[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Jul 8 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

Pay attention to the news, Skidz. Our soldiers are constantly being accused of abusing citiczens. Even if some of them are, you rarely here any actual good stories. I know you support the troops, but the media often doesn't. For every news article about how great a soldier is, there's ten more on how awful others are.

True that. Allright, I concede defeat on this one. Still, for the record, I support your troops.

Quote

And skidz, males weren't designed to reproduce with other males. Even if you were shooting blanks, you were still meant to have sex with females, not males. No matter the situation, a man will never be able to reproduce with another man (the same goes for lezbians). However, unless somethings wrong with the reproductive organs of either the man or the women, a man and a women WILL be able to reproduce. (if it's a man who was origionally a women, then that doesn't count). That is what I mean.

My aruguement wasn't about them adopting children, it was about them being allowed to get married. I used the shooting blanks thing as an example. Why do you believe men shouldn't be allowed to be married?

Quote

Not to mention that if a gay couple adopted a kid, regardless of their good intentions, it would still be hard on the child. In today's society, they'd be criticized for having gay parents. I'm not saying a gay couple is incapable of raising a child properly, but it would be hard on the child regardless. I suppose that would be my main concern.

But if they had two mothers it would be all fine and dandy? Don't deny it, it's true. If they had two mothers all their friends would love them, but if they had two fathers, they would be bullied.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 8 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

You know the one ting I've figured out? That whenever it comes to news about the US And skidz, males weren't designed to reproduce with other males. Even if you were shooting blanks, you were still meant to have sex with females, not males. No matter the situation, a man will never be able to reproduce with another man (the same goes for lezbians). However, unless somethings wrong with the reproductive organs of either the man or the women, a man and a women WILL be able to reproduce. (if it's a man who was origionally a women, then that doesn't count). That is what I mean.

Not to mention that if a gay couple adopted a kid, regardless of their good intentions, it would still be hard on the child. In today's society, they'd be criticized for having gay parents. I'm not saying a gay couple is incapable of raising a child properly, but it would be hard on the child regardless. I suppose that would be my main concern.

So basically, you want the government to have the authority to say whether a marriage is legit or not, whether the couple is "worthy" of being counted as one.

Sounds like giving the government more control all right.

Toasty, on Jul 8 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

You know the one ting I've figured out? That whenever it comes to news about the US military, or it's soldiers, it's always making them out to be horrible, awful people. We're always made out to be the bully.Most news sources nowadays can't even be trusted anymore.
For instance (and I'm not saying that this is a fact), the ICRC could've thrown that statistic out to appease the people who aren't happy with America right now. Dan rather tried to forge documents proving that Bush went AWAL. He's a news anchor trying to create false news. See where I'm going?
It's very possible that the statistic you provided is correct, but I honestly believe that the people imprisoned were done so with good reason. They wouldn't have been imprisoned if they were 100% innocent.

It's. the. RED. CROSS.
You're trying to conjure up some senseless random flaw with a report that the Red Cross itself issued, just because you don't like what it says?

Secondly, I'm going to be honest when I say that I hardly care for your dear old conservative radio host. The point is, Abu Ghraib IS a reality. Guantanamo IS in existence. Which nation is committing the crimes? Which nation is conducting the tortures that violates every form of international law?

And who's committing the acts themselves? Why, nothing other than our proud servicemen in uniform! What pride they must have in their nation when they go around waterboarding, beating innocent prisoners, forcing them to put **** on their bodies and posing for cameras while they look on and laugh? Have you seen the photos of soldiers smiling and giving a thumbs-up next to corpses of people they've abused and tortured?

Yeah, that's our "pure beautiful democracy" at work.

[Toasty]

Quote

It's very possible that the statistic you provided is correct, but I honestly believe that the people imprisoned were done so with good reason. They wouldn't have been imprisoned if they were 100% innocent.

First off, it's the International Commitee of the Red Cross. Secondly, just because they are who they are, doesn't mean they're saints. Like I said, it's possible, but I also believe that if they were completely innocent, they wouldn't be in there.

No one said that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo didn't exist/weren't realities. What IS true, is that the people who are being held at Abu Ghraib are guilty of being assosciated with terrorists. International law no longer applies to them, because THEY BROKE IT BY BEING ASSOSCIATED WITH TERRORISTS. No one has been beheaded or electricuted. They're being interrogated. Whether it's waterboarding or whatever, I don't care. They lost their rights once they were accused, and they wouldn't have been accused without reason. I want proof that 70-90 percent are innocent. Not just a statement from the Red Cross, because words themselves mean nothing without some physical evidence to back it up.

And no, I haven't seen the pictures. And I doubt you read the whole article either.

@Skidz: It's true that if they had two mom's there wouldn't be as many social problems, but they'd still be there. Even moreso when the kid(s) is/are older. If someone at my highschool had two mothers, I'd think they were pretty wierd.

As for why I believe what I do? Because I'm a christian. I'm against people being gay becuase it's a sin. Doesn't mean I hate the people. Though I do dislike them to an extent.
From a christian point of view, god meant for us to marry the opposite sex and reproduce. The more people there are on the earth, the more people there are who might potentially acknowledge and worship him. Besides that, to develop and grow, mankind has to be able to reproduce. No one lives forever, so SOMEONE has to learn from the people who came before him and add upon their knowledge, right? We can't do that if no one's reproducing. If god hadn't intended people to be with the opposite sex, then half the world population would be gay.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 9 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

First off, it's the International Commitee of the Red Cross. Secondly, just because they are who they are, doesn't mean they're saints. Like I said, it's possible, but I also believe that if they were completely innocent, they wouldn't be in there.

Yes, and I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's word is without fault, since he's an absolute saint. [/sarcasm]

Quote

I want proof that 70-90 percent are innocent.

So you're ego is so huge that you disregard the evidence I've already given?
How about YOU give me evidence that 70-90 percent are guilty.

Quote

No one said that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo didn't exist/weren't realities. What IS true, is that the people who are being held at Abu Ghraib are guilty of being assosciated with terrorists. International law no longer applies to them, because THEY BROKE IT BY BEING ASSOSCIATED WITH TERRORISTS. No one has been beheaded or electricuted. They're being interrogated. Whether it's waterboarding or whatever, I don't care. They lost their rights once they were accused, and they wouldn't have been accused without reason.

They are being tortured. Do you know what that means? It means sleep deprivation. Forcing them to masterbate naked. ELECTROCUTING THEM (yes they do). good fucking god, they SHIT on them.

And after all the abuse, after all the torture, they have the FUCKING AUDACITY TO DO THIS AS THEY SUFFER AND DIE.


And just to bring the point home:

A confidential report in February by the International Committee of the Red Cross said that ''military intelligence officers told the I.C.R.C. that in their estimate between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.''

Source: Red Cross
BBC
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/

And if that doesn't convince you:

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/4339511.stm

I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians," she said Maj Gen Wodjakowski told her. "We're winning the war."

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 8 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

Yes, and I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's word is without fault, since he's an absolute saint. [/sarcasm]


So you're ego is so huge that you disregard the evidence I've already given?
How about YOU give me evidence that 70-90 percent are guilty.


They are being tortured. Do you know what that means? It means sleep deprivation. Forcing them to masterbate naked. ELECTROCUTING THEM (yes they do). good ****ing god, they **** on them.

And after all the abuse, after all the torture, they have the ****ING AUDACITY TO DO THIS AS THEY SUFFER AND DIE.


And just to bring the point home:

A confidential report in February by the International Committee of the Red Cross said that ''military intelligence officers told the I.C.R.C. that in their estimate between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.''

Source: Red Cross
BBC
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/

And if that doesn't convince you:

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/4339511.stm

I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians," she said Maj Gen Wodjakowski told her. "We're winning the war."

Wow GL, you so biased that you misinterpreted one of the pictures you posted. ;) That lady giving the thumbs up is obviously a medical doctor of somekind, and since the guy is patched up and covered with ice, he's obviously being healed. Although I could give you that he's being healed after being tortured.

The article said lack of evidence. When it comes to war, people are usually arrested without evidence. If they're suspected of being a terrorist or something, they're arrested. The article didn't say that the prisoners were innocent, only that they couldn't be proven guilty. A lot of them apparently were there because they pissed off some soldiers.

Anway, you continue to see this with heavily liberal eyes, and continue to refrence ONLY heavily liberal news sources. You can say the same for me, but I havn't denied it.

Although I disagree with that last quote in your post. I wouldn't want to have 15,000 innocent people imprisoned regardless of what was happening.



And for the record, electrocution is killing someone with electricity. They're being shocked with electricity. Painful, but only lethal if continued. And you also didn't show a single corpse in any of those photos. That last guy wasn't dead.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Jul 9 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

First off, it's the International Commitee of the Red Cross. Secondly, just because they are who they are, doesn't mean they're saints. Like I said, it's possible, but I also believe that if they were completely innocent, they wouldn't be in there.

No one said that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo didn't exist/weren't realities. What IS true, is that the people who are being held at Abu Ghraib are guilty of being assosciated with terrorists. International law no longer applies to them, because THEY BROKE IT BY BEING ASSOSCIATED WITH TERRORISTS. No one has been beheaded or electricuted. They're being interrogated. Whether it's waterboarding or whatever, I don't care. They lost their rights once they were accused, and they wouldn't have been accused without reason. I want proof that 70-90 percent are innocent. Not just a statement from the Red Cross, because words themselves mean nothing without some physical evidence to back it up.

And no, I haven't seen the pictures. And I doubt you read the whole article either.

@Skidz: It's true that if they had two mom's there wouldn't be as many social problems, but they'd still be there. Even moreso when the kid(s) is/are older. If someone at my highschool had two mothers, I'd think they were pretty wierd.

As for why I believe what I do? Because I'm a christian. I'm against people being gay becuase it's a sin. Doesn't mean I hate the people. Though I do dislike them to an extent.
From a christian point of view, god meant for us to marry the opposite sex and reproduce. The more people there are on the earth, the more people there are who might potentially acknowledge and worship him. Besides that, to develop and grow, mankind has to be able to reproduce. No one lives forever, so SOMEONE has to learn from the people who came before him and add upon their knowledge, right? We can't do that if no one's reproducing. If god hadn't intended people to be with the opposite sex, then half the world population would be gay.

Then you need some serious fucking help. That's just cruel.

Also, if God didn't want gays on this fucking earth, he wouldn't have given us the "ability" to feel attracted to the other sex. If God didn't want murder, he wouldn't allow it. EVERYTHING done on this earth is condoned by God in some sort, because he gave us the power and ability to do it. Like Jeebus fucking Christ.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Jul 9 2008, 10:41 AM, said:

And for the record, electrocution is killing someone with electricity. They're being shocked with electricity. Painful, but only lethal if continued. And you also didn't show a single corpse in any of those photos. That last guy wasn't dead.

Because that obviously makes everything a-okay to do.

[Drizzy Drake]

Just don't even try and talk with Toasty. He blindly defends everything his government and troops and country does. Even if Bush went on TV and shot the Pope, I bet Toasty would find a way to make it seem liek he deserved it.

[Eugine]

Anyway, I disagree with gay marriage, but I support gay couples having equal rights under governments (civil unions?). Actually, I disagree with the government sanctioning any form of marriage, since I'm pretty sure marriage is religious.

But anyway, marriage is overrated. Everyone divorces now.

And Skidz, I agree =)
I'm tired of people defending their party to death. Both parties have their good and bad.

[Gio]

Dipset, on Jul 8 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

Um, not really, no. They make the GOVERNMENT out to be horrible and awfull. I support your troops 100%, because they are risking their lives for their country because they trust your president. I do not, however, support Bush, or why the troops are in the Middle-East. It's very simple.

I appreciate that being said. I do believe that even if people disagree with what our country is doing as a whole they should at least give our soilders credit for putting their lives in danger for their country and sacrificing their time for the country they love, and that goes for any country.

Golden Legacy, on Jul 8 2008, 09:05 PM, said:

And who's committing the acts themselves? Why, nothing other than our proud servicemen in uniform! What pride they must have in their nation when they go around waterboarding, beating innocent prisoners, forcing them to put **** on their bodies and posing for cameras while they look on and laugh? Have you seen the photos of soldiers smiling and giving a thumbs-up next to corpses of people they've abused and tortured?

Yeah, that's our "pure beautiful democracy" at work.

ooo. You saw a couple of pictures with individuals in them. A picture of one soldier doing something wrong doesn't speak for all of them, and quite honestly I am not against torturing terrorists. If they caught one of our own soldiers or even normal citizens that they most certainly would torture them.

[Drizzy Drake]

That doesn't make it right.

[Gio]

Dipset, on Jul 9 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

That doesn't make it right.

an eye for an eye
and I do believe it has become very obvious that you can't reason with a terrorist. Or terrorist supporting countries. btw someone might want to tell that to Mr. Obama he doesn't seem to be fully aware of that.

[Drizzy Drake]

That still doesn't make it right. Somebody kills your mother. You kill theirs. That doesn't make what you did right. You may feel you got retribution, and the courts may say there were extenuating circumstances, but it doesn't make it right.

[Gio]

If somebody kills my mother I am sure as hell going to kill them if I am able. granted I probably wouldn't like stalk them and hunt them down to kill them. And what somebody considers right and wrong is debatable also.

[Eugine]

Why become something you are trying to defeat Gio?

[Gio]

Eugine, on Jul 9 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

Why become something you are trying to defeat Gio?

why not when you know it is the only thing they understand, and when you know full well that you can stop doing it whenever you plz. I mean it really wouldn't be hard to stop considering that all the liberals and the moderate conservatives wouldn't allow it.

I don't mean to be unusually cruel here because honestly I am not. I am just saying that if that is the only thing they understand then why try and reason.

[Nyktos]

Because you want to be better than them, perhaps?

[Eugine]

Oh well. I just don't think the leader of the free world should lose its moral responsibility to the world.

[Gio]

I am not saying that we should stoop to their level, but I am saying that it is really the only thing they get. I personally think that we got ourselves in a big mess that we aren't going to be able to get out of unless we do something we aren't particularly going to like doing.

[Eugine]

So... You support those troops who abused those Iraqis at Abu Ghraib? =_=

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 9 2008, 04:41 AM, said:

Wow GL, you so biased that you misinterpreted one of the pictures you posted. ;) That lady giving the thumbs up is obviously a medical doctor of somekind, and since the guy is patched up and covered with ice, he's obviously being healed. Although I could give you that he's being healed after being tortured.

You are so. FUCKED. UP. Ugh, you are disgusting.

How many more images are you going to gloss over? How many more times are you going to make excuses for things in front of your eyes?


The source is one thing.
pictures DO NOT LIE.

http://www.antiwar.c...?articleid=8560

http://garlinggauge.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/abughraib20.jpg
http://myweb.dal.ca/mtipping/abu-ghraib-dog-attack.jpg
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p30.jpg
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/pics/torture7.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Abu_Ghraib_prison_abuse.jpg

Quote

And you also didn't show a single corpse in any of those photos. That last guy wasn't dead.

http://www.antiwar.c...?articleid=8560
scroll down to "May 19th".

Dipset, on Jul 9 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

Just don't even try and talk with Toasty. He blindly defends everything his government and troops and country does. Even if Bush went on TV and shot the Pope, I bet Toasty would find a way to make it seem liek he deserved it.

I don't doubt that. So ****ing backward.

Gio, on Jul 9 2008, 12:24 PM, said:

I appreciate that being said. I do believe that even if people disagree with what our country is doing as a whole they should at least give our soilders credit for putting their lives in danger for their country and sacrificing their time for the country they love, and that goes for any country.
ooo. You saw a couple of pictures with individuals in them. A picture of one soldier doing something wrong doesn't speak for all of them, and quite honestly I am not against torturing terrorists. If they caught one of our own soldiers or even normal citizens that they most certainly would torture them.

Gio, I support troops when they are committing acts worthy of their service. Beatings? Abuse? Torture of innocent civilians? Is THAT what you are supporting?

Not even you can support the torture of innocent lives.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/3700975.stm
http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/4339511.stm

70-90% of them are innocent.

And furthermore:

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/3694521.stm

THIS IS A SYSTEMATIC PROCESS.

Gio, on Jul 9 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

an eye for an eye
and I do believe it has become very obvious that you can't reason with a terrorist. Or terrorist supporting countries. btw someone might want to tell that to Mr. Obama he doesn't seem to be fully aware of that.

Torturing innocent lives makes you the terrorist.
Someone might want to tell Mr. Bush.

[Gio]

I support my troops no matter who they are, but I don't necessarily condone all of their actions. I am trying to make a point here. And that is all.
Seriously just out of curiosity. How do you all propose we reason with a terrorist? Especially when he doesn't care if he dies because he will consider it a martyr.

EDIT: I do not condone anything that was done to innocent. I am just talking about terrorists when I am talking about torturing, and sure I will agree with you that innocent people shouldn't be tortured like that.

[Eugine]

So, basically you support the troops who abused the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. Gotcha.

I don't support reasoning with terrorists. Gotta do what you gotta do on the battlefield.
I don't support actions like what happened in Abu Ghraib though =_=

[Gio]

Eugine, on Jul 9 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

So, basically you support the troops who abused the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. Gotcha.

I don't support reasoning with terrorists. Gotta do what you gotta do on the battlefield.
I don't support actions like what happened in Abu Ghraib though =_=

I definitely said I don't condone all of their actions, which would include torturing innocents. But w/e

[Eugine]

Well, basically you're saying I support the guys who abused those Iraqis, but I don't agree with what they did in Abu Ghraib.
Do you think troops like said people deserve to be in the military? Do you think they should trialed?

[Gio]

Yes, I would of thought they would have been tried already.

[Eugine]

I think they were.
Not too sure of the outcome.

