do things keep promoting it.

[Corinthian]

I don't get beat up often, and when I do, I suck it down on my own. Thanks anyway.

 

No, we're still in a world like that because we're an inherently evil and violent race. It's not that I'm ignorant - it's that you're naive, and I'm a cynic.

[Nedak]

No, we're still in a world like that because we're an inherently evil and violent race. It's not that I'm ignorant - it's that you're naive, and I'm a cynic.

 

No, not all humans are evil. A large portion, yes. But not all.

 

Sadist..

[Corinthian]

Maybe not all of us, but we have a natural tendency towards it. I believe the technical term is 'Original Sin'.

[Nedak]

Maybe not all of us, but we have a natural tendency towards it. I believe the technical term is 'Original Sin'.

 

Don't get me started with the religion bull****.

 

If you're going to hide behind Original Sin go ahead.

 

I just hope when/if McCain is elected you don't get drafted.

[Web Rider]

No, we're still in a world like that because we're an inherently evil and violent race. It's not that I'm ignorant - it's that you're naive, and I'm a cynic.

 

No, you're just ignorant, you choose to look only at the evil in mankind instead of the good and assume that's all we're capable of.

 

Maybe not all of us, but we have a natural tendency towards it. I believe the technical term is 'Original Sin'.

 

The "technical term" is "load of BS". We are only what we choose to be. Nothing more, nothing less. People are evil because of the choices they made, people are good because of the choices they make.

 

I'm not naive, I'm giving humanity the benefit of the doubt and look at what's good in people instead of assuming the worst in them.

[Corinthian]

I'm willing to take that chance. And I'd prefer it if you did not refer to my religion as 'Bull***'. I much prefer 'Christ Crap'. And it's not 'hiding behind'. Sin is not exactly something one hides behind. That's like hiding behind a SADM that's counting down from ten.

 

EDIT: What makes you think we're capable of much more? The world is a ticking time bomb, the U.N. is a failure, and the only reason we haven't had anybody try to dominate the world in the past sixty-three years is because of all the bloody nukes.

 

As for that LAUGHABLE suggestion that we are what we choose to be, you're missing stuff that isn't even metaphysical. It's called PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS.

[Nedak]

I'm willing to take that chance. And I'd prefer it if you did not refer to my religion as 'Bull***'. I much prefer 'Christ Crap'. And it's not 'hiding behind'. Sin is not exactly something one hides behind.

No, you're using the excuse of us all having "Original Sin" as an excusable reason for people's actions.

 

EDIT: What makes you think we're capable of much more? The world is a ticking time bomb, the U.N. is a failure, and the only reason we haven't had anybody try to dominate the world in the past sixty-three years is because of all the bloody nukes.

 

Why do you use those in power as the basis of all humanity? Most people don't want to rule the world, most people don't want to kill hurt other people or living animals. Of course we're capable of much more.

[Corinthian]

Because those in power have power because the people let them have power, even in a non-democratic society. Regicide is a MAGNIFICENT cure for lunatic Kings. Maybe most people don't want to rule the world, but that's a simple matter of pragmatism. But I'm not talking about human ambition, although that's certainly a massive force, I'm talking about human cruelty.

 

I'm aware that humans are capable of a great deal, but the fact remains that we tend towards Evil. If humanity really weren't an evil race, why haven't we changed at all in the past ten, twenty, fifty thousand years? To quote a certain game, "War Never Changes." It seems pretty accurate to me. If we really didn't have a tendency to Evil, why is it that World Peace is quite obviously unattainable? Why is it that petty dictators crop up EVERYWHERE?

 

Can anyone prove me wrong?

[Web Rider]

I'm willing to take that chance. And I'd prefer it if you did not refer to my religion as 'Bull***'. I much prefer 'Christ Crap'. And it's not 'hiding behind'. Sin is not exactly something one hides behind. That's like hiding behind a SADM that's counting down from ten.

Maybe when you're done using it as a crutch and a shield to hide from reality and avoid thinking for yourself.

 

EDIT: What makes you think we're capable of much more? The world is a ticking time bomb, the U.N. is a failure, and the only reason we haven't had anybody try to dominate the world in the past sixty-three years is because of all the bloody nukes.

Maybe nobody wants to. Ever think that people can change? I doubt it even crossed your mind.

 

As for that LAUGHABLE suggestion that we are what we choose to be, you're missing stuff that isn't even metaphysical. It's called PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS.

lolwut? I've been talking about the psychological choices we make, and "conditions" what "conditions"? Everyone is different, do you mean to tell me that everyone's brain works the same way and we're all just waiting for a chance to kill everyone?

 

I'm aware that humans are capable of a great deal, but the fact remains that we tend towards Evil. If humanity really weren't an evil race, why haven't we changed at all in the past ten, twenty, fifty thousand years? To quote a certain game, "War Never Changes." It seems pretty accurate to me. If we really didn't have a tendency to Evil, why is it that World Peace is quite obviously unattainable? Why is it that petty dictators crop up EVERYWHERE?

people aren't perfect, we never have been, and we never will be. We don't always learn the lessons we should. If imperfection is evil, then it's no wonder humanity can never be good, because perfection for an imperfect creature is IMPOSSIBLE.

[Corinthian]

Since I'm on a roll, I'll quote another game. What can change the nature of a man? Of course I've considered that humans might be able to change. Then I took a look at the world and realized that we were taking our sweet bloody time.

 

*Sigh* Since you apparently lack a basic education about psychology even from cultural osmosis...perhaps we can start with a little Love of Death, But you should probably remember that talking about it can help...

