McCain Vs. Obama.

[mur'phon]

Both of them are waflers.

 

Obamas tried and tested move to the centre is both expected, and, on average, it makes me like him more (his protectionism, in particular had me worried). Now, if only he could get down and dirty, he should be set for the white house. Biden as VP might provide that, for hidden amongst his jabberings are one liners worthy of a spinnmeister.

 

McCain, on the other hand, seems to have forgotten that you pander to the base during the primaries, not when you are fishing for independents. Here's to hoping the old McCain will return, even if it means breaking promises.

As for VP, in his current mood, I won't be terribly surprised if he picks Huckabee, though Romney would definitely be better suited for the job.

[Web Rider]

IIf it were Cheney, I think the country would go into riots.

 

I agree, but it is a possible outcome, if McCain continues on his campaign-long process of trying to look more like Bush. I'm actually quite fond of Huckabee, save for being such a hardcore Baptist, he's got some pretty sound ideas. Some of them are a little far out, but it's nice to see Republicans who propose real change instead of more tax breaks.

 

I don't know how accepting people will be of Romney's Mormanism, even as a VP, the religious right has been concerned primary-long over McCain's lack of religiousness compared to Bush, so I don't think a Mormon would do well to reassure them.

[Litofsky]

I agree, but it is a possible outcome, if McCain continues on his campaign-long process of trying to look more like Bush. I'm actually quite fond of Huckabee, save for being such a hardcore Baptist, he's got some pretty sound ideas. Some of them are a little far out, but it's nice to see Republicans who propose real change instead of more tax breaks.

 

Religion really doesn't play a role in elections for me. It might garner a moment of attention, but I look at their policies. As for Huckabee, I have friends who were singing his praises at school. Needless to say, I had a nice debate with them. But I digress.

 

I don't know how accepting people will be of Romney's Mormanism, even as a VP, the religious right has been concerned primary-long over McCain's lack of religiousness compared to Bush, so I don't think a Mormon would do well to reassure them.

 

I'm sure that most people will allow that to weigh in on their decision. Romney did well in the 'Red States,' where as, during the primaries, McCain took the generally 'Blue States.' So, truthfully, I'm not sure. And, really, I don't care. As long as we have a smart President, who makes decisions based on the facts, and not let their beliefs get in the way.

[mur'phon]

That won't happen before we putt a machine in charge

[Jae Onasi]

I still think Obama-Clinton would have been unbeatable, but Biden will shore up the foreign policy experience side of things.

[Rev7]

[Web Rider]

 

his choice of words is very poor, his ideas aren't bad. Military spending is wasteful and reckless, no argument there, what he did say could have been phrased a lot better.

[Totenkopf]

Typical of his type. Starry eyed idealists who don't really understand the world. Hopefully just more leftist rhetoric. Fact is, China and Russia (and anyone else) aren't going to just disarm b/c BO would like them too. Space WILL be weaponized (if it hasn't secretly been already) regardless of Obama's naivete`. Nothing wrong with cleaning up wasteful spending, but we already had 8 years of Clinton wrecking the defense budget and don't need 4-8 more of someone like BO picking up where he left off. Hopefully Biden will have enough sense to explain to him that the other side isn't going to be nice and cooperative just b/c you ask. Not counting on it though.

 

Barack Obama has displayed extraordinary leadership in many ways.

 

How so?

[Rev7]

Typical of his type. Starry eyed idealists who don't really understand the world. Hopefully just more leftist rhetoric. Fact is, China and Russia (and anyone else) aren't going to just disarm b/c BO would like them too. Space WILL be weaponized (if it hasn't secretly been already) regardless of Obama's naivete`. Nothing wrong with cleaning up wasteful spending, but we already had 8 years of Clinton wrecking the defense budget and don't need 4-8 more of someone like BO picking up where he left off. Hopefully Biden will have enough sense to explain to him that the other side isn't going to be nice and cooperative just b/c you ask. Not counting on it though.

I totally agree.

[mimartin]

Nothing wrong with cleaning up wasteful spending, but we already had 8 years of Clinton wrecking the defense budget and don't need 4-8 more of someone like BO picking up where he left off.