"I support the guy who killed my mother. I just don't agree with him killing my mother!" - Gio.

[Gio]

I am supporting the fact they joined the military and sacrificed their time to serve their country, and I agree that they should be kicked out or at least punished somehow.

Now the dude killing my mom served our country in no way and my mom isn't a terrorist.

[Eugine]

Oh well. You guys seem to forget those people over in Iraq are humans just like everyone. Ah well, but when you dehumanize people, justification for the crimes becomes easier.

Anyway, new discussion!

[Drizzy Drake]

Eugine, on Jul 9 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

Oh well. You guys seem to forget those people over in Iraq are humans just like everyone. Ah well, but when you dehumanize people, justification for the crimes becomes easier.

Anyway, new discussion!

Exactly.

[Toasty]

Dipset, on Jul 9 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

Then you need some serious ****ing help. That's just cruel.

Also, if God didn't want gays on this ****ing earth, he wouldn't have given us the "ability" to feel attracted to the other sex. If God didn't want murder, he wouldn't allow it. EVERYTHING done on this earth is condoned by God in some sort, because he gave us the power and ability to do it. Like Jeebus ****ing Christ.

We sinned in the garden of Eden. God didn't want any of that to happen, but we brought it upon ourselves. Don't try to use my own religion against if you barely know it yourself. Everything bad on this planet is the result of sinning on our part.

And I also wouldn't be the only person who would think a kid who had to mothers was wierd. You might not, but the majority of people at any highshcool would. They would, because it's not normal. People usually tend to look down on things that aren't normal.

Now if I got to know the kid, I probably wouldn't think he was wierd. I still wouldn't want to go over to his house though.

As for your comment about me blindly defending my country, you seem hel bent on proving that America is some awful, horrible tyrant that needs to be kicked in the dirt until it dies. Of course I defend my country. I was born and raised here, and it's by far the best place to live in my opinion. But just because I love my country, doesn't mean I blindy defend it. I would defend the President if he shot the pope in the head because the only people who would do that, are the people who I wouldn't dream of voting into office. I wouldn't defend Bush if shot the Pope, but then again, he wouldn't do that in the first place.

I'm not against Abu Ghraib for now, becuase I have yet to see undeniable proof that the people there don't deserve it. Not only that, but the only sources I've seen from anyone other than myself are all heavily left wing biased nutjobs. Read the next paragraph:


And geez GL. I can see what they're doing. I'm not blind. But I don't see anything in those pictures that prove any of them innocent. Like I said, it's not like some soldier just said "Oh hey, there's an innocent Iraqi civillian! Let's pluck him off the street and torture him for no good reason!" Because that's what you're viewing it as.

I'll be sick and disgusted when I see undeniable proof that they're innocent.

And again, the guy in the first picture could very well be alive. Though I'll admit that there's no way of prooving that. As for the May 19th hoto, not only is that website biased, it's source is biased. If given the chance, of COURSE at least one of them is going to claim that the detainee is dead. If that detainee walked in front of their faces and sid high, they'd merely claim it as clerical error.

Give me either an unbiased, or better yet, a right wing conservative nutjob's view on this proving something is wrong. If you can fin the latter, I'll have no option but to believe every word you say.

[Eugine]

Why should we pay the price for Adam and Eve's actions? That's kinda cruel imo...
That's like saying our parents committed murder, so we have to surve their jail sentence. God isn't fair :)

And, it's not normal cuz people like you don't want it to be normal Toasty. And we're talking about gay people having the rights to marriage and equal status under the government, not about adopting children =_=

And Toasty, I'm not even gonna discuss the Abu Ghraib situation with you cuz you're despicable.

"The torture? A more serious blow to the United States than September 11, 2001 attacks. Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists but by Americans against themselves." — Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, foreign minister of the Vatican.
So true.

But ah well, those Iraq's are terrorists, so let the military do w/e they want!

[Gio]

Quote

Why should we pay the price for Adam and Eve's actions? That's kinda cruel imo...
That's like saying our parents committed murder, so we have to surve their jail sentence. God isn't fair gs_frown.gif

The bible does say that we will pay for the sins of our fathers. I will have to find that verse and tell you what it is, but I do remember reading it.

[Eugine]

I think that's retarded though. I had no control over their actions, so why should I pay for their sins?

[Toasty]

Eugine, on Jul 9 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Why should we pay the price for Adam and Eve's actions? That's kinda cruel imo...
That's like saying our parents committed murder, so we have to surve their jail sentence. God isn't fair :)

And, it's not normal cuz people like you don't want it to be normal Toasty. And we're talking about gay people having the rights to marriage and equal status under the government, not about adopting children =_=

And Toasty, I'm not even gonna discuss the Abu Ghraib situation with you cuz you're despicable.

"The torture? A more serious blow to the United States than September 11, 2001 attacks. Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists but by Americans against themselves." — Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, foreign minister of the Vatican.
So true.

But ah well, those Iraq's are terrorists, so let the military do w/e they want!

We pay because we're their flesh an blood (according to the bible), and so we carry a part of them inside us, just as we carry a part of our parents. Sin is in our genes, and we can't get rid of it.

I never said that all Iraqi's are terrorists Eugine. You need to quit implying things that aren't true. You seem to think that just because someone says one thing, that they MUST also think something else as well. Which isn't always true.

Like I said, they wouldn't be there unless they did somethin to get there. They weren't randomly plucked off the streets. That's something you and GL seem to overlook.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 9 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

I'm not against Abu Ghraib for now, becuase I have yet to see undeniable proof that the people there don't deserve it. Not only that, but the only sources I've seen from anyone other than myself are all heavily left wing biased nutjobs. Read the next paragraph:
And geez GL. I can see what they're doing. I'm not blind. But I don't see anything in those pictures that prove any of them innocent. Like I said, it's not like some soldier just said "Oh hey, there's an innocent Iraqi civillian! Let's pluck him off the street and torture him for no good reason!" Because that's what you're viewing it as.

I'll be sick and disgusted when I see undeniable proof that they're innocent.

And again, the guy in the first picture could very well be alive. Though I'll admit that there's no way of prooving that. As for the May 19th hoto, not only is that website biased, it's source is biased. If given the chance, of COURSE at least one of them is going to claim that the detainee is dead. If that detainee walked in front of their faces and sid high, they'd merely claim it as clerical error.

Give me either an unbiased, or better yet, a right wing conservative nutjob's view on this proving something is wrong. If you can fin the latter, I'll have no option but to believe every word you say.

I'm seriously about to go crazy about this. You are blind, you are turning your eyes away from the reality when it is right. there. in front of you.

Pictures do not lie. How many of them that have been provided for you are there that detail the Abu Ghraib abuse? You find issue with one, trying to twist it and find something wrong with it because it doesn't agree with what you believe.

Did you look through the photos? Did you see the torture, humiliation, abuse? Is this what you are proud of about your country?

Again. Pictures, Toasty. Is that not evidence enough for you?

And secondly, my previous statement to you still stands - I have given you a full report analysis from the Red Cross itself saying that 70-90% of the people tortured are innocent. INNOCENT, and the pictures to show the grotesque acts they are being subjected to. WHAT MORE COULD YOU POSSIBLY WANT?

You insist that they aren't innocent. I don't get this. How about you try justifying your belief? You haven't even given any evidence, whereas I have supported the hard fact and reality.

And what's more, why do you insist that it simply can't be true? Why do you delude yourself into thinking that the US army is some benevolent, perfect force that can't be flawed? It is, that's the reality of it. The military (or those leading it, whichever) has conducted atrocities that are sickening and disgusting under every humane moral code.

You are a devout Christian. Tell me, would your dear Jesus approve of something like this?

[Toasty]

It's not abuse if they're guilty, GL. I'm not saying that all of them are absolutely guilty and deserve what they get, but I know there are many there who do deserve it.

God wouldn't want torture. However, he wouldn't want innocent lives to be taken by terrorists either. The bible states that we are to obey the laws put down by our fathers. Disobeying them is a sin, and is subjct to punishment by the people or god himself.
I'll say it again, I don't believe that ALL of them are guilty, but I also know they wouldn't be there without reason. That is my proof. They did something, so now they're at Abu Ghraib.

You also continue to insist that the pictures of people being tortured is proof of crimes against humanity. It's not a crime if it's punishment for those who commited crimes.

Most of those methods of torture look strikingly similar to a college prank. Making someone walk around naked with crap/dirt/whatever on them (heck, making someone walk around naked period)? I could see college, or even highschool studets doing that. The only thing so far that's looked too harsh, was a guy being shocked with electricity. But like I said, he probably wouldn't be getting shocked if he hadn't done something to deserve it.

Not all of them are innocent GL. I doubt even half of them are. The would no be there in the first place unless they did something to get themselves sent there.

[Drizzy Drake]

AND NOT ALL FUCKING AMERICANS ARE INNOCENT EITHER YOU IGNORANT PRICK!!

Ugh, sorry.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 10 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

It's not abuse if they're guilty, GL. I'm not saying that all of them are absolutely guilty and deserve what they get, but I know there are many there who do deserve it.

God wouldn't want torture. However, he wouldn't want innocent lives to be taken by terrorists either. The bible states that we are to obey the laws put down by our fathers. Disobeying them is a sin, and is subjct to punishment by the people or god himself.
I'll say it again, I don't believe that ALL of them are guilty, but I also know they wouldn't be there without reason. That is my proof. They did something, so now they're at Abu Ghraib.

You also continue to insist that the pictures of people being tortured is proof of crimes against humanity. It's not a crime if it's punishment for those who commited crimes.

Most of those methods of torture look strikingly similar to a college prank. Making someone walk around naked with crap/dirt/whatever on them (heck, making someone walk around naked period)? I could see college, or even highschool studets doing that. The only thing so far that's looked too harsh, was a guy being shocked with electricity. But like I said, he probably wouldn't be getting shocked if he hadn't done something to deserve it.

Not all of them are innocent GL. I doubt even half of them are. The would no be there in the first place unless they did something to get themselves sent there.

You don't seem to understand. These people are innocent. These people are taken into Abu Ghraib not because they've done anything, but because the US military wants to be actively searching for terrorists. The majority of those people are being held without any charges, having committed no crimes, having never been associated with anything remotely dangerous.

People, like you and I.

For every person that's guilty, 10 others are innocent.

I'm disappointed and disgusted with you Toasty. You want to believe that every person that's not American is a horrible being, and every American is a pure goodhearted soul who can't commit wrong. It's the United States that is conducting the tortures and abuse of innocent civilians, hiding under the banter of a "war on terror".

Innocent lives Toasty. I can't believe you're against them.

(and for the record, I'd like to see you go be subjected to those conditions.)

[inthenameofDT]

that's what happens when you're 16 and misinformed. ive just been reading along, i dont have much else to add for now.

innocent lives should never be punished.

[Saturos S.]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

So there was another Obama crisis the other day. That reverend guy said something nice again, on national tv, when he thought his mic was off. I'm quite amazed he could be that stupid to say anything like that with the press on smelling distance.

[Ironsight]

Dipset, on Jul 10 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

AND NOT ALL FUCKING AMERICANS ARE INNOCENT EITHER YOU IGNORANT PRICK!!

Ugh, sorry.

Where the hell did that come from?

[Toasty]

Dipset, on Jul 10 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

AND NOT ALL ****ING AMERICANS ARE INNOCENT EITHER YOU IGNORANT PRICK!!

Ugh, sorry.

Notice how I never said they were. Don't be so quick to assume things that you don't know for sure are true. And don't throw insults in either, because that makes you look like more of an ass when you're wrong.

Golden Legacy, on Jul 10 2008, 10:33 AM, said:

You don't seem to understand. These people are innocent. These people are taken into Abu Ghraib not because they've done anything, but because the US military wants to be actively searching for terrorists. The majority of those people are being held without any charges, having committed no crimes, having never been associated with anything remotely dangerous.

People, like you and I.

For every person that's guilty, 10 others are innocent.

I'm disappointed and disgusted with you Toasty. You want to believe that every person that's not American is a horrible being, and every American is a pure goodhearted soul who can't commit wrong. It's the United States that is conducting the tortures and abuse of innocent civilians, hiding under the banter of a "war on terror".

Innocent lives Toasty. I can't believe you're against them.

(and for the record, I'd like to see you go be subjected to those conditions.)

You don't seem to get it GL. I realise that there's innocent people in there. What you don't seem to realise, is that not all of them are innocent. Not even 70% are. They're either there becuase there's evidence on them that they've been associated with/are terrorists, because there's proof that they're associated with/are terrorists, or because they got angry with a soldier and threw a rock at him or something (or possibly worse/less serious).

I can agree that the first reason leaves plenty of room for innocent people to be thrown in there, and that the third one isn't worth torture, but there's still guilty people in there. More than one out of every eleven for sure.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things that weren't true. I'm not so ignorant as to believe that Americans are perfect little angels, and that everyone else are terrorists or something. No one's perfect, and that applies to Americans just as much as it applies to every other nation out there. Obviously there's some troops in the wrong not only at Abu Ghraib, but other places aswell. However, you seem to think that the majority of the troops at Abu Ghraib are at fault (correct me if I'm wrong). That isn't true.

Believe me, I'm not against the innocent there, nor am I for torturing innocent civilians. But there are people with information in there, and we do need that information (not to mention that there's people in there who we can't afford to let go for blatantly obvious reasons).

I could give you that things could, and should be handled more efficiently with better acuracy, but I'm not going to haul even half of the soldiers there into court, nor would I shut down the facility.

(for the record, I would too. I'm quite interested in seeing how strong my will really is, because I haven't had anything to really test it on as of yet)

[inthenameofDT]

god damn, toasty, GL is posting evidence to support what is being said. you're just posting the same "you dont get it, half of them are bad lol wtf" over and over.

frankly, neither of you are getting anywhere with this. that's great that you both know your own truth, though GL's happens to be a bit more believable. so just go on thinking that the other person is ignorant, we dont need 50 posts of the same thing back and forth.


Jack London for president.

[Gio]

inthenameofDT, on Jul 11 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

god damn, toasty, GL is posting evidence to support what is being said. you're just posting the same "you dont get it, half of them are bad lol wtf" over and over.

frankly, neither of you are getting anywhere with this. that's great that you both know your own truth, though GL's happens to be a bit more believable. so just go on thinking that the other person is ignorant, we dont need 50 posts of the same thing back and forth.
Jack London for president.

agreed.

has anybody heard anything about the interviews some people had with Obama's daughters. I heard somebody talking about it the other day but didn't really get the jist of what they were saying. It sounded as if they thought it would hurt obama.

[Golden Legacy]

DT, good point. I've just about given up at any rate in defending that point, even after defending my view with evidence.

Gio, on Jul 11 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

has anybody heard anything about the interviews some people had with Obama's daughters. I heard somebody talking about it the other day but didn't really get the jist of what they were saying. It sounded as if they thought it would hurt obama.

You're hoping to find something to hurt Obama, of course. That whole incident was simply Obama wishing for his daughters not to be drawn into the spotlight. He doesn't want to put his daughters onto the media, where they could say something that would be misquoted. They're too young to experience it, and he regrets simply for agreeing to have his daughters interviewed, I forget for what exactly.

[Gio]

I wasn't looking for something to hurt Obama, I just heard someone talking about it and found it to be rather odd, and it peaked my curiosity. Quite honestly I find it to be sort of a low blow for the media to attack relatives. Sort like I think it is cheap to attack John McCain's wife and Obama's wife to for that matter. That fist bump controversy was retarded, so was the whole deal about McCain's wife stealing a recipe from the Hershey's website. I don't even watch TV all that much anymore because of the media.

[Golden Legacy]

Fair enough. I agree with you there, it's a cheap and low tactic to go after the candidates' family. The fist bump thing was especially awful (Fox News called it a "terrorist fist jab"), though to be fair I really think the Republicans are more at fault, especially for taking Michelle Obama's comment, taking it out of context, and twisting it.

[Gio]

I really have no grounds to argue with you about that, because I have to admit I watch fox significantly more often than CNN or other more liberal news programs, but I am pretty well rounded when it comes to the things I read.

[inthenameofDT]

my best weapon is common sense.

[Saturos S.]

inthenameofDT, on Jul 11 2008, 10:40 PM, said:

my best weapon is common sense.

Common sense isn't a weapon, it's more of a shield, manner of defense.

ex.

Enemy A throws a religious argument at you.
You use common sense!
Religious argument backfired!

[Eugine]

Want to prove that? Revive the religion topic =)

Anyway, republicans and Fox smear tactics are awesome. They're really awesome and effective. They know they cannot win on the issues anymore since they basically have lost their way, so they smear their opponents so that unaware people will not vote for their opponents. They know that is the only way they will be able to beat Obama, so I'm sure they're hoping he stumbles or creates some controversy.

I only watch Fox for The Oreilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes btw.
I agree with Oreilly most of the time, and Hannity and Colmes is balanced since Sean = conservative loving, Barack hating while Colmes = liberal loving, McCain hating. I love to see their fights ^.^
The rest of Fox is absolute garbage. Fox = Entertainment channel.

Other than that, most of the time it's CNN or the web I get my info from.

[Nyktos]

Eugine, on Jul 11 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

Want to prove that? Revive the religion topic =)

I think he means arguments based on religion (eg. "animals have no rights because the Bible says so"), not actual religious debate. The common sense in religious debate would be to stay far, far away. :P

[inthenameofDT]

Saturos Striker, on Jul 11 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

Common sense isn't a weapon, it's more of a shield, manner of defense.

ex.

Enemy A throws a religious argument at you.
You use common sense!
Religious argument backfired!

good defense is the best offense? :P haha

Quote

The common sense in religious debate would be to stay far, far away. :P

indeed

[Caael]

Obama should, and will win, because he's just better. I'm sure the US dont want some old guy who will probably die within his first 5 years of office to be president.

