Decision '08.

[El Sitherino]

Alright, since our last thread was subverted into emotional garbage we're going to try again with a clean slate here. What I'd like to see is something based on facts and no attacks without merit.

 

 

I am personally voting for Obama as I see that our economy needs a real fix, not some facade filled with tax cuts and faulty market analysis. I also feel our social concerns in this country are not being met with adequate support and strongly believe that helping the people will reduce violence around this nation. The fact remains that the more you busy people with something constructive, the less destructive they are. I'm not naive enough to believe that all our problems will be fixed, nor do I agree with a lot of things that are done in the name of bettering our society.

 

But I understand there is a reason things don't happen, people don't speak out and people don't remain patient while thinking critically and intelligently.

 

Obama is not some be all-end all politician to me, but rather I see him as a step towards fixing the nation and restoring some balance. From there others will hopefully make way to office and continue the process.

 

**** the bull****, save our future.

[GodsillY]

I'm voting for Obama because there are a lot of things that Bush has done wrong that I completely disagree with and as I understand it McCain agrees with Bush on many of these things.

 

Obama in my opinion has a great platform to build on, he can start fixing our economy and began pulling our troops out of Iraq as I don't see any need to be there in the first place.

 

I don't know much about either candidates in all honesty I usually began my real research in October, but from what I hear the best chance for the end of the war in Iraq and the beggining of a better economy lies with Obama, and honestly I don't want four more years of what we got going right now.

 

 

-SillY

[Litofsky]

Both of my parents will be voting for Obama/Biden. I can't vote until the 2012 election, but I'll still throw in my two cents.

 

I don't greatly admire Obama. He's been a senator for four years, and has served in his state's legislature. Nothing to spectacular, but nothing to ignore, either. His ideas make sense, and I enjoy hearing a candidate speaking actual sense- not more of the "tax cuts for the wealthy" we've been hearing from Bush and McCain.

 

As far as I know, Obama plans on creating a slew of new jobs corresponding with 'Green Energy' (note: I don't actually believe that he will create the five million jobs he promises, but I don't believe that he will go back on that promise entirely), wants to fix our education and healthcare systems (which is a huge task, but one I believe/hope he can accomplish), and seems to be a fairly reasonable candidate.

 

I don't know who will win, but I'm pulling for Obama. McCain is just more of Bush's failed policies, and that's just the wrong direction for our country. We need a smart, reasonable leader that is willing to adapt to the changing world.

 

Obama, for the win (literally)!

[Arcesious]

I want Obama to be president, most definitly not Mccain and that crazy Sarah Palin.

[SD Nihil]

I hope with this topic we can have a civil conversation too. But let me make it clear that if it's just a bunch of peole that already have their minds made up and are close minded all your going to do is either create an argument, or waste each other's time. Because neither side will be convincing the other.

 

Now onto the topic. McCain isn't giving tax cuts to the wealthy. He's giving it to everyone. Yes I was wrong about that 150 thousand mid income thing. Last time I ask my father for what mid income level is. I've reassesed it. Mid income is between 40 and 80 thousand.

 

Oboma wants to tax those that are rich and give cuts only to mid and lower class families. Rather than giving tax cuts to mid and lower class let's give it to everyone. You have more money in your pocket to spend when you have more.

 

When you have more money people can buy more, afford more. That brings in business. The reason why guys that right now our economy is having troubles is because not because of Bush, but because of other things.

 

First, the value of the dollar is less due to overspending. Remember that's how we beat Russia is we spent them into oblivion. Their currency lost value.

 

We spend wrongly. It's not Bush who'se over spending. It's congress. Earmarking or as others call it wasteful porkbarral spending. Wasting your tax dollars on bridges to nowhere, things like a green bean museaum, etc. That's money that could be given to you.

 

Too much outsourcing. We hardly make anything in the U.S. anymore. Much of our items are made in China or elsewhere.

 

The dollar is worth more when your economy isn't overspending, and selling out like we have.

 

Now one of you said they don't know why we are over in Iraq. Here's why.

 

It started with the Gulf War. Saddam invated Kuwaitt because he thought that country belonged to him. Kuwait asked for our help. Being the world's leader in giving money, aid, etc to others, and pulling the world out of 2 world wars we defended Kuwaitt.

 

We pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam chose to surrender. We said okay Saddam we'll stop kicking your tail if you do the following:

 

A: Get out of Kuwaitt

B: Allow inspectors in from us and the U.N. so that we can make sure you produce no more weapons that can harm your neighbors for the sake of conquest.

 

Guys wehn America goes to war it's to defend others, stop genicide, and for our sovereignty and interests. When you country is the big dog you get to make the decisions. A lot of the world hates us because they are jelous of what we've accomplished in such a short time.