Ask yourself honestly answer this question. You do not have to reply because I already know the answer. Is the American Military in better shape today than it was 8 years ago?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Ask yourself honestly answer this question. You do not have to reply because I already know the answer. Is the American Military in better shape today than it was 8 years ago?

agreein wit dis

 

You may bitch and moan about Obama reducing the defense budget, but right now most of our defense budget is fluff that goes to stupid bull****. He could reduce the budget by quite a bit and still ending up spending the same about or even more on actual defense.

[Totenkopf]

@mimartin--the flipside of your equation is what shape would the military be in if Clinton hadn't gutted it to perform his "economic miracle" ( ). No doubt Shinseki and Powell's vision of overwhelming force would have made for a different situation in Iraq.

 

@Jmac--that's pretty much true of most govt spending. There's a lot of fat, duplication and waste in every unnecessary social program as well (at all levels of govt, no less). Your conclusion that the budget could be trimmed significantly and still buy a lot of "actual defense" is dubiuos.* Perhaps you can elaborate. I suppose if we went back to the draft we could significantly reduce personell expenditures (~66% or so of peacetime budgets). Seriously doubt any of his "savings" would end up being spent on anything other than boondoggles like Steven's "bridge to nowhere"/ Murtha's train museum or any other pork (either side of aisle) you can think of.

 

*frankly, I think more money could be spent on spare parts, extra ammo and extra training than some of the gold plated disasters (like the DIVAD) that have been indulged.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

@Jmac--that's pretty much true of most govt spending. There's a lot of fat, duplication and waste in every unnecessary social program as well (at all levels of govt, no less). Your conclusion that the budget could be trimmed significantly and still buy a lot of "actual defense" is dubiuos.* Perhaps you can elaborate. I suppose if we went back to the draft we could significantly reduce personell expenditures (~66% or so of peacetime budgets). Seriously doubt any of his "savings" would end up being spent on anything other than boondoggles like Steven's "bridge to nowhere"/ Murtha's train museum or any other pork (either side of aisle) you can think of.

So your solution to the problem is to just throw more money at it?

[Litofsky]

Ask yourself honestly answer this question. You do not have to reply because I already know the answer. Is the American Military in better shape today than it was 8 years ago?

 

Quoted for truth.

 

Obama may want to reduce the defense budget, but I recall that Clinton did the same a decade ago. Perhaps because we don't need to spend billions and billions on the military? Imagine things that could be fixed if the defense budget was cut by even five or ten percent!

 

Now, I know that we have many enemies in the world (I have a feeling Bush didn't help with that, either) and that keeping a strong military is important. But when a society reaches a point in time when their spending on the military is higher than social projects, you know that they're in trouble.

[mimartin]

No doubt Shinseki and Powell's vision of overwhelming force would have made for a different situation in Iraq.

 

For some reason, I thought Donald Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks made the decision about troop strength sent to Iraq, I did not know Clinton was involved in that decision.

[Arcesious]

If Mccain picks Romney as VP, his chances of winning might become greater than Obama's... And if that happens... Hope for America will be lost. Romney may be 'good' with economics and all, but these Republican policies just don't work.

 

And my parents still want to vote for Mccain, despite that fact that I've explained that Obama's plans would help the middle class considerably, and Mccain's plans just don't add up to a positive amount of money.

 

Mccain wants to keep fighting in the middle east...

 

"Old men wage wars- it's the young who suffer."

 

Plus, Earth is the only planet we've got. Let's not destroy it over stupid prejudices, and agendas. Carl Sagan makes it quite clear:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

[Da_Man_2423]

If Mccain picks Romney as VP, his chances of winning might become greater than Obama's... And if that happens... Hope for America will be lost. Romney may be 'good' with economics and all, but these Republican policies just don't work.

 

Aren't you being a bit overdramatic? Clearly Republican policies have been working if they're getting into office. Bribery perhaps?

 

 

And my parents still want to vote for Mccain, despite that fact that I've explained that Obama's plans would help the middle class considerably, and Mccain's plans just don't add up to a positive amount of money.

 

Plans look good when people can explain how they work from their mouths. Situations change in a heartbeat on a global scale.

 

Mccain wants to keep fighting in the middle east...

 

Not a lot of people left for him to fight in Iraq, except Iran I guess. Afghanistan is a bit to the east.

 

 

"Old men wage wars- it's the young who suffer."

 

Isn't that a quote from Call of Duty?

 

Plus, Earth is the only planet we've got. Let's not destroy it over stupid prejudices, and agendas. Carl Sagan makes it quite clear:

 

Now that's just not true. We have several other planets that need messing up before we become extinct.