[Gio]

Caael, on Jul 11 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

Obama should, and will win, because he's just better. I'm sure the US dont want some old guy who will probably die within his first 5 years of office to be president.

5 years? so your saying if McCain got elected that he would be reelected for a second term?

[Golden Legacy]

It happened with Bush. Oh my fucking God, it happened with Bush. *shudders*

To be fair, incumbent presidents tend to be reelected again. That's a general trend in the US.

[inthenameofDT]

Gio, on Jul 11 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

5 years? so your saying if McCain got elected that he would be reelected for a second term?

actually that really made me laugh. im sure that Caael knows a presidential term is 4 years... but when you're just typing a number for example, 5 is probably the first to come to mind for a lot of people.

[Eugine]

Maybe he made a mistake? Commonwealth Prime Ministers can serve up to 5 years rather than 4 before they call for re-election, so maybe he thought the same for US Presidents.

Eugine, on Jul 11 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

Anyway, republicans and Fox smear tactics are awesome. They're really awesome and effective. They know they cannot win on the issues anymore since they basically have lost their way, so they smear their opponents so that unaware people will not vote for their opponents. They know that is the only way they will be able to beat Obama, so I'm sure they're hoping he stumbles or creates some controversy.

I only watch Fox for The Oreilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes btw.
I agree with Oreilly most of the time, and Hannity and Colmes is balanced since Sean = conservative loving, Barack hating while Colmes = liberal loving, McCain hating. I love to see their fights ^.^
The rest of Fox is absolute garbage. Fox = Entertainment channel.

Other than that, most of the time it's CNN or the web I get my info from.

I did not write this for people to ignore btw =(

[Gio]

Those are the two I watch the most often. I really enjoy Bill O'reily.

Also both parties tend to use smear tactics.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, I agree with you that the smear tactics of the Republican party are effective. It's a dishonest way of handling the election - and to beat Obama they'll have to rely on low tactics - but it's won them the presidency more than a few times.

Gio, of course both sides are responsible for smear tactics. The Republicans have always been much harsher and far more negative, however.

[Toasty]

Name the Republican Presidencies which were won with smear tactics, because it seems to me that the democrats have used smear tactics far more often in year's past than the republicans. I'm not going to say the the republicans were honest 100% of the time, because that's physically impossible for either side of the isle, but the democrats have used them far more often.
I'll give you that the Republican's are probably using them more this year, but that's for the reason listed at the end of my post:

Golden Legacy, on Jul 11 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Fair enough. I agree with you there, it's a cheap and low tactic to go after the candidates' family. The fist bump thing was especially awful (Fox News called it a "terrorist fist jab"), though to be fair I really think the Republicans are more at fault, especially for taking Michelle Obama's comment, taking it out of context, and twisting it.

To be fair, the democrats take far more things out of cntext than republicans do, and when they do, it often ends up hurting the person who's taken out of context.

Case in point? When a woman called a bunch of black kids playing up in a tree "monkeys," Barrack tred to get her fined a few hundred bucks for being racist. Luckily enough, the local sheriff thought it was bull**** accusation, and the lady wasn't fined.
Rush is taken out of context by democrats practically every time he speaks, which is one reason for his bad reputation among democrats.

Eugine, on Jul 11 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

Anyway, republicans and Fox smear tactics are awesome. They're really awesome and effective. They know they cannot win on the issues anymore since they basically have lost their way, so they smear their opponents so that unaware people will not vote for their opponents. They know that is the only way they will be able to beat Obama, so I'm sure they're hoping he stumbles or creates some controversy.

It's funny how in many year's past, this was exactly the opposite. I haven't really watched the news in the past few weeks, and we haven't had Fox News for quite some time so I haven't seen a lot of the smear tactics. But since McCain sucks so much and Obama is so loved by the Liberals, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Gio]

Toasty, on Jul 12 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

To be fair, the democrats take far more things out of cntext than republicans do, and when they do, it often ends up hurting the person who's taken out of context.

Case in point? When a woman called a bunch of black kids playing up in a tree "monkeys," Barrack tred to get her fined a few hundred bucks for being racist. Luckily enough, the local sheriff thought it was bull**** accusation, and the lady wasn't fined.
Rush is taken out of context by democrats practically every time he speaks, which is one reason for his bad reputation among democrats.
It's funny how in many year's past, this was exactly the opposite. I haven't really watched the news in the past few weeks, and we haven't had Fox News for quite some time so I haven't seen a lot of the smear tactics. But since McCain sucks so much and Obama is so loved by the Liberals, I wouldn't be surprised.

From what I have seen, what Rush has said has even been taken out of context by FOX to.

[Toasty]

Wouldn't surprise me.

But even though Fox is mostly conservative, they still have a few liberals.


[EDIT] As far as th Bush bashing, and the war in Iraq goes, here's a topic I came accross while looking for another:
http://www.goldensun-syndicate.net/forum/i...?showtopic=7118

[Golden Legacy]

Interesting bit of news. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stated he supports Barack Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/19/ma...awal-timetable/

And yes, this is coming from a conservative news source.
Thoughts?

[Gio]

I mean sure. I am all for getting our troops out of iraq. Granted it is done reasonably. If we can do it in 16 months then we should. I don't think anything definite should be laid out.
We need to do it in a way that is safe for our troops and the iraqi people, and if that means more than 16 months then so be it. Also Iraq needs to have a relatively stable government when we leave.
I don't necessarily think there needs to be a definite timeline but we do need to slowly start withdrawing in a safe and organized fashion that allows for changes when necessary.

I think much more attention should be paid to Iran than Iraq.

[Golden Legacy]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that - in fact, I do think we need to be reasonable in withdrawing. But here we have the Iraqi government itself - the government that we, whether it was justified or not, put into power and supported - they themselves are saying "we can take care of it from here, we support the US troops to be withdrawn". How is that not a clear enough signal? Wasn't the whole point of the Iraqi invasion (supposedly) to get a new Iraqi government in power that wasn't Saddam's, one that will be able to be an "ally"?

It only makes sense, I think, that if they are finally saying they're ready, that we follow suit. (and this is me mustering my energy to think as conservative as I can, mind you)

[Gio]

Well I agree with you we probably should start giving them a bit more rope, but not enough at one time to let them hang themselves.

[Mysterious Adept]

yea.... i really dont like either candidate. Both have negetives and positives like everyone else. But i just dont see any promise in either one of them. Granted i do tend to be more Rebuplican, but once again niether party stands out at this point to me. ( a lot of Buts in my post i kno) =P

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Jul 19 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

Well I agree with you we probably should start giving them a bit more rope, but not enough at one time to let them hang themselves.

*twitch* *twitch*

...
The Iraq war was senseless from the beginning. It was based on a complete lie with a justification designed to drench the population in fear. It has served no purpose other than to fulfill the oil-hungry needs of the rich corporation politicians who revel in stealing from the working class, led by a puppet government of the filthy, repulsive neo-conservatives who desire nothing more than blood, tears, and violence. The war has caused thousands of casualties from both sides, displaced millions of people, has ruined and destroyed a once thriving surplus of an economy, has dragged America's credibility through the mud, and is handled by the most idiotic bastard of a conservative who wants to talk "cowboy tough" but can't string three words together.

*sighs*

Much, much better.

In short: Bush sucks, conservatives suck, war is bad, McCain must lose, Obama '08.

\m/

[Toasty]

Yet we haven't gained a drop of free (or discount) oil from the war. You might as well be spouting conspiracy theories GL. If the war had to do with oil, we wouldn't have $4 a gallon gasoline right now.

You're looking at the whole thing from a heavily pessimistic and neo-liberal perspective. Besides, might I remind you that it's Congress who decides whether or not to go to war, and not the President? So quite being so eager to blame it all on Bush just because he's a Conservative.

With a stable democracy in Iraq, we have far less to fear as far as terrorists go. Plus, the Iraqi people are far more free now than they were under Saddam's rule.

McCain may be a warmonger, but he only wants to stay at war in Iraq to ensure that we don't get another 9/11. His interests are beneficial to America's security, and harmful to America's image. Barack, on the other hand, want's to pull out of Iraq because he see's it as a waste of money, and something that's hurting America's economy and image. His interests might improve our economy (well, only if he doesn't pass half the bills he wants to) and image, but they could be detrimental to our security.

Democrats seem ot have a habit of putting America's image ahead of it's national secuity *coughBillClintoncough*.

And from a neo-conservative point of view, that could be becuase they just want to look good.

But that's an absured accusation. Obviously Conservatives are worse with their "bloodlust".

Gio, on Jul 19 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

We need to do it in a way that is safe for our troops and the iraqi people, and if that means more than 16 months then so be it. Also Iraq needs to have a relatively stable government when we leave.

All points I've been trying to make ever since people started trying to pull out. I want things finished before we leave, because if things are finished, then it's safe to leave.

It's starting to look like the Iraqi government can start to stand on it's own two feet, and since they want us out, then that's that.

However, I don't want a definite time frame. It needs to be flexible because if we pul out too quickly, things could go wrong pretty easily. Take to long and...well we take too long. The Iraqi government will probably get pissed if we drag out the witdrawl, and of course, politicians who have nothing better to do than hate on the war will try and find someone to blame, whether there's anything to be at fault for or not.

But staying there for even another 5 years is absurd.



For the record, I dislike both Obama and McCain.

Barack thinks America is in a horribly awfully horrid state that needs drastic changes (which it doesn't), and McCain wants to stay in Iraq for forever, and supports Liberal ideals (despite being Republican).

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 20 2008, 12:52 AM, said:

*twitch* *twitch*

...
The Iraq war was senseless from the beginning. It was based on a complete lie with a justification designed to drench the population in fear. It has served no purpose other than to fulfill the oil-hungry needs of the rich corporation politicians who revel in stealing from the working class, led by a puppet government of the filthy, repulsive neo-conservatives who desire nothing more than blood, tears, and violence. The war has caused thousands of casualties from both sides, displaced millions of people, has ruined and destroyed a once thriving surplus of an economy, has dragged America's credibility through the mud, and is handled by the most idiotic bastard of a conservative who wants to talk "cowboy tough" but can't string three words together.

*sighs*

Much, much better.

In short: Bush sucks, conservatives suck, war is bad, McCain must lose, Obama '08.

\m/

Your right about that much. I don't think we should have gone. Maybe it was for oil, but the you can't live in the past and keep pointing fingers. The fact is, is that we are already there and there is very little we can to redeem ourselves other than give the Iraqi government back at a reasonable rate.

As for Bush bashing.....it really does get old. You know I realize that he definitely isn't the best president we have had, but he is most definitely not the worst, and all the people that sit there and complain about bush are achieving absolutely nothing to push us in the other direction.

[Golden Legacy]

LMAO. People are defending Bush. That's hilarious. I almost feel bad for the both of you. Almost.


So first it's the Iraq war, you're trying to shift the blame? Aww, how sad, "bush iz da innocent lolz".

Congress might be the one to officially declare war, but who made out Iraq to be part of the enemy? Who coined the disgusting phrase, "Axis of Evil", and labeled all states as such? Who insisted on the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Who ordered the military to mobilize and attack?

There's a reason why the president is called the Commander-in-Chief.

There never was a link between terrorism and Iraq. Simply was never there. We've gone over this countless times. The intelligence that the claim was based on was completely FALSE. Even Bush himself has gone on record saying the information was misconstrued. Nor did Iraq ever have WMDs.


Besides, do you really think the Iraq war is the ONLY issue that Bush has failed in? Haha. It would take quite a while to list how this administration has failed, and that's not even going into domestic issues.

Quote

McCain may be a warmonger, but he only wants to stay at war in Iraq to ensure that we don't get another 9/11. His interests are beneficial to America's security, and harmful to America's image.

Quote

But staying there for even another 5 years is absurd.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=VFknKVjuyNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWoGulgbec...feature=related
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=o-zoPgv_nYg


Yeah, McCain is definitely the man.

Toasty, on Jul 20 2008, 05:13 AM, said:

Barack thinks America is in a horribly awfully horrid state that needs drastic changes (which it doesn't), and McCain wants to stay in Iraq for forever, and supports Liberal ideals (despite being Republican).

Toasty and Gio, I am not being vain when I say this. I am a better citizen than both of you.

Why? Because I dare to ask more of this country. I dare to ask more of the government to put the people ahead of its own interests.

America isn't in a horrible state? A system under which the poor have gotten poorer, the rich richer? The same state of matters that has resulted in a 1.5 trillion USD debt, the greatest economic debt of any country in world history? America, where 60% of the wealth is held by 2% of the population? A country where the standards of education are the lowest of all fully developed nations? A state that prides itself in having committed the worst war crimes in history with prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, where internationally condemned torture is paramount? A government whose leaders shred the nation's consitution, steal the rights of the people, and shamelessly justifies it with fear-driven tactics? A nation that insists on military confrontation but won't even allocate funding to the homeless and poverty-stricken?

I will say it again. I am a better citizen than both of you. I see what has befallen this country, and I will proudly speak out against it.

Silence begets ignorance, and you are submerged beneath its depths.

[inthenameofDT]

Toasty, on Jul 20 2008, 05:13 AM, said:

If the war had to do with oil, we would have $4 a gallon gasoline right now.

um what? we do.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 20 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

LMAO. People are defending Bush. That's hilarious. I almost feel bad for the both of you. Almost.
So first it's the Iraq war, you're trying to shift the blame? Aww, how sad, "bush iz da innocent lolz".

I don't recall ever defending Bush. What I do recall is me saying that people blaming bush is pointless. What is done is done. Instead of pointing fingers people should be trying to fix it, but no one seems to be doing that.

Congress might be the one to officially declare war, but who made out Iraq to be part of the enemy? Who coined the disgusting phrase, "Axis of Evil", and labeled all states as such? Who insisted on the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Who ordered the military to mobilize and attack?

There's a reason why the president is called the Commander-in-Chief.

And the Commander-in-Chief needs funds to run a war and I believe the democratically led congress has the Power of the Purse and is granting him those funds.

There never was a link between terrorism and Iraq. Simply was never there. We've gone over this countless times. The intelligence that the claim was based on was completely FALSE. Even Bush himself has gone on record saying the information was misconstrued. Nor did Iraq ever have WMDs.
Besides, do you really think the Iraq war is the ONLY issue that Bush has failed in? Haha. It would take quite a while to list how this administration has failed, and that's not even going into domestic issues.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=VFknKVjuyNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWoGulgbec...feature=related
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

Yeah, McCain is definitely the man.

About the first video. The U.S. has ALWAYS occupied countries after everything was sorted out. For pete's sake, we still have military bases in Japan and we definitely aren't there to control the country.

And the second video.........way to take a joke seriously.....WOW

Toasty and Gio, I am not being vain when I say this. I am a better citizen than both of you.

Why? Because I dare to ask more of this country. I dare to ask more of the government to put the people ahead of its own interests.

Uhmmmm.....Last time I checked ALL government puts the government before people. No exceptions

America isn't in a horrible state? A system under which the poor have gotten poorer, the rich richer? The same state of matters that has resulted in a 1.5 trillion USD debt, the greatest economic debt of any country in world history? America, where 60% of the wealth is held by 2% of the population? A country where the standards of education are the lowest of all fully developed nations? A state that prides itself in having committed the worst war crimes in history with prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, where internationally condemned torture is paramount? A government whose leaders shred the nation's consitution, steal the rights of the people, and shamelessly justifies it with fear-driven tactics? A nation that insists on military confrontation but won't even allocate funding to the homeless and poverty-stricken?

It seems to me that capitalism tends to cause the rich and the poor to get richer. And a capitalistic nation tends to have to go into a recession every now and then, and I will give you that the war is probably a main cause here.

I will say it again. I am a better citizen than both of you. I see what has befallen this country, and I will proudly speak out against it.

Silence begets ignorance, and you are submerged beneath its depths.

Then be quite

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 20 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

LMAO. People are defending Bush. That's hilarious. I almost feel bad for the both of you. Almost.

Very mature GL. Now sit back and listen *pats on head*

So first it's the Iraq war, you're trying to shift the blame? Aww, how sad, "bush iz da innocent lolz".

Congress might be the one to officially declare war, but who made out Iraq to be part of the enemy? Who coined the disgusting phrase, "Axis of Evil", and labeled all states as such? Who insisted on the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Who ordered the military to mobilize and attack?

There's a reason why the president is called the Commander-in-Chief.

Yeah. He commands our military forces. But he still doesn't decide if we go to war or not. That is ultimately up to congress. And what he meant by Iraq being part of the axis of evil isn't that the Iraqi people are evil, but the forces being controlled by Saddam, and Saddam himself. You're way too quick to assume things GL. Saddam WAS linked to terrorists, and certainly didn;t do anything to hinder them in any way. Whether his link to Al Qaeda can be proven or not isn't the issue anymore, because even if he wasn't, he was linked to other terrorist organizations. And congress ordered the military to mobilize and attack becuase congress is the one who declared war.

There never was a link between terrorism and Iraq. Simply was never there. We've gone over this countless times. The intelligence that the claim was based on was completely FALSE. Even Bush himself has gone on record saying the information was misconstrued. Nor did Iraq ever have WMDs.

The information wasn't fabricated GL. It just wasn't entirely correct. Like I said, Saddam was in bed with terrorists. Whether some of them were part of the 9/11 attack is debateable. And the only reason why Bush admitted that is becuase the media put out so much garbage about the evidence being fake that saying otherwise would make him look crazy, and ruin his image even more. And just like there isn't any solid evidence that Saddam had WMD's, there also sn't any to suggest that he never did. Only that there weren't any there when we invaded. There's far more evidence to suggest that he did, and the fact that the UN weapons inspectors let Saddam tell them where they could and couldn't look sure doesn't help your case.