 

So back to what i was saying. So for a time Saddam allows our inspectors in. Later he starts stalling not letting us in here or there. Then we say okay Saddam you must let us in where we are inspecting.

 

We get kicked out. We warn him with sanctions. He refuses to let us in. We pass a number of sanctions, still he won't let us in, Clinton boms Saddam sending him back a couple years of production. Still no you can't come in.

 

Infact Saddam startis saying we bombed things like baby formula making factories. We know what we hit were military and chemical making planets.

 

So we pass 14 resolutions which are basically warnings. Still no you can't come in. So the only thing left to do was come in and take miliary action against Saddam. By refusing to let our inspectors in he broke our cease fire agreement.

 

That's why guys the Gulf war never ended there was a cease fire agreement that had those things A and B I said. Let's say for sake of the benefit of the doubt that Saddam didn't have any weapons. Well he before proved to be untrustworthy.

 

But if he did it's easy to hide things like missiles. Remember when Humass was firing on Israil. Those things they were figring were very mobile, but could reach another countries soil. By that alone makes them a WMD. It doesn't have to be a nuke or chemical weapon to be a WMD. It can simply be a long range missile that hits another country.

 

That's what we were trying to make sure Saddam didn't have. Things that could harm or effect his neighbors because we were trying to prevent another Kuwaitt.

 

All Saddam had to do was show us where he destroyed the weapon we can test for it, he has to provide documtation of how he destroyed the weapon, and then we =just check it off our list.

 

And even if you intel was inacurate doesn't change the fact Saddam broke the cease fire agreement we had. If our intel waws faulty it was Clinton's fault.

 

During Clinton's presidency he did a lot to tear down our intelligence agencies and our reduced the size of our military, and lessoned funding for them.

 

We were planning to go into Iraq anyway when Bush took office. It just wasn't the top priority until 9/11 After 9/11 any state that harbored terrorists we would go after. It doesn't mean miliarily. Maybe sometimes negociations, or sanctions. Every situation and country requires a different approach.

 

We went into Afganistan because they the Taliban the people in power were who attacked us. That's as good as a declaration of war. Iraq broke an agreement and we did everything to prevent the last resort. But we had to go in. We America have taken it onto ourselves to defend others and to fight oppression.

 

Now yes there are terrorists in Pakistan and maybe Bin Laden. But you have to again do everything you can before takng miliary action. Besides they have nuclear weapons. That even more makes us not want to go in. Plus their government isn't hostile to us. It's just the terrorists they have inside their country.

 

Russia the last thing we want to do is go after them with force. They are just as stron if not more than us. We can't fight them right now because we would possibily lose. That's why you got to get other nations on your sie so that Russia sees this larger force saying back off or we will take you down. You also make sanctions against them. In short you make it not int their interest to continue their conquest for their old empire.

 

And yes politics and relations with this country and that play a part too.

 

Now the other reason why our economy is not doing so well is oil. Yes there are alternatives down the road to drilling, but for right now we need to drill at home. Yes thre may be a couple alternatives to do besides oil, but your congress wants to play politics with America's energy crisis and not do anything. Plus they wish to listen to a few environmental extremeists who won't allow a single alternative to be done because of the tiniest little thing like this or that not being bio degradable.

 

If you are so reliant on foreign oil we are to the whim of thsoe selling us it. They know we need oil so they know we'll pay whatever. So they jack up the prices too.

 

If invading Iraq was all about oil then why if you are so oil mad did we not invade Saudi Arabia. We don't because we aren't all after oil. Yes we need it, but we don't attack others for it.

 

Heck Anwar has oil, but we don't drill there because we listen to enviromental extremeists that we can't drill there.

 

There are clean ways that yes cost more, but we are willing to do it to still be enviromentally minded and still harvest the oil here.

 

McCain's VP is an Alaskan Govoner who has executive experience which Oboma doesn't have. She's also a mayor. When you a govoner when your handed somethign on your desk you have to take care of it then. If it works or fails it's your fault either way. Senators can let their people handle stuff and don't have to respond and can be real slow if tehy want.

 

McCain's VP had before her announcment her approval rating was in the high 89's. Now it's in the 90's. She can speak first hand about her state and all the oil it has because she is the govoner.

 

Oklaholma has the lowest gas prices last I heard. And Alaska has the highest gas prices. She is all for us harvesting the oil.

 

Which is more important saving a few caraboo or solving the current energy crisis. Oil is America's lifeblood or lifeline. Without it we are done.

 

Again down the road there are going to be alternative. But for right now oil is what we need.

 

If we eventuall have to go into Iran which is the last thing we want, we will continue to do what we can to hinder Iran nuke making. We by taking Iraq and Afganistan have surounded Iran with Democracy. We were wanting that to influence their people to rise up against their government. It hasn't worked sadly. Could've though.