[mur'phon]

If Mccain picks Romney as VP, his chances of winning might become greater than Obama's... And if that happens... Hope for America will be lost. Romney may be 'good' with economics and all, but these Republican policies just don't work.

 

Really? None of them? Please elaborate.

 

And my parents still want to vote for Mccain, despite that fact that I've explained that Obama's plans would help the middle class considerably, and Mccain's plans just don't add up to a positive amount of money.

 

What do you mean by "positive amount of money". Do you mean a budget surplus?

 

Mccain wants to keep fighting in the middle east...

 

So does Obama

 

Plus, Earth is the only planet we've got. Let's not destroy it over stupid prejudices, and agendas.

 

Prejudices, eh? Thread carefully here Arc.

[Arcesious]

Aren't you being a bit overdramatic? Clearly Republican policies have been working if they're getting into office. Bribery perhaps?

 

Sure... Policies that are dishonest, inefficient, and bigoted.

 

Plans look good when people can explain how they work from their mouths. Situations change in a heartbeat on a global scale.

 

Sure, situations can change. But do people change to changing situations?

Times have changed, and the Republican Party has not changed. Their ways are old, innefficient, and not up to par with the current time. The thing I like about Obama's plan is that perhaps it can show the world that we can change, and that we can get the job done IF we work together.

If letting down our guard a little to fix things gives idiots an opportunity to strike, then I don't care.

 

At least that would mean that at least some of humanity didn't lower themselves to that level before 'doomsday'. I would mean that at least we, as a race, went out trying to do the right thing, instead of fighting and hoping for some huge stroke of good luck or some invisible dude in the sky to fix everything for us. At least it would mean that we were on the right track.

 

If I die for trying to make progress- for beleiving that humanity was not circling the drain- then that worries me. That we're so blind-sighted not to see that we can live in peace- that we can make progress- that's what saddens me.

 

It can be done. We can overcome our crutches and prejudices. And if beleiving we can gives others the opportunity to take advantage of our trying to do something about the issues- then that only makes it more imperative that something different must be done.

 

Not a lot of people left for him to fight in Iraq, except Iran I guess. Afghanistan is a bit to the east.

 

Mccain's got a whole world left to fight if he wants to.... I bet Asia and Europe are on his 'to do' list. (Jk, but you get my point.)

 

Isn't that a quote from Call of Duty?

 

As for the quote.... I didn't know where it came from, but I had heard it before. If it came from Call of Duty, that doesn't make any difference. It's meaning is still valid.

 

Now that's just not true. We have several other planets that need messing up before we become extinct.

 

Oh sure, like we even have the resources to start over on another planet at this time. We'll wipe ourselves out if we try to colonize another planet before we restabilize ourselves. There's planets out there will potential to harbor life, yes, but that doesn't make it right to not try to fix our home planet. We must face the issues before us- and do the right thing. I want to do what works- what makes sense. Think about the next generation after you. What future are we making for those who will live 2050 and 2100? Let's do the right thing for a change. Let's 'think before we think'.

 

Really? None of them? Please elaborate.

 

You are correct. Some of them do work. A lot of things done by Republicans have been useful improvements. Cutting taxes and spending more on the military does not work. When military spending costs more than social and commercial services- then there's something wrong. Resiticting the rights of others due to religious prejudice- that doesn't work either. Spending more than we make doesn't work either. Did you know that, in seven US states, you can only hold office if you're religious? There's a lot more than that.

 

There are a lot of bigoted, unconstitutional laws. When I hand a store employee a dollar or a quarter, do you know what it says on it? "In God we trust." What do you think the 25 Million Americans who aren't religious think about that? Although, I also find it bigoted that Great Britian is insensitive enough to have Charles Darwin on their currency...

 

What do you mean by "positive amount of money". Do you mean a budget surplus?

Yes, perhaps. Either that or a stable, well flowing budjet that can go with the flow with the rest of the world economy and still stay afloat.

 

So does Obama

True, but at least he wants to end the conflict and start diplomacy again ASAP.

 

Prejudices, eh? Thread carefully here Arc.

 

I guess I have my own 'prejudices' too. But I'm ready to defend them reasonably.

[Web Rider]

Mccain's got a whole world left to fight if he wants to.... I bet Asia and Europe are on his 'to do' list. (Jk, but you get my point.)