Besides, do you really think the Iraq war is the ONLY issue that Bush has failed in? Haha. It would take quite a while to list how this administration has failed, and that's not even going into domestic issues.





http://www.youtube.c...h?v=VFknKVjuyNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWoGulgbec...feature=related
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=o-zoPgv_nYg


Yeah, McCain is definitely the man.

Oh shut up for christ's freaking sake. How many times do I have to tell you that I hate McCain?
HOWEVER, how can you be so blind and biased about these things? I mean, geez. You get all up in conservative's faces' for "misinterpreting" Michelle Obama's words, yet you blow McCains way out of proportion? And you say you're not a hipocrit.
Anyway, there's a huge diiference between staying in Iraq for a hundred years, and staying at war in Iraq for a hundred years. It would be absolutely absurd to think that we shouldn't leave a handful of troops inIraq to report activity about terrorism. We have bases in numerous other countries that we have bee at war with before (like Japan from WWII).
I am 100% for having an outpost in Iraq. It would be stupid to say otherwise. They are't going to be there fighting insurgents and whatnot like they are right now. That will be Iraq's job, as they will be defending their own country. The job of the soldier left would be somethink akin to reconnaissance. Something that's far less dangerous.

Toasty and Gio, I am not being vain when I say this. I am a better citizen than both of you.

Ignorance is bliss. We both want the same thing in the end: A better America. The way we get there is what we're arguing over. To think that either side has any other goal is absurd.

Why? Because I dare to ask more of this country. I dare to ask more of the government to put the people ahead of its own interests.

I dare to ask the government to let it's citiczens choose how to live their own lives. Something they can't do if the government has more power.
Liberals have always been for bigger government. Conservatives have always been for smaller government. I thinks it's obvious why I'm a conservative.

America isn't in a horrible state? A system under which the poor have gotten poorer, the rich richer? The same state of matters that has resulted in a 1.5 trillion USD debt, the greatest economic debt of any country in world history? America, where 60% of the wealth is held by 2% of the population? A country where the standards of education are the lowest of all fully developed nations? A state that prides itself in having committed the worst war crimes in history with prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, where internationally condemned torture is paramount? A government whose leaders shred the nation's consitution, steal the rights of the people, and shamelessly justifies it with fear-driven tactics? A nation that insists on military confrontation but won't even allocate funding to the homeless and poverty-stricken?

You want to know why the rich got bigger tax breaks? Because they were paying a larger chunk (percentage wise) of their salary than any other class. EVERY citiczen should give the government the same percentage of their salaries. The rich should pay 10%, the middle class should pay 10%, and the poor should pay 10%. You want the rich to pay a larger percentage than the poor. That's entirely unfair.
You seem to think that the rich got where they were by sitting on their asses all day (technically, some of them probably did, but they were still working. That's the point I'm trying to make). You also seem to think that the poor work and work and work, and just never seem to be able to make ends meet. You seem to think that it's someone else's fault that they're having trouble. Besides themselves, the only other people who can be blamed is the IRS, and the IRS wouldn't be on those citiczens' cases if those citiczens just learned how to manage their money better, and how to hold down a job.
There's homeless people and even ex-cons who can hold down jobs, so I see no reason that a lower-class citiczen couldn't.

We're in debt because of the war, and because we're spending money instead of making money. Once the war is over, we won't have it sucking us dry anymore. But what we REALLY need to do, is become a huge exporter again like we were before. We need to drill for our own oil (becuase alternative energy isn't developed enough to us in it's place for now), we need to quit making corn ethanol and start growing wheat again, and we as citiczens need to quit borrowing money we don't have. If I can, I'm only ever going to have one creditcard at a time. And I'm not going spend more than what I know I can pay back in a reasonable amount of time.

And our standard's for education as far as elementary to highschool goes may be poor, but we've got some of the best colleges in the world. A lot of which are private, and not owned or funded by the government. A lot of private elementary, middle, and highschools seem to have higher standards. Funny how that is huh? The more the government is involved, the worse it gets.

OUR warcrimes ar the worst? Think again. Try Hitler, man. We may have done some pretty bad stuff, and I can't say much on the Guantanamo thing since I haven't researched it enough, but at the very least, we commited these warcrimes to try and make our country more safe and secure. The only thing that makes Abu Ghraib a war crime is the possibility of there being innocent people in there. If they were all terrorists, it wouldn't be a crime.
However, Hitler put people in concentration camps because he didn't like who they were. The thing that makes it worse is that there is absolutely no justification for it, and no matter who was in those camps, it would still be a crime (well, unless they were Nazis maybe). So again, quit trying to make out America as being a horrible, awful mass-murderer, becuase there's people and governments out there who're 10 times worse.

The absolute worst thing the government could do to it's citiczens is try and help them financially. There's a reason why you don't help a hatching chick out of it's shell: It need's to do it for itself to get stronger. You may feel sorry for the struggling chick just as you might the poor, but helping that chick will only make it weak and dependant. Just as helping those with financial trouble will only make them dependant on the government.
There is no way that the government can help all the poor people in the way they need to be helped. Giving them money won't work, becuase more likely than not, they'll just go buy frivilou things with it, which they will then later have to sell to make ends meet when they're not recieving money from the government any more.
They don't need money, they need to learn how to get money. Like holding down a job, or how to manage your money and credit cards properly, or how to make sure you pay taxes on time.

Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and feed him for a lifetime.

I will say it again. I am a better citizen than both of you. I see what has befallen this country, and I will proudly speak out against it.

Silence begets ignorance, and you are submerged beneath its depths.

Better to hold your tounge and be thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt.

GL, you chose to speak.

There's nothing wrong with trying to make America a better place. There is something wrong with trying to make it out as tyrant on level with Hitler or Saddam.

inthenameofDT, on Jul 20 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

um what? we do.

Sorry. Meant to say that we wouldn't have $4 a gallon gas. I've edited that into the post now.

[inthenameofDT]

ahahhaah ok

[Golden Legacy]

Yeah. He commands our military forces. But he still doesn't decide if we go to war or not. That is ultimately up to congress. And what he meant by Iraq being part of the axis of evil isn't that the Iraqi people are evil, but the forces being controlled by Saddam, and Saddam himself. You're way too quick to assume things GL.

"Ultimately up to Congress"? That's the point, Bush raised the issue, he made the Iraq war into existence. Whether he got the official say is beyond the point - at best, he did nothing to correct himself and go against the war, at worst, he flat-out lied and deceived his people and the entire world.


Saddam WAS linked to terrorists, and certainly didn;t do anything to hinder them in any way. Whether his link to Al Qaeda can be proven or not isn't the issue anymore, because even if he wasn't, he was linked to other terrorist organizations. And congress ordered the military to mobilize and attack becuase congress is the one who declared war.

Then what purpose do we have against them if they weren't Al Qaeda? They weren't the ones that caused 9/11, weren't the ones that have attacked the US in anyway - and that's a big IF Saddam was even linked to them.

Besides, tell me this - which country put Saddam into power? Who supported him and gave him weapons and supplies so he could get into power? The United States.

America was responsible for bringing Saddam into power in the first place. Slipped your mind, I suppose?


The information wasn't fabricated GL. It just wasn't entirely correct. Like I said, Saddam was in bed with terrorists. Whether some of them were part of the 9/11 attack is debateable. And the only reason why Bush admitted that is becuase the media put out so much garbage about the evidence being fake that saying otherwise would make him look crazy, and ruin his image even more. And just like there isn't any solid evidence that Saddam had WMD's, there also sn't any to suggest that he never did. Only that there weren't any there when we invaded. There's far more evidence to suggest that he did, and the fact that the UN weapons inspectors let Saddam tell them where they could and couldn't look sure doesn't help your case.

... I chuckled at the part highlighted in red, then I realized you're being serious.

What kind of logic is that? "There never was any evidence to suggest he never had any WMDs", what the hell? There has to be evidence that something DOESN'T exist?


Oh shut up for christ's freaking sake. How many times do I have to tell you that I hate McCain?
HOWEVER, how can you be so blind and biased about these things? I mean, geez. You get all up in conservative's faces' for "misinterpreting" Michelle Obama's words, yet you blow McCains way out of proportion? And you say you're not a hipocrit.
First of all, as much as you hate McCain, you are casting your vote for him. That's why I attack him, and that's why you have to be prepared to at least acknowledge what you're supporting, even if his ideals don't match up.

I will concede that both McCain's comment and Michelle Obama's comment are blown out of proportion - however, keep in mind, I'm attacking the candidate himself, while Michelle Obama is the spouse of the candidate in question. It is a low tactic to go after family, very low.


Anyway, there's a huge diiference between staying in Iraq for a hundred years, and staying at war in Iraq for a hundred years. It would be absolutely absurd to think that we shouldn't leave a handful of troops inIraq to report activity about terrorism. We have bases in numerous other countries that we have bee at war with before (like Japan from WWII).
I am 100% for having an outpost in Iraq. It would be stupid to say otherwise. They are't going to be there fighting insurgents and whatnot like they are right now. That will be Iraq's job, as they will be defending their own country. The job of the soldier left would be somethink akin to reconnaissance. Something that's far less dangerous.

This is simply a difference of views here, so can't argue this much. I, personally, am generally against the notion that the United States (or any nation for that matter) has to go around and "flex its military muscle", to have a presence everywhere just for the sake of it. Besides, what kind of message is that sending to the nation you supposedly helped "liberate", if they can't even assume control of they're own security? Surely reconnaissance, like you suggest, is something they can accomplish too?

Oh, and btw, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki wants coalition forces out. Just to remind you.


Ignorance is bliss. We both want the same thing in the end: A better America. The way we get there is what we're arguing over. To think that either side has any other goal is absurd.
Fair enough point.


(me) Why? Because I dare to ask more of this country. I dare to ask more of the government to put the people ahead of its own interests.

I dare to ask the government to let it's citiczens choose how to live their own lives. Something they can't do if the government has more power.
Liberals have always been for bigger government. Conservatives have always been for smaller government. I thinks it's obvious why I'm a conservative.
How on earth did you derive "bigger government" from my comment? What I am saying is, whatever role the government plays - whether big or small - in the lives of people, it has to act out with the interests of the people themselves!

Case in point, corporations that ship jobs overseas. You've argued since that technically it's not illegal for them to do so - but the government could, for example, tax a company that dares to lay off an American worker for outsourced labour. Therefore, it discourages the act and would keep jobs in middle-class American hands. That's an example of "bigger government", but it's far from a hindrance.


(me) America isn't in a horrible state? A system under which the poor have gotten poorer, the rich richer? The same state of matters that has resulted in a 1.5 trillion USD debt, the greatest economic debt of any country in world history? America, where 60% of the wealth is held by 2% of the population? A country where the standards of education are the lowest of all fully developed nations? A state that prides itself in having committed the worst war crimes in history with prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, where internationally condemned torture is paramount? A government whose leaders shred the nation's consitution, steal the rights of the people, and shamelessly justifies it with fear-driven tactics? A nation that insists on military confrontation but won't even allocate funding to the homeless and poverty-stricken?

You want to know why the rich got bigger tax breaks? Because they were paying a larger chunk (percentage wise) of their salary than any other class. EVERY citiczen should give the government the same percentage of their salaries. The rich should pay 10%, the middle class should pay 10%, and the poor should pay 10%. You want the rich to pay a larger percentage than the poor. That's entirely unfair.
You seem to think that the rich got where they were by sitting on their asses all day (technically, some of them probably did, but they were still working. That's the point I'm trying to make). You also seem to think that the poor work and work and work, and just never seem to be able to make ends meet. You seem to think that it's someone else's fault that they're having trouble. Besides themselves, the only other people who can be blamed is the IRS, and the IRS wouldn't be on those citiczens' cases if those citiczens just learned how to manage their money better, and how to hold down a job.
There's homeless people and even ex-cons who can hold down jobs, so I see no reason that a lower-class citiczen couldn't.

I understand your argument here, but there's a difference between theory and practicality. Yes, taxing the rich more can be seen as unfair, but how do you think the government is able to function? The most fundamental basic definition of a government deficit is when it spends more than it taxes. That's econ 101.

Among the reasons why the USA has a 1.5 trillion USD debt is, if you want to break it down into very simple, distinct reasoning, the US spent hundreds of billions a year supporting a war without compensating for it. Yes Toasty, that means taxes, how else is it going to get funded?

It's also a matter of proportionality that justifies why the rich are taxed more. A 10% tax on all persons - while it certainly sounds "fair" - means that the poor and the middle class are paying more out of what they can afford than the rich, based purely on standards of living. It's too much to expect out of someone who is near poverty-stricken levels of minimum wage to be able to be able to even pay a tax, much less pay proportionally on level with a rich CEO who makes bonuses of millions a year.

Also, if that doesn't convince you, think about it purely in numbers - the taxes of millions of lower class workers won't be enough to compensate for decreasing taxes on just a few of the rich. The latter "get away" with so much while comparatively, the working class simply can't bear the brunt of taxation alone.

For the record, a progressive tax system (i.e. brackets of wealth and income, higher ranges pay more taxes) is what is used in nearly every single nation in the world.


We're in debt because of the war, and because we're spending money instead of making money. Once the war is over, we won't have it sucking us dry anymore. But what we REALLY need to do, is become a huge exporter again like we were before. We need to drill for our own oil (becuase alternative energy isn't developed enough to us in it's place for now), we need to quit making corn ethanol and start growing wheat again, and we as citiczens need to quit borrowing money we don't have. If I can, I'm only ever going to have one creditcard at a time. And I'm not going spend more than what I know I can pay back in a reasonable amount of time.

Easy for you to claim, but I would also mention that the marketplace is fickle and is also to blame for people's woes. Not everyone borrows responsibly, I'll agree, but not everyone can foresee fluctuations in interest rates and inflation. Not to mention, more people are being laid off now than ever, and losing your job isn't something you expect to happen when paying back a loan you knew you could originally afford.


And our standard's for education as far as elementary to highschool goes may be poor, but we've got some of the best colleges in the world. A lot of which are private, and not owned or funded by the government. A lot of private elementary, middle, and highschools seem to have higher standards. Funny how that is huh? The more the government is involved, the worse it gets.
I don't deny the college part, but as someone who has applied to university here, private schools are unfairly and ridiculously expensive. Financial aid is relatively limited and not as readily available as it should be.

Further, I'm not sure if you went to private school, but not everyone can afford it. Just letting you know.

And if I may be so vain, my high school (Stuyvesant) is one of the best high schools in the entire nation - and it's public.


OUR warcrimes ar the worst? Think again. Try Hitler, man. We may have done some pretty bad stuff, and I can't say much on the Guantanamo thing since I haven't researched it enough, but at the very least, we commited these warcrimes to try and make our country more safe and secure. The only thing that makes Abu Ghraib a war crime is the possibility of there being innocent people in there. If they were all terrorists, it wouldn't be a crime.
However, Hitler put people in concentration camps because he didn't like who they were. The thing that makes it worse is that there is absolutely no justification for it, and no matter who was in those camps, it would still be a crime (well, unless they were Nazis maybe). So again, quit trying to make out America as being a horrible, awful mass-murderer, becuase there's people and governments out there who're 10 times worse.

Did I ever say our crimes were on par with Hitler's? No. And it's a silly and foolish thing to say "well, people have done it worse than we have, so we're not at fault!" - it's called holding yourself to a double standard. I don't care if there are governments out there that are ten times worse or a 1000 times worse - the point is, what we are doing is wrong, what we have committed is in violation of every international standard of law, and what we have to do is dismantle them and take responsibility for them.

Don't try and put "perspective" on it, it's a horrendous thing to have done regardless of how it "ranks" in war crimes in world history.

The absolute worst thing the government could do to it's citiczens is try and help them financially. There's a reason why you don't help a hatching chick out of it's shell: It need's to do it for itself to get stronger. You may feel sorry for the struggling chick just as you might the poor, but helping that chick will only make it weak and dependant. Just as helping those with financial trouble will only make them dependant on the government.
There is no way that the government can help all the poor people in the way they need to be helped. Giving them money won't work, becuase more likely than not, they'll just go buy frivilou things with it, which they will then later have to sell to make ends meet when they're not recieving money from the government any more.
They don't need money, they need to learn how to get money. Like holding down a job, or how to manage your money and credit cards properly, or how to make sure you pay taxes on time.

(see previous point about this) I will also add, that's a bit harsh. Like I've mentioned, loss of job, the changing market, etc. it isn't fair to hold citizens entirely at fault here. It's the government's fault for getting them drenched in a trillion dollar deficit, remember? The blame is shared here.

Also, this makes me ask - are you against Social Security?


There's nothing wrong with trying to make America a better place. There is something wrong with trying to make it out as tyrant on level with Hitler or Saddam.

That's how some people see the United States. Not quite on par with the two you mentioned, perhaps, but nations worldwide are seeing less of an openness for diplomacy and a more militaristic approach. That's why people see the United States as a menacing and now unworthy force - to one who lives within the borders and calls himself a proud citizen, it is easy to justify the acts and see them in a "patriotic" and acceptable view. Even with the examples you provided (which I AGREE are extreme to compare), many Germans were more than content when Hitler came into power, he pulled the nation out of the economic and social turmoil that had befallen the nation after WWI - and this was with many people having an inkling of what was tragically going on in the background. Likewise, most Iraqis were not only content with Saddam, but flourished under a period of economic prosperity and educational opportunity.

I am NOT justifying these regimes. I am NOT saying the USA is like them. But what IS happening is that, slowly, the Bush era has taken the USA down a turbulent and precarious path, one where, regretfully, the military has become the absolute priority. The quagmire of Iraq, the "sword rattling" with Iran, the labeling of other nations as an "Axis of Evil" because we find fault with them, all this focus on challenging and evoking the military's might and force while the people's rights are removed (habeus corpus), inequality gap between rich and poor widens considerably etc. these are all lamentable signs and all point towards a bad direction.