 

The 13 colonies stood up against England the big super power back then and didn't quit.

 

So again guys it isn't Bush's fault the problems with the economy it's a congress that keeps shooting down everything he tried to pass to help the economy. They did it so they can go and say see he hasn't done anything or passed anything he's not effective. See guys congress is simply playing the politics game.

 

Both praies Republican and Democate have let us down. I would've rather had Romni as the republican nomonie, but McCain in my opinion is certinaly better than Oboma who wants to retreat from Iraq though we handed Anbar completly over to Iraqies and that the Iraq government is talking about us starting to leave becasue we have done so well.

 

It's not up to Oboma to recommend leaving. That's the job of the commanders on the ground. Not people in Washington. They sit in cooshy chairs. Soldiers win wars not politions who care more about the popular decisions and getting reelected simply to be in power.

 

We will leave Iraq soon, but only when we feel we are done.

 

Now everyone I hope this topic we can have a civil discussion this time and have open minds and actually read my whole post. If you respond without reading and say something I've already commented on that shows you didn't read that's just plain ignorant. Please read. I take the time to read your posts. Please show me the same curtacy. Thank you.

[Web Rider]

SD Nihl, please, it's "Obama" "O-B-A-M-A". You're not helping your case.

 

Personally, I don't support McCain because I don't support Republicans because Republicans stopped supporting small government. There have been more and more big government bills passed under Bush and I'm tired of it, it just makes people afraid of their government and feel like they have no control in their lives.

 

Now, that doesn't mean I like the big government of the democrats either. But if I have to choose between the big government that takes care of me when I need it and taxes me more and the big government that ensures corporate profits and institutionalizes anti-social religious policies, I'll go with the one that takes care of me and taxes me more.

 

I've also really not liked the way Bush has run the country for the last 8 years, and I did like McCain before he went all "party line", but after he became McSame I just can't support a reasonable person who I know desn't support what he's saying. And to be frank, if I know a candidate is lying to my face, it doesn't help them.

[Corinthian]

What makes you think the Democrat Party has any interest in smaller government?

[Web Rider]

What makes you think the Democrat Party has any interest in smaller government?

 

Go back, read my post, notice that I said: "Now, that doesn't mean I like the big government of the democrats either."

 

I shouldn't have to explain beyond I know the Democrats are not shooting for small government, that's why I said so in my post.

[Corinthian]

Good to know.

 

Alright, I'm going to see if I can get a decent explanation. How is higher taxes a good thing for anyone, aside from the fact that it increases Government Funds and thus allows them to do more crap? If you want smaller government, wouldn't decreasing taxes be a step toward that?

[El Sitherino]

I hope with this topic we can have a civil conversation too. But let me make it clear that if it's just a bunch of peole that already have their minds made up and are close minded all your going to do is either create an argument, or waste each other's time. Because neither side will be convincing the other.

You are not a mod, please don't act like it.

 

McCain isn't giving tax cuts to the wealthy. He's giving it to everyone. Yes I was wrong about that 150 thousand mid income thing. Last time I ask my father for what mid income level is. I've reassesed it. Mid income is between 40 and 80 thousand.

And do you know what these tax cuts do to America? They take away money it needs for it's continuous spending. We're creating a very sizable deficit and have no money to balance things out.

 

Oboma wants to tax those that are rich and give cuts only to mid and lower class families. Rather than giving tax cuts to mid and lower class let's give it to everyone. You have more money in your pocket to spend when you have more.

Obama (or likely Biden, seeing as his economic plan will likely be used in the larger scheme) recognizes that not only do we need to take in more money for the country to finance anything, but due to the effects of the Bush administration we HAVE to tax to regain stability in our economy. Not only that but we need to decrease dependency on China and other markets.

 

When you have more money people can buy more, afford more. That brings in business. The reason why guys that right now our economy is having troubles is because not because of Bush, but because of other things.

Okay, other things caused by Bush, the GOP, and financial nuts everywhere. You don't improve a national economy by giving away free money.

 

First, the value of the dollar is less due to overspending. Remember that's how we beat Russia is we spent them into oblivion. Their currency lost value.

I suggest you read an economy book. Honestly I cannot begin to explain the complexities that have caused the dollar to fall as far as it has, however I can say it's because of our weak global financial structure, not our poor ability to spend on a civilian level.

 

We spend wrongly. It's not Bush who'se over spending. It's congress. Earmarking or as others call it wasteful porkbarral spending. Wasting your tax dollars on bridges to nowhere, things like a green bean museaum, etc. That's money that could be given to you.

Oh really? It could be given to me?