 

I could go on.

 

Imperfection isn't evil. It's natural. But the fact remains that we aren't moving at all. We're proceeding on a steady linear course, advancing technologically but not sociologically.

 

Show me something. Show me an example of humanity as a race improving (Gandhi doesn't count, because he was one man.). Show me how we've changed since Babylon. Or since the Roman Empire. Or since Nazi Germany.

[Web Rider]

Show me something. Show me an example of humanity as a race improving (Gandhi doesn't count, because he was one man.). Show me how we've changed since Babylon. Or since the Roman Empire. Or since Nazi Germany.

Where, exactly? Humanity cannot be judged as a whole. Some places are more improved than others. I'm not going to sit here and say: "in Canada they have great health care." and have you counter with "well in Saudi Arabia women are property!"

 

And that "one man" made more difference in the world than a dozen wars.

[Corinthian]

Thank you, Rider, for making my point for me.

[Nedak]

Because those in power have power because the people let them have power

 

Record everything a politician says and then listen to it again. You will notice that they dodge questions, they change their opinions to confuse and appease people, and they hide all bad motives.

 

As a normal citizen you get confused. You don't know what to believe because of everything being jammed into your head at once.

 

Every voter has had good intentions, most are just uninformed.

[Corinthian]

Voter? I'm not talking about an election, I'm talking about revolution.

[Web Rider]

Voter? I'm not talking about an election, I'm talking about revolution.

 

No, you're just saying random things with not even the slightest casual relation to each other because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Corinthian]

Feisty. It's a good thing I don't take this seriously.

 

Really, Web Rider, you're one of the worst debaters I've seen in some time. I give you some credit, you never actually drop to ad hominem, you just never go to the effort of actually challenging what I say with anything more than emotional response.

[Nedak]

Voter? I'm not talking about an election, I'm talking about revolution.

 

How easy would you say it is to revolt against one of the most powerful governments in the world?

 

Also, how easy would you say it would be to assemble that many people?

 

My point could be made for either an election or a revolution. They don't know what to do. Why would they have a revolution if it seems like everything will be okay? Things keep failing but the government constantly gives more things to us to make us happy.

 

HERE, go watch more TV don't worry about the world.

 

It's not just the people, sir. It's bigger then that.

[Corinthian]

*Snort* Yeah, a bunch of under-trained, poorly-equipped, and outnumbered civilians could never defeat the army of the greatest empire in the world, could they?

 

Oh.

 

Wait.

 

But frankly, we're digressing from my original point, which is that humanity has a tendency towards Evil, not anything about rebellion or revolution.

[Web Rider]

Feisty. It's a good thing I don't take this seriously.

 

Really, Web Rider, you're one of the worst debaters I've seen in some time. I give you some credit, you never actually drop to ad hominem, you just never go to the effort of actually challenging what I say with anything more than emotional response.

 

It's the most logical choice. I am more likly to win a debate by appealing to emotion than to actually put forth facts. Although Ironically, that is a fact.

 

It's also because the basis for your argument is "original sin" and that humanity is "inherently evil" two things derived from religion, and religion is one big emotional argument. It appeals to the non-rational parts of your brain with scares of fire and damnation and rewards of pleasure and paradise. Those are emotional arguments if I've ever seen one.

 

Furthermore, you are attempting to judge humanity as a collective whole. Humanity is not a collective whole, even if we all share the same basic genes. Because of this, humanity cannot be judged as a whole, societies here and societies there do not progress at the same rates, at the same times, because they are not exposed to the same stimuli.

 

Even if they were, no two people can experience the same stimuli in the same manner. A person on each side of a road will see the red car going south differently. And it will have a different impact on each of them.

 

Western society has made great leaps in terms of where it was, we no longer do things like the Spanish Inquisition, and killing people for a different religion has been reduced to a very low number. We no longer enslave people because they are a different color, and violence and hate against them has dropped from a societal norm to a societal taboo. Women are no longer property and are almost equal with men in many areas. At the same time, more men are being seen as acceptable persons to take the roles normally assigned to women, such as caregivers and child-rearers.

 

Yet you sit there on your white horse and look down on the whole of humanity for the wrongs of a few. You refuse to see the good a person or people do and belittle one of the greatest do-gooders of history to "just one man". Ghandi did great things for people, greater things than many will ever hope to do. And because of what he did, more people are able to be happy, free and do good themselves.

 

You're religious, yet you insist on playing God and judging people. Why don't you remove the blinders from your eyes and realize that there is a LOT of good in humanity. Simply because there are a few problems does not mean that society is inherently evil, deeply desires to do wrong, or psychopathic necrophiliacs.

 

You frustrate me to no end with your constant blathering about how horrible society is because some of it isn't improving. We are leaps and bounds beyond where we were when we were Greeks, socially, technologically, and culturally. And you perpetuate the notion that we have no changed by not changing yourself. You are part of the problem you find so despicable about mankind, you hold on to old prejudices and apply them to all of humanity.

 

I do not debate with you because you provide no room for debate, you counter facts with misinformation, you decry the whole for the failure of some of it's parts. You take the extreme and claim it representative of the whole. I do not debate with you because I cannot debate with you as you provide no material to debate with and shoot down any attempt to present real facts to the contrary of your opinion as hearsay and blasphemy.

 

I'm tired and I'm annoyed and I'm angered at your continued ignorance and propaganda. If you want to debate, present some facts, some figures, some REAL HARD EVIDENCE.