[Eugine]

So much to read =(

Case in point, corporations that ship jobs overseas. You've argued since that technically it's not illegal for them to do so - but the government could, for example, tax a company that dares to lay off an American worker for outsourced labour. Therefore, it discourages the act and would keep jobs in middle-class American hands. That's an example of "bigger government", but it's far from a hindrance.

No offense GL, but that idea is terrible =(
Democrats such as Barack Obama who support your idea I believe are not looking at the unintended consequences.
It is quite likely those Multinational corporation will simply move their headquaters to another country such as Singapore who has less taxes due to this. They will evade your taxes, and you will lose workers. In a global economy I think your policy is unfair. It will just cause American companies to be less competitive in the world economy.
Plus, if you do tax them, you will be removing capital they desperately need in this financial crisis. Do you know why large banks such as IndyMac are failing? It's because they have no capital, and taxing them will simply decrease their capital.
Republicans, and John McCain wins on this issue hands down, and I think it may well cost Obama the Presidency. John McCain wants to cut taxes for everyone (unlike Bush, who cut taxes only for the rich I think), and I honestly believe that is the right thing to do, rather than increasing taxes like Obama proposes. The USA desperately needs capital now, and removing them from businesses doesn't make much economic sense.

So in summary. John McCain = Right, Obama = Wrong on this issue. Decrease taxes and government spending now. Unfortunately, the war which McCain supports is a big negative to your economy.

Oh, and Obama opposes Nuclear Power and Offshore drilling. Why? John McCain wins again.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Jul 21 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

So much to read =(

Case in point, corporations that ship jobs overseas. You've argued since that technically it's not illegal for them to do so - but the government could, for example, tax a company that dares to lay off an American worker for outsourced labour. Therefore, it discourages the act and would keep jobs in middle-class American hands. That's an example of "bigger government", but it's far from a hindrance.

No offense GL, but that idea is terrible =(
Democrats such as Barack Obama who support your idea I believe are not looking at the unintended consequences.
It is quite likely those Multinational corporation will simply move their headquaters to another country such as Singapore who has less taxes due to this. They will evade your taxes, and you will lose workers. In a global economy I think your policy is unfair. It will just cause American companies to be less competitive in the world economy.
Plus, if you do tax them, you will be removing capital they desperately need in this financial crisis. Do you know why large banks such as IndyMac are failing? It's because they have no capital, and taxing them will simply decrease their capital.
Republicans, and John McCain wins on this issue hands down, and I think it may well cost Obama the Presidency. John McCain wants to cut taxes for everyone (unlike Bush, who cut taxes only for the rich I think), and I honestly believe that is the right thing to do, rather than increasing taxes like Obama proposes. The USA desperately needs capital now, and removing them from businesses doesn't make much economic sense.

So in summary. John McCain = Right, Obama = Wrong on this issue. Decrease taxes and government spending now. Unfortunately, the war which McCain supports is a big negative to your economy.

So out of that entire brief debate, you found issue with one of my points? Fair enough, nice to at least have some fresh blood here.

You seem to miss out on the point, that spending from the wealthy is different from the middle and lower class. Ideally, yes, all that money they would have would be capital - however, the wealthy tend to put their savings in investments rather than tangible capital. That concentrates the benefits among a smaller portion of society. Therefore allowing the rich to keep more of their money does not fully produce the anticipated spending boost, much less a boost to the poor.

It becomes lopsided and disproportionate, with the few wealthy substantially winning over the rest of the lower and middle class.

Secondly, a dollar spent by an individual is a lot less beneficial than a dollar spent by the government. Individual spending is usually for personal gain, and companies that receive this spending will direct the wages and salaries, disproportionally, into the highest income workers.

Now, it is true that successful companies with more capital WILL employ more workers, which would favour the lower working class. However, another major point to remember is that individual spending also drives up inflation. Any income gains for the lower class would effectively be canceled out while the wealthy remain relatively stable. Even in times of strong GDP and economic growth, it is unfairly skewed for the wealthy who reap the benefits.

I will give you that the Keynesian model of pure government spending is far from flawless, but what the (liberal) economic theory is to provide a greater opportunity for the lower and middle class, to give them a chance to have better income and wages, and that is in itself a success, because it means therefore the standards of living are raised, those lower income workers can more effectively compete, and that helps economically and socially.


That's my defense. I will concede that economics is not my strong suit, but what I do know and remember has allowed me to construct this argument.

I would also ask you, then, what is your plan to reduce the trillion USD debt and the annual deficit? Yes, we do need to start exporting more, but the nation would also have to commit to easing it domestically as well.


And lastly, I am not against nuclear energy nor oil drilling (in the short term), which are what many liberals are against, yes. However, I am also proudly for investing in long-term alternative energy standards, notably wind, solar, and hydroelectric, and that is something conservatives tend to be against.

[Eugine]

So out of that entire brief debate, you found issue with one of my points? Fair enough, nice to at least have some fresh blood here.
I'm tired of discussing the Iraq War so I ignored it =)
Plus, I agree with you on about everything else really. Oh, btw, you're turning into the liberal version of Toasty.
Toasty = Liberals - do all wrong, conservatives - do all right.
You = Liberals = do all right, conservatives - do all wrong.
lol.

Anyway,
You seem to miss out on the point, that spending from the wealthy is different from the middle and lower class. Ideally, yes, all that money they would have would be capital - however, the wealthy tend to put their savings in investments rather than tangible capital. That concentrates the benefits among a smaller portion of society. Therefore allowing the rich to keep more of their money does not fully produce the anticipated spending boost, much less a boost to the poor.
The 'wealthy' people are the ones who drives a country. They employ the 'middle and lower class', and invest in the country far more than the rest. If you tax the wealthy, you're indirectly taxing the poor. Plus, it's not fair for the rich to pay more taxes than the poor. They should honestly pay the same percentage. A low one btw.

It becomes lopsided and disproportionate, with the few wealthy substantially winning over the rest of the lower and middle class.
That's capitalism. If you want, you can turn it into socialism, but remember -
Capitalism - Few wins, many lose.
Socialsm - Even if you win, you still lose

Secondly, a dollar spent by an individual is a lot less beneficial than a dollar spent by the government. Individual spending is usually for personal gain, and companies that receive this spending will direct the wages and salaries, disproportionally, into the highest income workers.
Really?
The private market works MUCH better than the government anyday. Are you saying the government is smarter and than you? Government screws up mostly everything, and the bureaucracy in governments makes it even worse.

Now, it is true that successful companies with more capital WILL employ more workers, which would favour the lower working class. However, another major point to remember is that individual spending also drives up inflation. Any income gains for the lower class would effectively be canceled out while the wealthy remain relatively stable. Even in times of strong GDP and economic growth, it is unfairly skewed for the wealthy who reap the benefits.
I've never taken an economic class so I have no idea how, so please educate me as to how.
I do know that inflation is caused when a currency is too widely available and not supported by something sound like gold.

I would also ask you, then, what is your plan to reduce the trillion USD debt and the annual deficit? Yes, we do need to start exporting more, but the nation would also have to commit to easing it domestically as well.
Anything but Obama's economic plan xP. I dunno honestly.
Conservatives economic policy works better imo though. Of course, we've seen liberal economic policies work during the Clinton years, so those work also, I just prefer the conservatives policies.

They are -
Reduce government spending by reducing wasteful departments and bureaucracy, and put things into the private hands.
Reduce wasteful earmarks.
Don't do nation building. Unfortunately they forgot this one =(

But I honestly dunno.

[Caael]

Obama can play basketball. End of discussion. He is clearly the winner.

[Legolastom]

Toasty how can you say that about the rich and poor if your a Christian? Thats what I want to know.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 21 2008, 01:56 PM, said:

And lastly, I am not against nuclear energy nor oil drilling (in the short term), which are what many liberals are against, yes. However, I am also proudly for investing in long-term alternative energy standards, notably wind, solar, and hydroelectric, and that is something conservatives tend to be against.

Last I checked there are people on both sides that agree with this a people on both sides that disagree with this, but I believe it is an inaccurate statement to say that conservatives tend to be against alternative sources, when in reality MOST conservatives share the same view that you do. Most of tend to support drilling for oil and nuclear energy short-term, but they agree that it inevitably we will have to turn to alternative energies.

And I would have to agree with Eugine. I am getting tired of talking about Iraq.

[Toasty]

Legolastom, on Jul 21 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

Toasty how can you say that about the rich and poor if your a Christian? Thats what I want to know.

You know that term "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, feed him for a lifetime?" I believe that's based on the teachings of Christianity.

I'm not saying we should forget the poor and let them drown in debt or whatever, I'm saying that just giving them money will only make things worse. The problem with most people is that they think that just giving the poor some money will solve the problem. That is entirely untrue, and has been proven wrong numerous times in the past and present. People who get government grants to pay off their taxes more than just once tend to end up in debt time and time again.

So I'll say it again. Giving handouts is only the easy way out. Not the effective one. If you want the poor to be better off, you need to teach them how to stay out of debt. Something the government can't do because it's far too busy with other things.

Golden Legacy, on Jul 20 2008, 10:59 PM, said:

"Ultimately up to Congress"? That's the point, Bush raised the issue, he made the Iraq war into existence. Whether he got the official say is beyond the point - at best, he did nothing to correct himself and go against the war, at worst, he flat-out lied and deceived his people and the entire world.


You're hell-bent on putting all the blame on Bush's shoulders, aren't you? Even though it's obvious that he's not the only one at fault. Face it. It doesn't matter whether Bush put the idea foreward or not, Congress shares the blame equally (possibly even more of it, actually) for authorizing and funding it.

Look at it like this: Someone tells you to steal a candybar from a store. You decide to do it. You get caught.
Now who's to blame? From your perspective, it wouldn't be your fault at all because it was the other guys' idea. I'm sorry, but that is entirely wrong. You're the one who chose to steal the candybar, so you're at fault. It doesn't matter who's idea it was, because you're the one who put the plan into action.
Now the Iraq war is entirely different from stealing a candybar, but the moral of the story applies just as much to this case. The only difference, really, is that the person who put up the idea has taken more of the blame then the person who carried it out.


Then what purpose do we have against them if they weren't Al Qaeda? They weren't the ones that caused 9/11, weren't the ones that have attacked the US in anyway - and that's a big IF Saddam was even linked to them.

Besides, tell me this - which country put Saddam into power? Who supported him and gave him weapons and supplies so he could get into power? The United States.

America was responsible for bringing Saddam into power in the first place. Slipped your mind, I suppose?


Because terrorism is bad no matter who's attacking who'm, and so it must be stopped. They may not have been Al Qaeda, but they could've alligned themselves wth them, or they could've tried to attack the US in the future. Regardless, we're safer now that Saddam isn't helping them.

And who exactly was the president at the time? Jimmy Carter. A Democrat. I guess you just forgot, huh?


... I chuckled at the part highlighted in red, then I realized you're being serious.

What kind of logic is that? "There never was any evidence to suggest he never had any WMDs", what the hell? There has to be evidence that something DOESN'T exist?


Yeah. There kinda does. If there isn't then there's a possibility that IT DOES EXIST. Anyone who knew a thing or two about the laws of probability should know that. I thought you did. Maybe I assumed wrong?
Saddam could have VERY EASILY had WMD's in his posession without anyone knowing it becuase the UN didn't show any backbone when they searched for the WMD's. When they went in to search, Saddam would say "Oh no! Don't look over there! That's obviously where I'm storing all of my dangerous weapons!" And the UN would say "Okay, why don't we let you tell us where to look? You'e a trustworthy fellow, so we think it's fair to let you decide for us. After all, you're just such a little angel!"

And that's pretty much how it went, albiet with much less sarcasm.


First of all, as much as you hate McCain, you are casting your vote for him. That's why I attack him, and that's why you have to be prepared to at least acknowledge what you're supporting, even if his ideals don't match up.

I will concede that both McCain's comment and Michelle Obama's comment are blown out of proportion - however, keep in mind, I'm attacking the candidate himself, while Michelle Obama is the spouse of the candidate in question. It is a low tactic to go after family, very low.


It's only low if the family members have nothing to do with the campaign. McCain's wif hasn't been involved in the whole thing, so she hasn't been targeted, nor would it be fair. Michelle Obama HAS been involved, so it IS fair. Just like it was fair for the media to attack Hilary's daughter. Her daughter is an adult, and she was part of the campaign. A fair target. I would have agreed that it was low if Michelle wasn't involved, however, because she wouldn't have put herself in the media's eye.


This is simply a difference of views here, so can't argue this much. I, personally, am generally against the notion that the United States (or any nation for that matter) has to go around and "flex its military muscle", to have a presence everywhere just for the sake of it. Besides, what kind of message is that sending to the nation you supposedly helped "liberate", if they can't even assume control of they're own security? Surely reconnaissance, like you suggest, is something they can accomplish too?

Oh, and btw, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki wants coalition forces out. Just to remind you.


The point of having OUR soldiers in there doing reconnaissance, is so we have a direct, fully trustworthy source on the ground. I'm not saying that Iraq would try and double-cross us, because they wouldn't unless we gave them a very good reason to. However, who would you trust more? Your own family, or a friend who you've just met? (I know we've known Iraq for a long time, but Iraq hasn't had their current president for very long).
The fact is, we have to keep tabs on every place we've ever occupied because it isn't wise to turn your back on anyone when it come to international diplomacy. Especially if you're the world super power.
The more information we can get, the safer we can be. It's as simple as that.

And I see nothing wrong with leaving a handful of soldiers at small American military base. Especially if they're not going to be interacting with Iraqi citizcens while on call.


How on earth did you derive "bigger government" from my comment? What I am saying is, whatever role the government plays - whether big or small - in the lives of people, it has to act out with the interests of the people themselves!

Case in point, corporations that ship jobs overseas. You've argued since that technically it's not illegal for them to do so - but the government could, for example, tax a company that dares to lay off an American worker for outsourced labour. Therefore, it discourages the act and would keep jobs in middle-class American hands. That's an example of "bigger government", but it's far from a hindrance.


It's FAR easier to get a smaller government to co-operate with the people than it is a large one. A bigger government may have it's advantages, but because it's so easy for the power to go to the official's heads, those advantages are rarely realised. The officials are usually more interested in how the government's actions impact them, rather than the common citiczen.

And lie Eugine said, taxing the corperations like that will only make it more enticing for them to move over seas and take all of the job openings with them. We need to reward them for giving jobs to US citiczens, not punish them for giving the jobs to foreigners.


I understand your argument here, but there's a difference between theory and practicality. Yes, taxing the rich more can be seen as unfair, but how do you think the government is able to function? The most fundamental basic definition of a government deficit is when it spends more than it taxes. That's econ 101.

Among the reasons why the USA has a 1.5 trillion USD debt is, if you want to break it down into very simple, distinct reasoning, the US spent hundreds of billions a year supporting a war without compensating for it. Yes Toasty, that means taxes, how else is it going to get funded?

It's also a matter of proportionality that justifies why the rich are taxed more. A 10% tax on all persons - while it certainly sounds "fair" - means that the poor and the middle class are paying more out of what they can afford than the rich, based purely on standards of living. It's too much to expect out of someone who is near poverty-stricken levels of minimum wage to be able to be able to even pay a tax, much less pay proportionally on level with a rich CEO who makes bonuses of millions a year.

Also, if that doesn't convince you, think about it purely in numbers - the taxes of millions of lower class workers won't be enough to compensate for decreasing taxes on just a few of the rich. The latter "get away" with so much while comparatively, the working class simply can't bear the brunt of taxation alone.

For the record, a progressive tax system (i.e. brackets of wealth and income, higher ranges pay more taxes) is what is used in nearly every single nation in the world.


I know how the economy works, and I know how taxing the rich more may seem like a good idea. But what I don't get, is how Obama is trying to make everything "fair", yet he doesn't want to tax people equally. nstead, he want's to tax the rich more, and actually give the lower class handouts instead of taxes. He would rather everybody have the same salary, no matter what job they had, then let them get ample pay for their work. That's just ludicrous and hipocritical.

And now that the war is practically over with, we shouldn't need to tax the citiczens heavily. Though heavy taxes would pull us out of the deficit faster, I agree.

Besides that, a flat tax system would get rid of so many headaches for everyone. ESPECIALLY the lower class citiczens. 10% off the top of their salaries seems like a much better idea than nickle and dimeing them on everything they purchase or pay for.


Easy for you to claim, but I would also mention that the marketplace is fickle and is also to blame for people's woes. Not everyone borrows responsibly, I'll agree, but not everyone can foresee fluctuations in interest rates and inflation. Not to mention, more people are being laid off now than ever, and losing your job isn't something you expect to happen when paying back a loan you knew you could originally afford.


It's actually incredibly easy to keep from going under due to un-expected occurances: You plan for the worst. Too many people opperate under the principle that something bad is unlikely to happen. They aquire numerous credit cards, never expecting to get laid off, or for the housing market to slump severely, or a natural disaster to happen, or whatever. The government may play a part in it all, but it's up to the people to always be prepared. It's you're own fault if you didn't expect something to happen. Most of the things that could go wrong are bound to, so it's best to be prepared.


I don't deny the college part, but as someone who has applied to university here, private schools are unfairly and ridiculously expensive. Financial aid is relatively limited and not as readily available as it should be.

Further, I'm not sure if you went to private school, but not everyone can afford it. Just letting you know.

And if I may be so vain, my high school (Stuyvesant) is one of the best high schools in the entire nation - and it's public.