I'm about to make a very objectionable statement however, if you're not 12 years old you have the intellectual capacity of one when it comes to understanding government and finance. Because of the actions made by the Bush administration things have gotten so out of hand that our spending is in complete rubbish. We have a poorly planned war that was declared by a president and his grunts, we have tax cuts being handed out to the wealthy with no payback, and no educational support.

 

Too much outsourcing. We hardly make anything in the U.S. anymore. Much of our items are made in China or elsewhere.

It's been like that for a long time pally, the fact that there's more outsourcing now is due to changes made under Republican control that took place during the Bush administration. Likely because of said administration.

Guess who gives larger slack on corporations with outsourcing? That's right, Bush does. So who's really for the American worker?

 

The dollar is worth more when your economy isn't overspending, and selling out like we have.

Right, and you do realize McCain won't get jobs back and convince companies to stop outsourcing, right? You also realize his entire idea is the exact opposite. It's the only way to make a little back with all the tax cuts, returns, and other unnecessary and harmful things.

 

Now one of you said they don't know why we are over in Iraq. Here's why.

 

It started with the Gulf War. Saddam invated Kuwaitt because he thought that country belonged to him. Kuwait asked for our help. Being the world's leader in giving money, aid, etc to others, and pulling the world out of 2 world wars we defended Kuwaitt.

 

We pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam chose to surrender. We said okay Saddam we'll stop kicking your tail if you do the following:

 

A: Get out of Kuwaitt

B: Allow inspectors in from us and the U.N. so that we can make sure you produce no more weapons that can harm your neighbors for the sake of conquest.

 

Guys wehn America goes to war it's to defend others, stop genicide, and for our sovereignty and interests. When you country is the big dog you get to make the decisions. A lot of the world hates us because they are jelous of what we've accomplished in such a short time.

 

So back to what i was saying. So for a time Saddam allows our inspectors in. Later he starts stalling not letting us in here or there. Then we say okay Saddam you must let us in where we are inspecting.

 

We get kicked out. We warn him with sanctions. He refuses to let us in. We pass a number of sanctions, still he won't let us in, Clinton boms Saddam sending him back a couple years of production. Still no you can't come in.

 

Infact Saddam startis saying we bombed things like baby formula making factories. We know what we hit were military and chemical making planets.

 

So we pass 14 resolutions which are basically warnings. Still no you can't come in. So the only thing left to do was come in and take miliary action against Saddam. By refusing to let our inspectors in he broke our cease fire agreement.

 

That's why guys the Gulf war never ended there was a cease fire agreement that had those things A and B I said. Let's say for sake of the benefit of the doubt that Saddam didn't have any weapons. Well he before proved to be untrustworthy.

Uhm, disregarding all the false claims, we didn't invade Iraq for any of that ****. We said they had weapons of mass destruction, including but not limited to chemical and nuclear capability.

 

But if he did it's easy to hide things like missiles. Remember when Humass was firing on Israil. Those things they were figring were very mobile, but could reach another countries soil. By that alone makes them a WMD. It doesn't have to be a nuke or chemical weapon to be a WMD. It can simply be a long range missile that hits another country.

First off, no it isn't. ****'s easy to find for quite a bit below the surface of the desert. Secondly, it's HAMAS, and I'm fairly certain an RPG cannot make it's way from my house in Texas to California. A ****ing nuclear missile can, however it's several dozen tons of metal and gives off a lot of heat signature and all this other cool **** that makes it 30x more "OMGWTF" than an RPG.

 

Also, yes it does have to be chemical or "nuke" to be a WMD. Because generally these words are reserved only for weapons of war which have the explicit design of mass destruction. As in larger than a vehicle or building assualt, they destroy cities and large areas.

Blast radius is the definer for weapons, whether they are WMD or just a BSU.

Also, the only **** that can go from country to country is a long range missile, generally land-to-land or air-to-land. Just because you can fire an RPG from established country lines into another doesn't make it a country-to-country attacker. It just means you're a smartass with an RPG.

 

That's what we were trying to make sure Saddam didn't have. Things that could harm or effect his neighbors because we were trying to prevent another Kuwaitt.

No, we said Saddam had them and he wasn't giving them up.

 

All Saddam had to do was show us where he destroyed the weapon we can test for it, he has to provide documtation of how he destroyed the weapon, and then we =just check it off our list.

How do you show the remains of something that didn't exist?

 

And even if you intel was inacurate doesn't change the fact Saddam broke the cease fire agreement we had. If our intel waws faulty it was Clinton's fault.

How? A, it was British intelligence accordingly. B, it was intelligence gathered and prepared by Bush administration.

In any office or workplace around the world, they would agree.

 

During Clinton's presidency he did a lot to tear down our intelligence agencies and our reduced the size of our military, and lessoned funding for them.