 

I don't recall if it was expressed here by myself or someone else, or somewhere else, but it was McCain's eagerness that showed through when talk of doing something militarily about Russia came to his doorstep is rather frightening.

 

I will never elect somebody who is eager to go to war with Russia. Underestimation of Russia has been the downfall of every invader of their country. I would rather assume a fight with them would be folly than bet on victory.

[Gargoyle King]

Mccain's got a whole world left to fight if he wants to.... I bet Asia and Europe are on his 'to do' list.

Could try i suppose, wouldn't get too far though.

 

Now i'm British, but personally i would like Obama to become the next President. Not because of the whole "Ohh a Black President, how revolutionary!" thing but because i feel he's the better candidate.

[mur'phon]

Sure, situations can change. But do people change to changing situations?

Times have changed, and the Republican Party has not changed. Their ways are old, innefficient, and not up to par with the current time.

 

Please tell me their goals, why they are innefficent in achieving them, and why the alternative(s) would be better. And who get to decide what is "up to par with the current time"?

 

At least that would mean that at least some of humanity didn't lower themselves to that level before 'doomsday'. I would mean that at least we, as a race, went out trying to do the right thing, instead of fighting and hoping for some huge stroke of good luck or some invisible dude in the sky to fix everything for us. At least it would mean that we were on the right track.

 

Three questions: What is "that level"? And what is the "right thing", and how do we know it is?

 

If I die for trying to make progress- for beleiving that humanity was not circling the drain- then that worries me. That we're so blind-sighted not to see that we can live in peace- that we can make progress- that's what saddens me.

 

Don't worry, don't stick your neck out, and it won't get chopped.

 

It can be done. We can overcome our crutches and prejudices. And if beleiving we can gives others the opportunity to take advantage of our trying to do something about the issues- then that only makes it more imperative that something different must be done.

 

History says your odds aren't good, but whatever floats your boat, as long as it floats the boats it'll affect.

 

Mccain's got a whole world left to fight if he wants to.... I bet Asia and Europe are on his 'to do' list. (Jk, but you get my point.)

 

Not entierly joking, if Russia goes back to bullying, he'll get a nice list of possible countries to defend, which I hope he does.

 

Cutting taxes and spending more on the military does not work.

 

Determine the goals you are trying to acheive, then say they don't work. Both tax cuts, and increased military spending can work in certain situations, and while it might not be good to do it right now, the situation might well change.

 

Resiticting the rights of others due to religious prejudice- that doesn't work either. Spending more than we make doesn't work either. Did you know that, in seven US states, you can only hold office if you're religious? There's a lot more than that.

 

While I agree with you, this sounds more like a state issue. (Granted, it applies to the reps there, and I asked for it.)

 

There are a lot of bigoted, unconstitutional laws. When I hand a store employee a dollar or a quarter, do you know what it says on it? "In God we trust." What do you think the 25 Million Americans who aren't religious think about that?

 

The same way the more than 50% of the Norwegian population that aren't religious feel about having the head of the church on money, they don't care much. And why would they?

 

Yes, perhaps. Either that or a stable, well flowing budjet that can go with the flow with the rest of the world economy and still stay afloat.

 

"A stable, well flowing budget that can go with the flow of the rest of the world economy and still stay a float"? Nice words, mind explaining what they mean?

 

True, but at least he wants to end the conflict and start diplomacy again ASAP.

 

I don't believe McCain wants to see the conflict continuing either:)

 

I guess I have my own 'prejudices' too. But I'm ready to defend them reasonably.

 

But only those you admit having, eyh? I'll hold you to it once I get more spare time.

[Totenkopf]

@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.

 

@jmac--actually, that seems to be your solution to anything other than military spending.

 

@ litofsky--imagine what could be fixed if ALL wasteful spending ("social" and military) were eliminated period.

[El Sitherino]

@mimartin--You're forgetting one thing though, Clinton left the military too small to do anything

 

BS. All the tech we have now was developed under Clinton's control. In fact it was because of the budget structured under his administration that allowed this technology to be greatly developed. This has not only saved military funding, but it is saving lives of American troops.

 

Who's really supporting the troops, our citizens?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

@jmac--actually, that seems to be your solution to anything other than military spending.

Yeah well one would naturally come to that conclusion based on how much I post seriously in this forum.