I went to a private elementary school for one year when I lived in Florida. We moved the year after. And I know private schools are expensive. I also know that our education system needs some work. But what I think needs to be done is to have the government fund the private schools, and nothing more. No interference, no restrictions on how the funds should be spent, and let the schools decide for themselves how to educate the students. Obviously this leaves room for the schools to carelessly spend the funds, but they shouldn't be recieving any more than they normally would if they weren't government funded. Just send the government a survey of how many students they have, and how much money they need, and have the government pay accordingly.

The main problem with that though, is that it ives the government power over the school's funding. That could be really bad if the government decides to cut funding to the schools. So there needs to be something like a minimum amount that has to be paid to the schools, and have it be on a per-child basis. The more children a school has, the more funding it gets.

And from what I understand, your highschool leans to the left. So I just can't see how that claim could be true. :!: j/k


Did I ever say our crimes were on par with Hitler's? No. And it's a silly and foolish thing to say "well, people have done it worse than we have, so we're not at fault!" - it's called holding yourself to a double standard. I don't care if there are governments out there that are ten times worse or a 1000 times worse - the point is, what we are doing is wrong, what we have committed is in violation of every international standard of law, and what we have to do is dismantle them and take responsibility for them.

Don't try and put "perspective" on it, it's a horrendous thing to have done regardless of how it "ranks" in war crimes in world history.


You said, and I quote, "A state that prides itself in having committed the worst war crimes in history." I don't know about you, but it sounds like that would include warcrimes committed by ANY government and ANY nation, including the Nazis. I'm not saying we haven't done some petty bad stuff, but we haven't done the worst. Nor should we be looked on as such. I don't care if I'm putting hings into perspective, because in this case it kinda needs to be. I'm not justifying our warcrimes, but I'm certainly not going to stand by and have my country compared anything close to Germany in WWII.


(see previous point about this) I will also add, that's a bit harsh. Like I've mentioned, loss of job, the changing market, etc. it isn't fair to hold citizens entirely at fault here. It's the government's fault for getting them drenched in a trillion dollar deficit, remember? The blame is shared here.

Also, this makes me ask - are you against Social Security?

And the people knew what was happening with the economy, so they should've prepared themselves. It's not hard to prepare yourself for any one of those events you mentioned.
Let's say the government created a tsunami that was headed for the coast of Florida. Everyone knew about it days ahead of time, and everyone was given time to evacuate. For the sake of the argument, let's also say that nobody was incapable of evacuation. Is it the governments fault if the people who didn't evacuate got hurt? They were warned and given time to evacuate, but they didn't. The government ma have cause the wave, but it's the people's fault for not being prepared. Especially if it was foreseeable.
You can say that there's no way anyone could have predicted things like lost jobs or whatever, but that's not true. They can predict them, they just can't predict when they will happen. In today's declining economy, it's only common sense that people are getting laid off. The company my dad works for just recently laid off a bunch of temporary employees, and even some permanent ones. My dad's an engineer, however, and the company despertely needs engineers for the projects they're working on, so he was safe.
However, it wouldn't be out of the question to prepare just in case he might have gotten laid off (though he's one of the head engineer's so that's unlikely to happen, but you ge the point).

The thing is, you think of this problem from the viewpoint that the people couldn't have done anything to prevent this, and it's all the government's fault. The problem with that thinking is that the people shoul know very good and well that worst can always happen. Especially in a failing economy.

It's also far easier for the government to do more damage than good in situations like this, because they can cater to the general population. Not all the specific needs of every person.

You say that you dare to ask more of the government. I say that I dare to ask more of the people. The government shouldn't have to do anything, because the people should be able to take care of themselves without the government's help. And the government shouldn't be so big that it can force people to rely on them. Whether it be handouts or whatever.

You may think it's harsh, but it's entirely true. People have the capability to foresee and prepare. If they don't, then they're responsible for the outcome that goes with not preparing.


And no. I'm not against social security. When you're retired and no longer working, how can you get an income? Even if you've got money set aside, it's nearly impossible to be able to depend on that reserve until you die because it's almost impossible to save up enough money over a 50 year period to last you another 40 years.
And people who can't work because of an injury should get some money from the government, but they shouldn't expect to rely on it. Nor should the government let them. Unless you're brain dead or close to it, you can at least get a desk job. Life may be hard, but tough. Life's not always fair. No one should expect it to be. If you're not capable of doing work that requires physical activity, then get a job that doesn't require physical activity


That's how some people see the United States. Not quite on par with the two you mentioned, perhaps, but nations worldwide are seeing less of an openness for diplomacy and a more militaristic approach. That's why people see the United States as a menacing and now unworthy force - to one who lives within the borders and calls himself a proud citizen, it is easy to justify the acts and see them in a "patriotic" and acceptable view. Even with the examples you provided (which I AGREE are extreme to compare), many Germans were more than content when Hitler came into power, he pulled the nation out of the economic and social turmoil that had befallen the nation after WWI - and this was with many people having an inkling of what was tragically going on in the background. Likewise, most Iraqis were not only content with Saddam, but flourished under a period of economic prosperity and educational opportunity.

I am NOT justifying these regimes. I am NOT saying the USA is like them. But what IS happening is that, slowly, the Bush era has taken the USA down a turbulent and precarious path, one where, regretfully, the military has become the absolute priority. The quagmire of Iraq, the "sword rattling" with Iran, the labeling of other nations as an "Axis of Evil" because we find fault with them, all this focus on challenging and evoking the military's might and force while the people's rights are removed (habeus corpus), inequality gap between rich and poor widens considerably etc. these are all lamentable signs and all point towards a bad direction.

A bigger government won't give people more rights. You should know that. A smaller government is far easier to manage, and be controlled by the people. That's what we need.

And Iran would gladly wipe us off the face of the earth. They would've before the war, they do know, and they will in the future. Don't you ever forget that. I'm not saying we should bomb them to bits, becuase that would be inhumane. There's a lot of innocent people there. But we need to let their government know that if they try anything funny, they'll pay for it.

And we didn't label them the "Axis of Evil" because we found fault with them. We labeled them as such because they (the governments, not the people) ARE evil, and steps need to be taken to ensure that they aren't able to cause problems, or harm other nations. Whether it's the US or not.

And people see our government as such because they've forgotten what kind of person Saddam was. He may have given them a prosperous economy, but exactly how many people benefitted from that? He commited genocide among his own people.
I don't care how well off Iraqi's might have been with him in power, their futures are a lot brighter now that they finally have control over their government, and can decide how things are run for themselves.

[Gio]

Exactly, just handing out money will lead people to believe that the government wants to do everything for them, which includes paying them. That leads to them just living off of government handouts. If anything it would worsen the problem.

[Legolastom]

I was talking about the taxes.

[inthenameofDT]

bought midgrade gas today for $3.97 a gallon

[Toasty]

Regular is $4 and something cents over here.

Legolastom, on Jul 21 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

I was talking about the taxes.

A flat tax system would get rid of headaches for every single American citiczen. Especially the lower class. Like I said in my previous post (I've edited it. Took me so long becuase life pulled me away for a while) a flat tax system where the government takes a certain percentage of everyone's salary, no sales tax, no morgage tax, none of it. Just say, 10% off the top of their salary, would be SO much more easier to manage than all of the taxes we have today. It's a complete mess. I wouldn't be surprised if people were actually paying more than 10% of their salary on taxes alone. That's including all taxes, even sales tax. A flat tax would replace all of them..

And if all men are created equal, shouldn't all men be taxed equally?



And to clarify, my previous post was edited to reply to GL.

[Golden Legacy]

You're hell-bent on putting all the blame on Bush's shoulders, aren't you? Even though it's obvious that he's not the only one at fault. Face it. It doesn't matter whether Bush put the idea foreward or not, Congress shares the blame equally (possibly even more of it, actually) for authorizing and funding it.

Look at it like this: Someone tells you to steal a candybar from a store. You decide to do it. You get caught.
Now who's to blame? From your perspective, it wouldn't be your fault at all because it was the other guys' idea. I'm sorry, but that is entirely wrong. You're the one who chose to steal the candybar, so you're at fault. It doesn't matter who's idea it was, because you're the one who put the plan into action.
Now the Iraq war is entirely different from stealing a candybar, but the moral of the story applies just as much to this case. The only difference, really, is that the person who put up the idea has taken more of the blame then the person who carried it out.
You answered your own question here. This is a war, it means innocent lives lost. Don't put words in my mouth by saying that I ONLY think Bush is responsible, but he bears the brunt of it. He is the president of this nation, he led the path towards the war.

Tell me, if Bush had never labeled Iraq as the enemy, if he had never insisted on faulty and non-reliable intelligence as being entirely fact, would there have been any incentive for Congress to declare war? None.


Because terrorism is bad no matter who's attacking who'm, and so it must be stopped. They may not have been Al Qaeda, but they could've alligned themselves wth them, or they could've tried to attack the US in the future. Regardless, we're safer now that Saddam isn't helping them.

And who exactly was the president at the time? Jimmy Carter. A Democrat. I guess you just forgot, huh?

Let's get some things straight here.
Saddam gets into power. Iraq-Iran conflict.

Who brings Saddam into power and supports him?
The United States. Under a Republican reign. Supported Saddam and provided him with weapons.

Must have slipped your mind?


Yeah. There kinda does. If there isn't then there's a possibility that IT DOES EXIST. Anyone who knew a thing or two about the laws of probability should know that. I thought you did. Maybe I assumed wrong?
LMAO. Seriously you're killing me here Toasty.
Then you know what? Remember in our old debate about the Abu Ghraib abuses, and how many prisoners have died?

You have claimed that American troops would never kill or torture prisoners. But there is a strong possibility that they did - because there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that they didn't.

Therefore they have.

See how your logic can be twisted around? To say that there has to be some EVIDENCE of something NOT existing is like saying God exists because there's nothing to say he doesn't exist.

Wait, oh no I didn't.

Saddam could have VERY EASILY had WMD's in his posession without anyone knowing it becuase the UN didn't show any backbone when they searched for the WMD's. When they went in to search, Saddam would say "Oh no! Don't look over there! That's obviously where I'm storing all of my dangerous weapons!" And the UN would say "Okay, why don't we let you tell us where to look? You'e a trustworthy fellow, so we think it's fair to let you decide for us. After all, you're just such a little angel!"

And that's pretty much how it went, albiet with much less sarcasm.
Evidence.


It's only low if the family members have nothing to do with the campaign. McCain's wif hasn't been involved in the whole thing, so she hasn't been targeted, nor would it be fair. Michelle Obama HAS been involved, so it IS fair. Just like it was fair for the media to attack Hilary's daughter. Her daughter is an adult, and she was part of the campaign. A fair target. I would have agreed that it was low if Michelle wasn't involved, however, because she wouldn't have put herself in the media's eye.
Should have expected such tactics from a conservative. And they say liberals have no guts? Ha. Here we have a prime example of cowardice, the Republicans attack Michelle Obama, the spouse of the candidate they're against.

It's a low tactic Toasty. There is no denying that. Michelle Obama has been in the media no less than Cindy McCain, and yet you proudly go after Michelle Obama and try to twist her comments around while if a Democrat did that against McCain's wife, you and the other conservatives would cry foul.


Secondly, the kind of humour that John McCain finds amusing tells of his character. Yes, you could argue otherwise, but I cannot believe the audacity and disgust of a candidate who can speak of war with such a light tone. Not even Bush is like that (he's just an idiot).



The point of having OUR soldiers in there doing reconnaissance, is so we have a direct, fully trustworthy source on the ground. I'm not saying that Iraq would try and double-cross us, because they wouldn't unless we gave them a very good reason to. However, who would you trust more? Your own family, or a friend who you've just met? (I know we've known Iraq for a long time, but Iraq hasn't had their current president for very long).
The fact is, we have to keep tabs on every place we've ever occupied because it isn't wise to turn your back on anyone when it come to international diplomacy. Especially if you're the world super power.
The more information we can get, the safer we can be. It's as simple as that.

And I see nothing wrong with leaving a handful of soldiers at small American military base. Especially if they're not going to be interacting with Iraqi citizcens while on call.
The part in red is where your point fails.
If the USA is a superpower, it has become less so during Bush's reign. Less dignity, less honour, less respect, a lot weaker influence.


It's FAR easier to get a smaller government to co-operate with the people than it is a large one. A bigger government may have it's advantages, but because it's so easy for the power to go to the official's heads, those advantages are rarely realised. The officials are usually more interested in how the government's actions impact them, rather than the common citiczen.

And lie Eugine said, taxing the corperations like that will only make it more enticing for them to move over seas and take all of the job openings with them. We need to reward them for giving jobs to US citiczens, not punish them for giving the jobs to foreigners.

I'm glad to see you jump on Eugine's point here about taxing corporations. But it's a fair one.


I know how the economy works, and I know how taxing the rich more may seem like a good idea. But what I don't get, is how Obama is trying to make everything "fair", yet he doesn't want to tax people equally. nstead, he want's to tax the rich more, and actually give the lower class handouts instead of taxes. He would rather everybody have the same salary, no matter what job they had, then let them get ample pay for their work. That's just ludicrous and hipocritical.

And now that the war is practically over with, we shouldn't need to tax the citiczens heavily. Though heavy taxes would pull us out of the deficit faster, I agree.

Besides that, a flat tax system would get rid of so many headaches for everyone. ESPECIALLY the lower class citiczens. 10% off the top of their salaries seems like a much better idea than nickle and dimeing them on everything they purchase or pay for.
Toasty, we have a debt and an annual deficit. That is not going to subside soon unless the government gets back its funding.

That means ending the Bush tax cuts which only favour the wealthy.

Taxing the rich more, taxing the poor less, has been a pillar of nearly every single administration, even certain Republican ones. The rich have the wealth concentrated unfairly, primarily in investments and not in liquid capital, which doesn't filter through the economy and benefit the nation as a whole.

A flat tax rate is easier to manage but fiscally, it's a very poor choice and would be extremely unfair to the majority of people.



It's actually incredibly easy to keep from going under due to un-expected occurances: You plan for the worst. Too many people opperate under the principle that something bad is unlikely to happen. They aquire numerous credit cards, never expecting to get laid off, or for the housing market to slump severely, or a natural disaster to happen, or whatever. The government may play a part in it all, but it's up to the people to always be prepared. It's you're own fault if you didn't expect something to happen. Most of the things that could go wrong are bound to, so it's best to be prepared.

Toasty, again, you're being harsh here. You can easily claim all those things, and yes people do need to borrow responsibly, but sometimes it's inevitable. People have families that grow, so they need to borrow loans to buy new homes, cars, support their children's education. They can't anticipate things five, ten years into the future when their loans have already long since been borrowed.

Furthermore, there is a lot of unregulated poaching that's going on, hidden traps that lending corporations have within the fine print. Legal loopholes that get people in unfortunately sticky situations. It happens Toasty, when you're trying to care for yourself and your family it can be difficult.


I went to a private elementary school for one year when I lived in Florida. We moved the year after. And I know private schools are expensive. I also know that our education system needs some work. But what I think needs to be done is to have the government fund the private schools, and nothing more. No interference, no restrictions on how the funds should be spent, and let the schools decide for themselves how to educate the students. Obviously this leaves room for the schools to carelessly spend the funds, but they shouldn't be recieving any more than they normally would if they weren't government funded. Just send the government a survey of how many students they have, and how much money they need, and have the government pay accordingly.

The main problem with that though, is that it ives the government power over the school's funding. That could be really bad if the government decides to cut funding to the schools. So there needs to be something like a minimum amount that has to be paid to the schools, and have it be on a per-child basis. The more children a school has, the more funding it gets.

And from what I understand, your highschool leans to the left. So I just can't see how that claim could be true. tongue.gif j/k

You mean government subsidization of schools? I think that's a great idea actually, and I would also like to see those funds channeled into the public school system though. Private schools tend to have wealthy founders and alumni that can more than take care of themselves.

Public schools need it more, and since the majority of students go there, it would be worthwhile.

Also, what's your stance on education? I don't know what McCain or the conservatives view the education system as and what they plan to do to reform it, but I do know that liberals believe in investing heavily in education, very very much. Building new schools, lowering class sizes, increasing wages for teachers (who are VERY underpaid and underappreciated, I have the utmost respect for them).

Oh, and my school fucking rocked. Some of the most brilliant kids in America, no joke, and located in scenic lower Manhattan in NYC, right by the Hudson River and the Statue of Liberty. Awesome, fantastic four years of my life. :blink:

(and yes, I wish I were one of those insanely brilliant kids, lol. But trust me, I wasn't half bad if I say so myself :!:).



You said, and I quote, "A state that prides itself in having committed the worst war crimes in history." I don't know about you, but it sounds like that would include warcrimes committed by ANY government and ANY nation, including the Nazis. I'm not saying we haven't done some petty bad stuff, but we haven't done the worst. Nor should we be looked on as such. I don't care if I'm putting hings into perspective, because in this case it kinda needs to be. I'm not justifying our warcrimes, but I'm certainly not going to stand by and have my country compared anything close to Germany in WWII.

Jumping on every word? Still, it is what I said. I'll clarify - "a state that prides itself in having committed AMONG the worst war crimes in history".


And the people knew what was happening with the economy, so they should've prepared themselves. It's not hard to prepare yourself for any one of those events you mentioned.
Let's say the government created a tsunami that was headed for the coast of Florida. Everyone knew about it days ahead of time, and everyone was given time to evacuate. For the sake of the argument, let's also say that nobody was incapable of evacuation. Is it the governments fault if the people who didn't evacuate got hurt? They were warned and given time to evacuate, but they didn't. The government ma have cause the wave, but it's the people's fault for not being prepared. Especially if it was foreseeable.
You can say that there's no way anyone could have predicted things like lost jobs or whatever, but that's not true. They can predict them, they just can't predict when they will happen. In today's declining economy, it's only common sense that people are getting laid off. The company my dad works for just recently laid off a bunch of temporary employees, and even some permanent ones. My dad's an engineer, however, and the company despertely needs engineers for the projects they're working on, so he was safe.
However, it wouldn't be out of the question to prepare just in case he might have gotten laid off (though he's one of the head engineer's so that's unlikely to happen, but you ge the point).