Right, he limited spending and decreased their budget. But guess what happened. Our intelligence improved, the combat effectiveness of our troops increased, and our military was the strongest it had been in 30 years cooperatively.

Then came George W. Bush with his ignorance of military advisors.

 

We were planning to go into Iraq anyway when Bush took office. It just wasn't the top priority until 9/11 After 9/11 any state that harbored terrorists we would go after. It doesn't mean miliarily. Maybe sometimes negociations, or sanctions. Every situation and country requires a different approach.

No we weren't and 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. If anything Saddam would be on our side of the issue, except we were douchebags and the enemy of your enemy can likely make them an ally if you also because their enemy. Which is exactly what happened, fancy that.

 

We went into Afganistan because they the Taliban the people in power were who attacked us. That's as good as a declaration of war. Iraq broke an agreement and we did everything to prevent the last resort. But we had to go in. We America have taken it onto ourselves to defend others and to fight oppression.

No offense, but you're joking right? I mean Afghanistan was a legitimate war. Iraq is a lie and a debacle created under false notions. The freeing oppressed peoples thing came way the hell after the invasion and our military was given no ability to actually help people. If you can't stand speaking with people that actually spent time in Iraq during the beginning stages you could also watch this mini-series called Generation Kill, it's about the Marine's that were a part of a recon group during the invasion. It shows the scope of what had taken place pretty well.

 

Now yes there are terrorists in Pakistan and maybe Bin Laden. But you have to again do everything you can before takng miliary action. Besides they have nuclear weapons. That even more makes us not want to go in. Plus their government isn't hostile to us. It's just the terrorists they have inside their country.

Are you ****ting me? You want to support negotiations with someone that has shown time and time again for nearly two decades that they want to see our country and countrymen dead?

**** that, we're at war and he is the enemy, to say that Osama bin Laden should be negotiated with is the complete opposite of the candidate you're attempting to even support.

 

You should probably re-evaluate your ideals and morals, sir. As well it may be best for you to think about what it is you are even arguing against, or rather who.

 

Russia the last thing we want to do is go after them with force. They are just as stron if not more than us. We can't fight them right now because we would possibily lose. That's why you got to get other nations on your sie so that Russia sees this larger force saying back off or we will take you down. You also make sanctions against them. In short you make it not int their interest to continue their conquest for their old empire.

Granted the Russian military is strong, but uh... have you ever seen what a missile from a naval ship can do? Do you know that we also have land assault that would devistate Russian military establishment?

Not to mention I think the Brits will also have something to stake with the Russians.

 

 

And yes politics and relations with this country and that play a part too.

I'm glad you can recognize that sometimes.

 

Now the other reason why our economy is not doing so well is oil. Yes there are alternatives down the road to drilling, but for right now we need to drill at home.

We already can. The oil companies want more and Bush + McCain want to give it to them.

Also, no we don't need to continue drilling. We can use the rest of our reserve and convert to alternative fuel sources. Then sell any that may be drilled or leftover for profit (or rather to pay off national debt)

 

Yes thre may be a couple alternatives to do besides oil, but your congress wants to play politics with America's energy crisis and not do anything.

Wrong, politicians want to "play politics" (isn't that what politicians do?) with America's energy crisis and insult each other instead of making actual change. And those that attempt to make actual progress are stamped out as whacko liberal nuts.

 

Plus they wish to listen to a few environmental extremeists who won't allow a single alternative to be done because of the tiniest little thing like this or that not being bio degradable.

I have no idea what you're talking about so I'm going to ask for an article or something, because "this or that" doesn't tell me a lot.

 

If you are so reliant on foreign oil we are to the whim of thsoe selling us it. They know we need oil so they know we'll pay whatever. So they jack up the prices too.

And who keeps wanting to buy from them? Who kept wanting to use oil instead of looking at alternative? This happened back in the 70's. A lot of conservatives claim Carter was a bad president, but he at least recognized that we can't continue to deal business with people that want to see us burn. But no, we need oil, we can convert to pussy enviromentalist hippie bull**** about electric cars and some automobile powered by water that can travel at least 50 mph.

Not that impressive, but considering it was the 70's, by now we could have gotten it to 120.

 

If invading Iraq was all about oil then why if you are so oil mad did we not invade Saudi Arabia. We don't because we aren't all after oil. Yes we need it, but we don't attack others for it.

Uh, because we can't. Do you know why?

All the middle east would **** us up, and the rest of the world would happily watch it happen.

Learn to geo-politic.

 

Heck Anwar has oil, but we don't drill there because we listen to enviromental extremeists that we can't drill there.

Wah. Have the oil companies use the land they already have contracted (that has yet to be tapped) before demanding more land. Especially land with many endangered animals and vegetation.