I do see your point, but I still believe you see it entirely black and white. There's a lot that goes on in life, a lot of variable and factors that affect day-to-day activities. Using your example, wouldn't it be just as feasible for the tsunami to have occurred suddenly, without warning? The recent housing market credit crunch happened in just a few months, which is a very short amount of time for the economy to change that dramatically.

People can't just uproot themselves and move to where the jobs are, people can't find jobs when competition is so fierce and laid off workers are appearing everywhere. It's a difficult cycle to crack. An unfair one too, and they never want to get stuck.

Also, since you brought it up, what would your dad had done if engineers were no longer needed or were cut?


The thing is, you think of this problem from the viewpoint that the people couldn't have done anything to prevent this, and it's all the government's fault. The problem with that thinking is that the people shoul know very good and well that worst can always happen. Especially in a failing economy.

It's also far easier for the government to do more damage than good in situations like this, because they can cater to the general population. Not all the specific needs of every person.

You say that you dare to ask more of the government. I say that I dare to ask more of the people. The government shouldn't have to do anything, because the people should be able to take care of themselves without the government's help. And the government shouldn't be so big that it can force people to rely on them. Whether it be handouts or whatever.

You may think it's harsh, but it's entirely true. People have the capability to foresee and prepare. If they don't, then they're responsible for the outcome that goes with not preparing.

You know, I really think our points merge here quite well. We both demand the most and the best, we're just choosing to focus on one particular side. They're both in play here, wouldn't you agree?


And no. I'm not against social security. When you're retired and no longer working, how can you get an income? Even if you've got money set aside, it's nearly impossible to be able to depend on that reserve until you die because it's almost impossible to save up enough money over a 50 year period to last you another 40 years.
And people who can't work because of an injury should get some money from the government, but they shouldn't expect to rely on it. Nor should the government let them. Unless you're brain dead or close to it, you can at least get a desk job. Life may be hard, but tough. Life's not always fair. No one should expect it to be. If you're not capable of doing work that requires physical activity, then get a job that doesn't require physical activity

And how do you think social security and pensions are funded? Taxes, my good friend.
Further, the Bush tax cuts have accelerated the over-capacity of Social Security, something like a deficit of trillions over the next few years, with Social Security being completely used up by the year 2017. That's because the system is being strained, by the booming senior demographic and by the decreased taxes on the wealthy.

To go back to before, a flat rax rate wouldn't be able to compensate and provide as much money back into the government for programs as essential as Social Security. That's why there's the staggered system of wealth and income brackets. It's more difficult to manage perhaps, but it has become the standard both in the US and worldwide, the higher the income range, the more you give back.


(me) That's how some people see the United States. Not quite on par with the two you mentioned, perhaps, but nations worldwide are seeing less of an openness for diplomacy and a more militaristic approach. That's why people see the United States as a menacing and now unworthy force - to one who lives within the borders and calls himself a proud citizen, it is easy to justify the acts and see them in a "patriotic" and acceptable view. Even with the examples you provided (which I AGREE are extreme to compare), many Germans were more than content when Hitler came into power, he pulled the nation out of the economic and social turmoil that had befallen the nation after WWI - and this was with many people having an inkling of what was tragically going on in the background. Likewise, most Iraqis were not only content with Saddam, but flourished under a period of economic prosperity and educational opportunity.

I am NOT justifying these regimes. I am NOT saying the USA is like them. But what IS happening is that, slowly, the Bush era has taken the USA down a turbulent and precarious path, one where, regretfully, the military has become the absolute priority. The quagmire of Iraq, the "sword rattling" with Iran, the labeling of other nations as an "Axis of Evil" because we find fault with them, all this focus on challenging and evoking the military's might and force while the people's rights are removed (habeus corpus), inequality gap between rich and poor widens considerably etc. these are all lamentable signs and all point towards a bad direction.

A bigger government won't give people more rights. You should know that. A smaller government is far easier to manage, and be controlled by the people. That's what we need.

And Iran would gladly wipe us off the face of the earth. They would've before the war, they do know, and they will in the future. Don't you ever forget that. I'm not saying we should bomb them to bits, becuase that would be inhumane. There's a lot of innocent people there. But we need to let their government know that if they try anything funny, they'll pay for it.

And we didn't label them the "Axis of Evil" because we found fault with them. We labeled them as such because they (the governments, not the people) ARE evil, and steps need to be taken to ensure that they aren't able to cause problems, or harm other nations. Whether it's the US or not.

And people see our government as such because they've forgotten what kind of person Saddam was. He may have given them a prosperous economy, but exactly how many people benefitted from that? He commited genocide among his own people.
I don't care how well off Iraqi's might have been with him in power, their futures are a lot brighter now that they finally have control over their government, and can decide how things are run for themselves.

You always talk of "smaller government" - yet Bush's administration has removed habeus corpus! Something so fundamental has been removed by the government, is that not the government expanding its influence over the people and taking away such a logically basic principle?

I wish I could agree with you when you say "Axis of Evil" was referring to the governments, not the people. But in recent years people have begun to assume the worst of the people too, I can't tell you how many people believe that every Muslim is a "radical" and in support these regimes. People from the Bush administration I am led to believe, and many more Americans.

Racism has exploded in past years. Yes, perhaps it can't be helped, with the rising Islamophobia worldwide and fear of "terrorist regimes" everywhere, but it's disheartening nonetheless to see entire peoples labeled as such.

Also, I have to ask on a more recent issue - Bush and McCain have both gone on record saying that extremist regimes should not be negotiated with on equal ground. Yet recently, envoys were sent to North Korea and the regime (supposedly) dismantled its nuclear program.

Likewise, Bush recently sent a representative to Iran - Iran, which the USA is starting to entice into war it seems, regretfully - after both his administration and McCain have gone on record saying its wrong to sit down with these governments, that it sends the wrong message of respect to them.

And yet here we have those words taken back!
A position, incidentally, favoured by liberals, including Obama.

Why the sudden turn around? Or as you would say, why the flip-flopping?


EDIT: Toasty, after your response, can we call a truce on these epic long debates? I'm not sure if I have any more hour-long posting sessions in me. :D

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 22 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

EDIT: Toasty, after your response, can we call a truce on these epic long debates? I'm not sure if I have any more hour-long posting sessions in me. :!:

Thank the Lord!!!!

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 21 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

You answered your own question here. This is a war, it means innocent lives lost. Don't put words in my mouth by saying that I ONLY think Bush is responsible, but he bears the brunt of it. He is the president of this nation, he led the path towards the war.

Tell me, if Bush had never labeled Iraq as the enemy, if he had never insisted on faulty and non-reliable intelligence as being entirely fact, would there have been any incentive for Congress to declare war? None.

Yeah. The incentive would have been to secure a foothold in the middle-east so we could be better suited for dealing with terrrorism. And the only thing you're talking about is how Bush is at fault. How do you expect me to believe that you find anyone else at fault if you never mention it? Congress was still the one who authorized it, so they are, at the very least, just as much at fault as Bush.

Let's get some things straight here.
Saddam gets into power. Iraq-Iran conflict.

Who brings Saddam into power and supports him?
The United States. Under a Republican reign. Supported Saddam and provided him with weapons.

Must have slipped your mind?

Name the president in power at the time. The one who provided him with weapons. Jimmy Carter came into office in....'77? was it? Anyway, Saddam came to power in '79, while Carter was President. Saddam was in power for a full two years before Carter's term was up, in 1981. Kinda hard for a Republican President to bring someone to power if the President at the time was Democratic. Wouldn't you say?


LMAO. Seriously you're killing me here Toasty.
Then you know what? Remember in our old debate about the Abu Ghraib abuses, and how many prisoners have died?

You have claimed that American troops would never kill or torture prisoners. But there is a strong possibility that they did - because there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that they didn't.

Therefore they have.

See how your logic can be twisted around? To say that there has to be some EVIDENCE of something NOT existing is like saying God exists because there's nothing to say he doesn't exist.

Wait, oh no I didn't.

You really don't seem to grasp the concept, do you? Let's say someone is hiding behind a bush. You can't see, hear, or sense their presence in any way. There is no evidence at all to suggest that someone is behind the bush. Yet that person is still there. Why? Becuase there wasn't any evidenceto suggest that he wasn't there. The thing is, if there's little to no evidence to support either claim, then there is a chance that either outcome is true.
We have proof that Saddam didn't have WMD's WHEN WE INVADED. We DON'T have proof, however, that Saddam never had WMD's in the first place. Therefore, there is a posibility that he had WMD's at some point in time.

If there's no proof that God exists, then the common consensus is that he doesn't. However, if there's ALSO no proof that he DOESN'T exist, then either theory is plausable. Neither can be confirmed or denied, so they both remain as possible outcomes.

I would have thought you'd be able to understand something like that.

As for turning my logic against me, it was more twisting it and bending it entirely out of shape to fit your agenda. Like so many other Democrats like to do.
Obviously, the chances of every single prisoner in Abu Ghraib being guilty are slim. There is always a chance that someone is innocent. The same can be said for our jails and prisons here at home in America. The possibility that prisoners are being mistreated at Abu Ghraib doesn't exist because there's no evidence to support otherwise, it exists becuase it's a possibility. Being in the region that it is, it's a highly likely possibility.

Evidence.

With all of your news outlets you read and listen to, you shouldn't need me to give you evidence. I could give you a source, but you'll write it off as being heavily right-winged, and obviously "full of lies."

If you can't find one yourself, I'll find one later today. It's 5AM here atm.

Should have expected such tactics from a conservative. And they say liberals have no guts? Ha. Here we have a prime example of cowardice, the Republicans attack Michelle Obama, the spouse of the candidate they're against.

It's a low tactic Toasty. There is no denying that. Michelle Obama has been in the media no less than Cindy McCain, and yet you proudly go after Michelle Obama and try to twist her comments around while if a Democrat did that against McCain's wife, you and the other conservatives would cry foul.

Oh shush. Michelle has recieved much, MUCH more media coverage than Cindy McCain. To think otherwise is idiocy. Michelle has been helping Barrack with his campaign. Cindy has been staying on the sidelines the whole time. She's fair game whether you like it or not. I don't care if you think it's a low blow, because honestly, if a candidate is recieving help on the political front, then the people helping him, regardless of their relationship with hm, are open for attack by the media.

Secondly, the kind of humour that John McCain finds amusing tells of his character. Yes, you could argue otherwise, but I cannot believe the audacity and disgust of a candidate who can speak of war with such a light tone. Not even Bush is like that (he's just an idiot).

First off, I highly doubt you could lead a war better than Bush. He only looks like an idiot to you because that's the only kind of media you pay attention to. The kind that consistently misquotes him, or cuts off part of his speeches. He's not the best president ever, but he certain;y isn't the worst, and he certainly isn't an idiot.
Secondly, if you can't talk lightly of war, then how can you expect to have the ability to go to war when the time comes for it?
Barrack wouldn't have the guts to go to war because he wouldn't be able to put up with all the flak he'd get for it. Regardless of what kind of war he was fighting.

You seem to really like to call people who don't agree with you "disgusting".

(Me:)
The point of having OUR soldiers in there doing reconnaissance, is so we have a direct, fully trustworthy source on the ground. I'm not saying that Iraq would try and double-cross us, because they wouldn't unless we gave them a very good reason to. However, who would you trust more? Your own family, or a friend who you've just met? (I know we've known Iraq for a long time, but Iraq hasn't had their current president for very long).
The fact is, we have to keep tabs on every place we've ever occupied because it isn't wise to turn your back on anyone when it come to international diplomacy. Especially if you're the world super power.
The more information we can get, the safer we can be. It's as simple as that.

And I see nothing wrong with leaving a handful of soldiers at small American military base. Especially if they're not going to be interacting with Iraqi citizcens while on call.

The part in red is where your point fails.
If the USA is a superpower, it has become less so during Bush's reign. Less dignity, less honour, less respect, a lot weaker influence.


My point didn't fail anywhere. It still stands becuase whether you think so or not, we are still very much the world superpower. We still very much need to keep our backs covered, and keep our weakspots reinforced.
We've only lost dignty, honor, and respect becuase we took a lot longer with the War than we intended and promised to. And that's because we didn't get the additional funding we needed when we needed it. It doesn't matter if ush's, the General's, or whoever's estimates were off, it doesn't change the fact that congress denied the additional funding when they were asked for it. And thus, the war took much longer than it should have.
We've fallen in our influence not because of Bush, ut because we continue to Quarrel amongst ourselves instead of getting things done. Blaming the President is only the easy and cowardly way out of taking responsibility.


I'm glad to see you jump on Eugine's point here about taxing corporations. But it's a fair one.

When it comes to stubborn people/corporations, brute force is far less efficient and effective than offering them something they want in return for something you want.
That's the point I was trying to get accross.

Toasty, we have a debt and an annual deficit. That is not going to subside soon unless the government gets back its funding.

That means ending the Bush tax cuts which only favour the wealthy.

Taxing the rich more, taxing the poor less, has been a pillar of nearly every single administration, even certain Republican ones. The rich have the wealth concentrated unfairly, primarily in investments and not in liquid capital, which doesn't filter through the economy and benefit the nation as a whole.

A flat tax rate is easier to manage but fiscally, it's a very poor choice and would be extremely unfair to the majority of people.

For the most part, the rich got where they are becuase they worked for it. Don't you dare say that it's "unfair" that they're better off than you, or anyone else. They were able to become so wealthy because of the kind of coutry America is. A Capitalistic society where it's possible for anyone to be at the top if they work for it hard enough, and want it badly enough.

A flat tax would keep so many people from going bankrupt that it's not even funny.
A progressive tax system may fund the government better, and it may seem easier on the citiczens, but I fail to see how giving the government more money is a good thing.

You know how sales tax works, right? It doesn't care whether you're rich or poor, you'll pay the same amount of money in tax for a gallon of milk as someone who makes twice as much as you. Since a flat tax would get rid of sales tax, I fail to see how it would be harder on the lower class.

And I realise that we need to get out of this deficit, and that incresing taxes is the best way to do it. However, I'm not going to be happy of Obama shoots taxes through the roof. rducing the taxcuts would be fine. Getting rid of them is possibly understandable. But increasing them after dropping the cuts is un-acceptable.


Toasty, again, you're being harsh here. You can easily claim all those things, and yes people do need to borrow responsibly, but sometimes it's inevitable. People have families that grow, so they need to borrow loans to buy new homes, cars, support their children's education. They can't anticipate things five, ten years into the future when their loans have already long since been borrowed.

Furthermore, there is a lot of unregulated poaching that's going on, hidden traps that lending corporations have within the fine print. Legal loopholes that get people in unfortunately sticky situations. It happens Toasty, when you're trying to care for yourself and your family it can be difficult.

Yeah, that does happen. And it's wrong. But it's not the government's fault here. The only thing they should do is beat down on the lenders for allow people to get into bad situations un-knowingly. Bailing the people out will only make them dependant, no matter how right it may seem. The people need to be able to take care of themselves no matter what happens. It's not impossible to do that when it comes to financial security.

It may seem harsh and unfair, but it's still the safest, and most fair way to go. Like I said, the government can't cater to everyone in the way they need to be catered to. Only the people themselves know what's best for them.

I went to a private elementary school for one year when I lived in Florida. We moved the year after. And I know private schools are expensive. I also know that our education system needs some work. But what I think needs to be done is to have the government fund the private schools, and nothing more. No interference, no restrictions on how the funds should be spent, and let the schools decide for themselves how to educate the students. Obviously this leaves room for the schools to carelessly spend the funds, but they shouldn't be recieving any more than they normally would if they weren't government funded. Just send the government a survey of how many students they have, and how much money they need, and have the government pay accordingly.

The main problem with that though, is that it ives the government power over the school's funding. That could be really bad if the government decides to cut funding to the schools. So there needs to be something like a minimum amount that has to be paid to the schools, and have it be on a per-child basis. The more children a school has, the more funding it gets.

And from what I understand, your highschool leans to the left. So I just can't see how that claim could be true. tongue.gif j/k

You mean government subsidization of schools? I think that's a great idea actually, and I would also like to see those funds channeled into the public school system though. Private schools tend to have wealthy founders and alumni that can more than take care of themselves.

Public schools need it more, and since the majority of students go there, it would be worthwhile.

Also, what's your stance on education? I don't know what McCain or the conservatives view the education system as and what they plan to do to reform it, but I do know that liberals believe in investing heavily in education, very very much. Building new schools, lowering class sizes, increasing wages for teachers (who are VERY underpaid and underappreciated, I have the utmost respect for them).

Oh, and my school whacking rocked. Some of the most brilliant kids in America, no joke, and located in scenic lower Manhattan in NYC, right by the Hudson River and the Statue of Liberty. Awesome, fantastic four years of my life. :blink:

(and yes, I wish I were one of those insanely brilliant kids, lol. But trust me, I wasn't half bad if I say so myself :blink: ).

My stance is that anybody should be able to get the best education available if they ant it. No one should be forced to go to school, they should only go if they want to. If they don't want to go, they can deal with the consequences of not having a good paying job.

The government should stay out of education save for it's funding, which they shouldn't have complete control over. They should provide the funding, and it should be up to the schools to determine how much funding is needed. Albiet there will have to be caps and regulations to keep things from going overboard.

Education should be available to anyone who wants it, because it's the people who want it that deserve it. If you fail a grade, too bad. you've go to re-do it. No second chances. If you don't care about school enough to go to it, then fine. The kids who actually want an education could sure use smaller class sizes.