Better yet, spend that money into something worthwhile instead of **** that'll help for maybe a year. We'd save money investing in new technology.

 

There are clean ways that yes cost more, but we are willing to do it to still be enviromentally minded and still harvest the oil here.

And yet you're not willing to spend just a little more than baseline on something that is completely independent of oil operation. Funny that.

 

McCain's VP is an Alaskan Govoner who has executive experience which Oboma doesn't have. She's also a mayor. When you a govoner when your handed somethign on your desk you have to take care of it then. If it works or fails it's your fault either way. Senators can let their people handle stuff and don't have to respond and can be real slow if tehy want.

I'm sure you know all about being a Governor.

Also, she has only been Governor of Alaska for a year and a half. Before that she was a mayor for a tiny rural Alaskan town.

 

Let's put this into perspective. Essentially her executive experience amounts to her being the President of the PTA Alaska.

 

Also, if you want to claim her Gubernatorial experience trumps Obama's, then you are also stating her experience trumps McCain's. Therefore he's incompetent to take Presidential office.

 

 

McCain's VP had before her announcment her approval rating was in the high 89's. Now it's in the 90's. She can speak first hand about her state and all the oil it has because she is the govoner.

Understandable, it's pretty easy to have a high approval rating when there's not much you actually need to do and your population is as small as her's is.

I won't deny that she's done a lot to help Alaska, but she did it by taxing the big oil companies and doing stuff you McCain supporters are attacking Obama for.

 

Oklaholma has the lowest gas prices last I heard. And Alaska has the highest gas prices. She is all for us harvesting the oil.

Do you know how any of this even works?

 

Which is more important saving a few caraboo or solving the current energy crisis.

If people are smart we can do both.

Also it's Caribou, kthx.

 

Oil is America's lifeblood or lifeline. Without it we are done.

I agree, DuPont should have never had hempseed oil banned in the 30's under the marijuana laws.

Oh, you mean fossil fuel. Uh, no it's not. We've changed energy sources so many times I can't even count it on two hands.

 

Again down the road there are going to be alternative. But for right now oil is what we need.

No it's not, hell we don't need ****, we can do pretty good with just bicycles and walking.

 

If we eventuall have to go into Iran which is the last thing we want, we will continue to do what we can to hinder Iran nuke making. We by taking Iraq and Afganistan have surounded Iran with Democracy. We were wanting that to influence their people to rise up against their government. It hasn't worked sadly. Could've though.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I hope you learn that quickly.

 

The 13 colonies stood up against England the big super power back then and didn't quit.

Yeah, and uh technically the terrorists fighting in Iraq right now would be the American's.

 

So again guys it isn't Bush's fault the problems with the economy it's a congress that keeps shooting down everything he tried to pass to help the economy. They did it so they can go and say see he hasn't done anything or passed anything he's not effective. See guys congress is simply playing the politics game.

Do they also put adhesive on his toilet seat so when he goes to take a dump he gets stuck and they start laughing from the next stall, then later at the water cooler they all talk about "Man, remember when he was all like 'what the ****? Who glued me to the toilet lol!?', oh man that was priceless"?

 

Both praies Republican and Democate have let us down. I would've rather had Romni as the republican nomonie, but McCain in my opinion is certinaly better than Oboma who wants to retreat from Iraq though we handed Anbar completly over to Iraqies and that the Iraq government is talking about us starting to leave becasue we have done so well.

Obama has never stated he wants to retreat from Iraq. In fact both candidates have stated they have plans for the lessening of troops in Iraq, pulling them out of combat. The fact that Obama understands we need to begin pulling out shows that he understands the general idea of establish general order in a region. These people need to govern themselves otherwise we'll be stuck with a worse backlash than the Korean war.

 

I fear to imagine the DMZ that would and likely will be permanently established in Iraq.

 

It's not up to Oboma to recommend leaving. That's the job of the commanders on the ground. Not people in Washington. They sit in cooshy chairs. Soldiers win wars not politions who care more about the popular decisions and getting reelected simply to be in power.

And they have stated we need to start withdrawing troops, establishing local forces.

 

We will leave Iraq soon, but only when we feel we are done.

That's exactly what Obama said.

 

Who do you really support? Was this all a joke?

 

Now everyone I hope this topic we can have a civil discussion this time and have open minds and actually read my whole post. If you respond without reading and say something I've already commented on that shows you didn't read that's just plain ignorant. Please read. I take the time to read your posts. Please show me the same curtacy. Thank you.

 

I take the time to at least attempt proper form and spelling, please show me the same courtesy. As well, I attempt to pay attention and learn to the situations around me and understand the various perspectives on any given subject, to not do so is just plain ignorant.

 

And this concludes my post rebuking yours.

 

Please take consideration that I mean my affronts to you in the most sincere and considerate of fashions, I'm simply an outgoing personality. But also, try to leave the hippie-dippie moderator **** to me and the rest of the staff.

[El Sitherino]

Good to know.

 

Alright, I'm going to see if I can get a decent explanation. How is higher taxes a good thing for anyone, aside from the fact that it increases Government Funds and thus allows them to do more crap?

Like pay for the things they need to pay for?

 

If you want smaller government, wouldn't decreasing taxes be a step toward that?

 

Why has government increased during a time with decreased taxes? I don't particularly desire a large or small government, I desire one that does the job it's meant to do, protect the citizens and make the nation strong.

 

Neither of which has been done under this administration, and I have no reason to believe it will be done under McCain's watch. We may disagree on this, however that's our prerogative.

[Web Rider]

Good to know.

 

Alright, I'm going to see if I can get a decent explanation. How is higher taxes a good thing for anyone, aside from the fact that it increases Government Funds and thus allows them to do more crap? If you want smaller government, wouldn't decreasing taxes be a step toward that?

 

Yes, but it would not be the first one. The first step is to reduce spending and pay off debts. Once the budget is balanced, has a surplus, or is very very close to balanced, then taxes can be reduced. Reduce waste in military spending, end no-bid contracts, if Boeing of Lockheed really want to build our warplanes, they'll do it for what we want to pay them, not for what they're willing to charge. Reduce healthcare plans for congressmen, a 2 year stint in the Senate does not mean you should get a paycheck and healthcare till the day you die, even if you're not a congressman.

 

A lot of small government can't be achieved because one of the things that needs to be done is to go through all the laws on the books(a nearly impossible task), and reduce them. Eliminate old ones that aren't used anymore(like no horses at the bar on tuesdays), eliminate or combine redundant laws. Remove invasive laws like the Patriot Act, remove laws that give the president powers to say "you're a terrorist, off to gitmo!"

 

Stop giving tax cuts, they're only hurting our ability to pay for things. There's a LOT that can be done to reduce big government and cut wasteful spending and tax cuts shouldn't be given until the government is making more money than it's spending.

[Nedak]

Oh I forgot to mention I have put Web Rider and Han Han Sala on my ignore list. They called Corinthian's religion in the last thread bull. They caled me a jerk, said he hated me. I could go on, but I won't.

 

...What?

 

This is how I responded to you..

 

 

"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.

 

"

I never insulted you at all in that entire paragraph.

 

 

EDIT:

Corinthian your on my contacts and Friends list because you have remined respectful and continue to act civil. I consider you an individual who reads and thinks before he speaks. Thank you for that.

 

Actually he-

 

screw it..

[Astor]

Sorry if this will derail the discussion, but I have to reply to this:

 

Guys wehn America goes to war it's to defend others, stop genicide, and for our sovereignty and interests. When you country is the big dog you get to make the decisions. A lot of the world hates us because they are jelous of what we've accomplished in such a short time.[/Quote]

 

Just who was America defending when it went to Iraq?

 

No, you don't get to make the decisions just because your country is the big dog. Bush (and America, by extension) rode roughshod over everything by going into Iraq.

 

And the world doesn't hate America because of what they've achieved. They hate America because it disregards the sovereignty of other countries, and thinks it can bully the rest of the world into seeing things their way.

 

Being the 'big dog' doesn't mean you can hog the water bowl at the expense of the jack russels. eventually, they'll gang up and bite you in the behind.

[Web Rider]

I wonder if people felt as good as I do now when Emperor Palpatine was killed?

 

Also: in the news, Sarah Palin's daughter is 5 months pregnant. I think this pretty much seals the deal on that Sarah Palin's "5th child" was actually her daughter's. Apparently her 17-year-old daughter is going to marry the baby's father. Because, you know, marrying the man who knocks you up is always a good idea.

 

So do any of you think this will reflect on McCain and if so how do you think it will go? Do you think any of the religious right will back away from McCain and Palin over this?

[Litofsky]

Not going to bother. My last post got deleted. None of you read word for word. I'm done reapeating. I expected this to be a civil respectufl political discussion forum.

For the most part, it is. You just seemed determined on having a bad time.

 

Instead I get a mod who curses and says I have the economice knowlege of a 12 year old. Sala and Rider who bash the other c guys religion in the last thread. So forget it.

[/opinion]. Is it even remotely possible/likely that you're misinterpreting what they're saying?

 

You can believe that Bush is a evil baby killing monster who gies tax cuts to the 1 percent richest and have socialism.

Quite so! I can believe whatever I want.

 

Again if people in a political discussion are close minded and choose not to read, listen, or consider the other side all you've done is made people go through a screaming match and argument.

I present the idea that you are, in fact, close minded, and refer to anyone with dissimilar views as close-minded.

 

I watneedd an open minded discussion like so this is what I believe and this is what you believe. Oh that's why you believ e this. Oh that's why you believe that ok. So you think that way that's fine I respect your view. That's what I was expecting according to Johnathan.

And it's still possible. I suggest that, if you were acting a tiny bit nicer in your debates, people would be a tiny bit nicer to you.

 

 

Bye you wil no loner waste any more of my time.

Terribly sorry that (we) wasted your time. See ya.

[El Sitherino]

Also: in the news, Sarah Palin's daughter is 5 months pregnant. I think this pretty much seals the deal on that Sarah Palin's "5th child" was actually her daughter's. Apparently her 17-year-old daughter is going to marry the baby's father. Because, you know, marrying the man who knocks you up is always a good idea.

 

So do any of you think this will reflect on McCain and if so how do you think it will go? Do you think any of the religious right will back away from McCain and Palin over this?

 

I'm not sure exactly what effect it will have on the McCain campaign. People with their minds made up will find excuse to look past anything, such as her use of marijuana. Yet at the same time many of them criticized Obama and Clinton for smoking pot decades ago.

 

Personally, I don't think Palin is a bad person, under the right conditions, but Vice President I don't think she should be. I also am critical of John McCain on a personal and political level. I honestly cannot trust a man that has gone so backwards on his own principles for an election.

 

Obama may "flip-flop", but from most records it seems to be in line with the whims of his consituents. Last time I checked, that's what our representation is supposed to do, hence representatives.

[Nedak]

So do any of you think this will reflect on McCain and if so how do you think it will go? Do you think any of the religious right will back away from McCain and Palin over this?

 

Of course it will.

 

It's probably going to irritate Christian voters more then anything.

 

EDIT:

I'm not sure exactly what effect it will have on the McCain campaign. People with their minds made up will find excuse to look past anything, such as her use of marijuana. Yet at the same time many of them criticized Obama and Clinton for smoking pot decades ago.

That's true. As long as fear of being attacked by terrorists still exists, McCain supporters won't stop voting for McCain.

[Litofsky]

I don't think it's going to alienate more people than McCain already has. Personally, I think Palin was a terrible choice. In my eyes, it was an attempt to siphon off of angry Hillary voters. That's a terrible mistake.

 

But, as to your question, will it alienate anyone? Probably not. Maybe the people that were on the fence, but not the die-hard conservatives.

[Web Rider]

Well, lets play hypothetical for a moment, what kind of consequences would there be for McCain's candidacy if he were to drop Palin and pick a new VP? I mean, it speaks pretty loudly of a candidate when they can't even pick their VP right.

 

I'm not intimately familiar with presidential candidates of the past, but have any dropped their VP(before election) and picked a new one?

[Litofsky]

I think there would be dire consequences, indeed. If McCain dropped Palin, I believe that it would alienate conservative women- not all of them, but the ones that were considering voting for McCain, instead of Obama.

 

As for any candidate dropping their VP pick, I don't believe that anyone has ever done so before. But I haven't researched it: I might be wrong.

[Corinthian]

Why would he drop Palin? Also, what evidence do you have that her fifth child isn't really hers, aside from that Michael Moore says so?

[Web Rider]

Why would he drop Palin?

Over the issues we're talking about in the above posts. Did you not read them?

 

Also, what evidence do you have that her fifth child isn't really hers, aside from that Michael Moore says so?

You know, I'm tired of this, you could have said "could you provide a source for that?" or "do you have a link to support that claim?" But no, you decided to be a jerk instead. I'm done with you, I'm just reporting your post.

 

But yes, I do have a source.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

I doubted it too until I read it. The biggest thing is that she claims to be 7 months along and yet her abdomen is still flat as a board. That is pretty much impossible. Most women start showing at 3 to 4 months, noticably so at 5 and 6. Beyond that it's pretty hard not to notice the woman is with child.

[El Sitherino]

Michael Moore says so?

 

I personally dislike Michael Moore so I have no idea what you're speaking of.

 

I do however know that a woman at 44 could not be 7 months pregnant and be in the condition she was during said pregnancy. Nor would she have been admitted on the airplane when she was if she was in such a condition as had been reported.

 

There's just too much that doesn't add up to give any credibility to the surprise pregnancy.

[Corinthian]

You're reporting my post because I didn't say "Source?" Because I gave a specific example? Get a grip, Rider. Yeah, I'm the jerk. You're the one who, instead of actually focusing on an actual issue, is questioning the validity of someone's pregnancy.

 

So, basically, your only credible evidence is she doesn't start showing until late? That seems very circumstantial. Not everyone develops at the same rate.