That's basically my stance on it.

And my Highschool sucks. =/ I hated my science teacher. My friend got a great one though. One that I know I would've gotten along well with. I learned very little from CS1, which was basically a review of everything I already knew, with a few smal things thrown in. I would've taken the same class with the other teacher, but my friend and his teacher would engage in conversations about things related to science that were far beyond CS1. College level even. I myself have devised a pretty good explanation for how gravity exists in the universe, and why smaller objects are attracted to larger objects. My science teahcer, however, insists that teaching the kids who don't care is more important than furthering the knowlede of those who do care.

Plus, he was an arrogant ass and wouldn't accept when he was wrong. Seriously. A lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. :!:

Plus, my highschool in general likes to cater to the students who couldn't care less more than the ones interested in learning. The system at our highschool is so full of beurocracy that it's sickening. It's a school for christ's sake! Not a freaking government! I honestly don't see why it would be so hard for them to just let me take the dang health test and get out of health even if the class had already begun. It's so incredibly annoying.

Hopefully my Sophomore year will be better. Though it's nice to see someone had a good experience. I'd love to go to school in a big city. I've always preferred big cities over small ones like the one I live in. So many more opportunities, and so many more things to do. Though small towns do have their good points.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. On to the next point in this overbloated debate. :D


Jumping on every word? Still, it is what I said. I'll clarify - "a state that prides itself in having committed AMONG the worst war crimes in history".

I can live with that, I suppose.

I do see your point, but I still believe you see it entirely black and white. There's a lot that goes on in life, a lot of variable and factors that affect day-to-day activities. Using your example, wouldn't it be just as feasible for the tsunami to have occurred suddenly, without warning? The recent housing market credit crunch happened in just a few months, which is a very short amount of time for the economy to change that dramatically.

People can't just uproot themselves and move to where the jobs are, people can't find jobs when competition is so fierce and laid off workers are appearing everywhere. It's a difficult cycle to crack. An unfair one too, and they never want to get stuck.

Also, since you brought it up, what would your dad had done if engineers were no longer needed or were cut?

Well let's put it this way then. People who live in California near that infamous fault line should be living there in full knowledge that an erathquake which could flatten their house could happen at any time. Am I correct? However, should an earthquake hit them, it's their own fault for living there. People may not be abl to predict when something will happen, but if there's a strong possibility that something bad might happen, they should be prepared. In this case, they should either spend the money to build a fully earthquake-proof house, or move. When it's a matter of "when" and not "if", it shouldn't be out of the question for people to be prepared for whatever is to happen. The slump in the housing market was a when, and not an if. With things going the way they are, it was bound to happen. People should have realised this, and prepared ahead of time.
It may not be black and white, but it's a lot simpler than people think.

I realise that people can't just get up and move, and I realise that competition can be fierce, but people who want a job badly enough will find a way to get one. My mom has been having trouble finding, and even keeping a job. She always get's these crappy bosses (though everyone seems to nowadays. Even my dad and sister have, or have had poor bosses), or someone always comes along who can be hired for less, or something. She finally got a great job working as a tax consultant or something, and it payed exactly what she needed it to. But it was a seasonal job only open during tax season. Anyway, she finally decided to go back to college and finish her degree. Thanks to the wonders of technology, the college where she origionally studied at no offers online classes. So she was pretty much able to pick up where she left off nearly 30 years ago.
But if you want a job badly enough, you'll find one, or find a way to get one. People will look at options they wouldn't have considered before, becuase times are more desperate than they were before.

As for what my dad would have one, I'm not sure if the job is still open, but a while ago he was offered a job by a friend of his. One that payed better than what he was currently getting at the time. Though it did require that we move back down to Portland (which would have strangely brought us full circle, as that's where my sister and I were born. We then moved to Florida, and then Redmond here in Washington, and then here to Moses Lake). However, he got the raise that he asked for, so the job no longer offered more money.

But because of his credentials, it wouldn't be very hard for him to find a new job, even in today's economy. So basically, if he was layed off, he'd sell some stocks and go job searching. We'd probably end up selling our MGB too, which he was planning on selling anyway. Possibly even the boat if need be. But I know we'd pull through relatively unscaived.

(Me:)
The thing is, you think of this problem from the viewpoint that the people couldn't have done anything to prevent this, and it's all the government's fault. The problem with that thinking is that the people shoul know very good and well that worst can always happen. Especially in a failing economy.

It's also far easier for the government to do more damage than good in situations like this, because they can cater to the general population. Not all the specific needs of every person.

You say that you dare to ask more of the government. I say that I dare to ask more of the people. The government shouldn't have to do anything, because the people should be able to take care of themselves without the government's help. And the government shouldn't be so big that it can force people to rely on them. Whether it be handouts or whatever.

You may think it's harsh, but it's entirely true. People have the capability to foresee and prepare. If they don't, then they're responsible for the outcome that goes with not preparing.

You know, I really think our points merge here quite well. We both demand the most and the best, we're just choosing to focus on one particular side. They're both in play here, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, I guess I would. Though I still don't like the idea of goernment hand-outs. =/


And how do you think social security and pensions are funded? Taxes, my good friend.
Further, the Bush tax cuts have accelerated the over-capacity of Social Security, something like a deficit of trillions over the next few years, with Social Security being completely used up by the year 2017. That's because the system is being strained, by the booming senior demographic and by the decreased taxes on the wealthy.

To go back to before, a flat rax rate wouldn't be able to compensate and provide as much money back into the government for programs as essential as Social Security. That's why there's the staggered system of wealth and income brackets. It's more difficult to manage perhaps, but it has become the standard both in the US and worldwide, the higher the income range, the more you give back.

Social Security has been on a track to failure ever since some President (who's name slips my mind) decided to use it's funds to fund his term in the White House (or was it his campaign? That would've been worse). It was broken a long time ago and never fixed. Frankly, something needs to replace it. What that something is, however, I do not know.

Though should we rely on Social Securty with a flat tax enacted, I would imagine that something else might be used to fund social security. Possibly a seperate progressive tax? Just not anything near the scale or complexity of what we currently have. Simply take some money of the top of salaries with the wealthier paying a larger percentage of their salaries.

I don't hate progressive taxation as much as it sounds like, I just hate it when it's on a large scale.


You always talk of "smaller government" - yet Bush's administration has removed habeus corpus! Something so fundamental has been removed by the government, is that not the government expanding its influence over the people and taking away such a logically basic principle?

I wish I could agree with you when you say "Axis of Evil" was referring to the governments, not the people. But in recent years people have begun to assume the worst of the people too, I can't tell you how many people believe that every Muslim is a "radical" and in support these regimes. People from the Bush administration I am led to believe, and many more Americans.

Racism has exploded in past years. Yes, perhaps it can't be helped, with the rising Islamophobia worldwide and fear of "terrorist regimes" everywhere, but it's disheartening nonetheless to see entire peoples labeled as such.

Also, I have to ask on a more recent issue - Bush and McCain have both gone on record saying that extremist regimes should not be negotiated with on equal ground. Yet recently, envoys were sent to North Korea and the regime (supposedly) dismantled its nuclear program.

Likewise, Bush recently sent a representative to Iran - Iran, which the USA is starting to entice into war it seems, regretfully - after both his administration and McCain have gone on record saying its wrong to sit down with these governments, that it sends the wrong message of respect to them.

And yet here we have those words taken back!
A position, incidentally, favoured by liberals, including Obama.

Why the sudden turn around? Or as you would say, why the flip-flopping?

As far as Korea goes, I don't think they were suicidal, or prepared to die, or whatever. That may be why they use diplomacy. The only time diplomacy can't be used is when the enemy will stop at absolutely nothing to defeat you. Just like the Japanese in WWII. They had Kamikaze's who'd crash into ships. Though after the bomb was dropped, they figured that they had taken enough casualties, and that continuing was futile.

From my point of view, Iran is more full of people who just plain hate us, then extremeists. What's his face (their leader) wants nothing less than to wipe us out, but I don't think he'd risk his life to do so.

For the record, I know there's a difference between a Muslim and a Muslim extremeist. Being a religious person myself, it wouldn't be wise of me if I couldn't tell the difference. All religions have extremeists. Islam just seems to have more of them, or at least, they're more publicized than the others.

EDIT: Toasty, after your response, can we call a truce on these epic long debates? I'm not sure if I have any more hour-long posting sessions in me. :blink:

Hour long? I'm lucky to get it down to two. =P

Yeah, I suppose. But without us, these topics would just be so boring. :blink:

And now I need to go to bed.

[inthenameofDT]

what is this i hear about barrack doing something at some site that symbolized Nazism?

[Legolastom]

All men are born equal, but if one person is born into a life of poverty and another is born into a life of wealth then they are not finacially equal.

[Toasty]

They are still equal. Besides, somone who gets $100,000 a year would still end up giving the government twice as much as someone who made $50,000. Twice the salary, so twice the money payed out. Wouldn't you say that's fair?

[inthenameofDT]

in some senses, toasty, yes it is fair. but for this reason it isn't. the US government hasn't done anything productive in the past few years, and instead of using the 100k man's money for better things, they still keep on saying "what a sucker, we're just gonna take more money ONLY BECAUSE he makes more, and we're the government, so that makes it ok"

i'd rather have them take more from the wealthy than the poor, but a more even tax payout would be more "fair"

i dont really know how to further my explanation but i think you catch what im trying to say at least.

[Toasty]

It's kinda what I've been saying.

In a flat tax system, everybody pays the same percentage of their income. So instead of the 100k man paying 3 or 4 times as much as the 50k man, he only pays twice as much. It scales linearly all the way up the chain.

The way it works now, taxes get progressively larger (in percentage), so they scale parabolicly. The 100k man might pay 3 times as much as the 50k man, even though he only makes twice as much.

[Golden Legacy]

It's usually in the more "extreme" ranges that you see a definitive increase in the tax percentage, typically 300,000+ USD annually.

Toasty, think about it in terms of the broader population. Having a flat tax rate, which may seem more "fair", wouldn't be able to compensate for the progressive tax system - the bulk of all that money, all the revenue from taxes that goes into government programs like Social Security - the vast majority of that comes from the wealthy paying higher taxes.

Creating a flat tax rate would only make the percentage even, but since there are many many more people who earn lower incomes and fewer people who are wealthy, there is a net loss of money - there is greater "potential" of money to be had from the wealthy, while that simply can't be made up for even with taxes from the lower income class.

Read through it again, it might be a bit confusing but I promise it makes sense.

[Legolastom]

The fact is Toasty that the money means a lot more to the poorer person than it does to the richer person. The rich do not need most of thier money, and that was amjor part of Jesus's teachings.

[Toasty]

Well the way I see it, is that people like Obama who want a progressive tax system seem to think that the rich don't deserve what they have. Like it was just given to them on a silver platter without them lifting a finger.

What I really want, is to get rid of the IRS. I suppose I could live with a progressive tax system as long as it doesn't go exteme to the extent of the poor actually getting money, and the rich paying nearly 40% of their salary to taxes.

But getting rid of the IRS would make life easier for so many people.

[inthenameofDT]

GL i understood every word you posted.

[Eugine]

The more I learn about Obama, the more I dislike his policies, and his character overall.
I don't like John McCain either, but honestly Obama policies aren't great.

Well, I have always prefered conservative policies. Conservatives need to damn practice what they preach more often though.
(Just for saying sake, the party with conservative policies was defeated in a landslide election to the party with liberal policies on my small island. I was supporting the liberal party myself since conservative party here was like the Bush of my country lol. Maybe the same will happen in USA?)

But back to US politics. Obama is faaar too liberal to be president, and he will lose imo. I honestly believe it. I'm too sleepy to say why, but he will honestly. His campaign just seems really artificial.

Oh well. I hope democrats do not regret not nominating Hillary Clinton.

[Toasty]

The problem with McCain is that he's a Republican trying to appeal to liberals. Whenever you try to appeal to everyone at once, it fails miserably.

But *facepalm* I can't believe I didn't bring this up when we were talking about taxes.

The reason why incresing txes won't get us out of debt faster is because of this: The more the government taxes the money, the less people want to spend. The less taxing there is, the more likely people are to spend their money. It was proven in Regan's term that reducing taxes proved to be better at reducing deficit than increasing them. Even after Clinton increased taxes, they still weren't as high as they were before Regan came into office, and amazingly enough, the increased spending carried over into Clinton's campaign.

Even though it seems backward, its been proven time and time again that reducing taxes creates more revenue. Afterall, if people spend more, the government gets more.


Anyway, I'm far more interested in this new bill that a Democrat and a Republican put together.

It's supposed to not only get us off foreign oil, but open up off shore drilling (and even fund it) while simultaneously supporting alternative energy sources (like renewable energy and even coal to oil technology).

I believe the bill is being put before congress tomorrow. (or today for some. August the first anyway, I believe. Could be wrong).

The bill looks really promising though.

[inthenameofDT]

Eugine, on Aug 1 2008, 01:57 AM, said:

I don't like John McCain either, but honestly Obama policies aren't great.

i think we reached that conclusion pages and pages ago.

Quote

His campaign just seems really artificial.

dont they all?

Quote

Oh well. I hope democrats do not regret not nominating Hillary Clinton.

hillary still would've been far worse.

Toasty, on Aug 1 2008, 02:58 AM, said:

The problem with McCain is that he's a Republican trying to appeal to liberals. Whenever you try to appeal to everyone at once, it fails miserably.

that's just like some band that i know called Dream Theater.

i read in a soundoff in the tribune the other day that we can't have obama because "he is full of um's and ah's. we don't need another fast talking lawyer leading our country"

and i have to say that i agree with that completely.


http://www.independence05.com/blog/uploaded_images/error-736839.jpg

[Saturos S.]

We need a new option: Paris Hilton.

[inthenameofDT]

oy

[Golden Legacy]

Summer lull in the elections. The Olympics will take over Friday and we won't be hearing the most significant part of the elections yet (the Vice Presidential picks) until the conventions in late August/early September.

[inthenameofDT]

bob barr makes a good point about how it's scary that we dont know their running mates, since the vice president is essentially the second most powerful person in the world.

[Eugine]

Well, we'll know before America votes anyway.
And really? Everytime I read an article about Hillary being Obama's VP, the article or the commentator always says the VP spot is the most powerless position in Washington.

And how would Hillary be worse? Obama is simply becoming the Hillary of the primary imo.
I like Hillary since she is a conservative democrat.

[Toasty]

Like hell she is. If she was, the Democratic party would disown her like they did that one Senator. They wouldn't let him be voted in for Senator again, so he applied under a third party, and STILL got into the Senate.

Saturos Striker, on Aug 6 2008, 08:48 AM, said:

We need a new option: Paris Hilton.

Seriously. How is it that she made more sense in her...thing than either Obama or McCain? Is the world dieing or something?


Anyway Nancy Pilosy (lolsp?) said to congress in a "secret meeting" that if they needed to say they supported off-shore drilling so they could be elected, that she wouldn't hold it against them because they weren't going to support it anyway.

Basically, she's telling government officials to lie if they need to to get re-elected.

Yet another reason I hate her.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Aug 6 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

Well, we'll know before America votes anyway.
And really? Everytime I read an article about Hillary being Obama's VP, the article or the commentator always says the VP spot is the most powerless position in Washington.

And how would Hillary be worse? Obama is simply becoming the Hillary of the primary imo.
I like Hillary since she is a conservative democrat.

The VP is technically the least powerful position in Washington, no doubt about it. Hell, having your party in control of the House and the Senate yields far better results than necessarily choosing a competent VP.

The only reason the Vice Presidency is under much scrutiny is because this is without a doubt the most widely covered election in nation history, possibly rivaling the 2000 elections.

Toasty, on Aug 6 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

Seriously. How is it that she made more sense in her...thing than either Obama or McCain? Is the world dieing or something?

Yeah, I felt the same way. Like, WTF, Paris Hilton just wiped the floor with every Washington politician? Holy ****.

Quote

Anyway Nancy Pilosy (lolsp?) said to congress in a "secret meeting" that if they needed to say they supported off-shore drilling so they could be elected, that she wouldn't hold it against them because they weren't going to support it anyway.

Basically, she's telling government officials to lie if they need to to get re-elected.

Yet another reason I hate her.

Just as a background check, Congress historically receives very low support and approval. This is true for every administration there has ever been, regardless of party.

That said, one thing that needs to be clarified about the issue of off-shore drilling is the oil companies. Many oil corporations are NOT using the land they have efficiently and haven't attained the capacity of oil they can drill for. Many Democrats are against giving them MORE land, but also want the oil corporations to make better use of the land they already have leases for.

[inthenameofDT]

can someone clear this whole Paris Hilton thing up for me? what did she do?

[Ronald]

We don't decide who becomes the President.
Does the person who got the most votes win? No.
The one who got the most Electoral College does.
And how does the Electoral College work?
Nobody knows.

That's how they want it.

[Toasty]

If everyone voted for one person, they would become president regardless of the electoral college. Though I agree that's it's pretty broken.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 6 2008, 09:00 PM, said:

Yeah, I felt the same way. Like, WTF, Paris Hilton just wiped the floor with every Washington politician? Holy ****.


Just as a background check, Congress historically receives very low support and approval. This is true for every administration there has ever been, regardless of party.

That said, one thing that needs to be clarified about the issue of off-shore drilling is the oil companies. Many oil corporations are NOT using the land they have efficiently and haven't attained the capacity of oil they can drill for. Many Democrats are against giving them MORE land, but also want the oil corporations to make better use of the land they already have leases for.

Well, all but the two who are proposing what I consider to be the best solution for our energy crisis thus far. And they're a Democrat and a Republican at that.

Anyway, though that may be true, there are definately restrictions being put on off-shore drilling that certainly aren't helping the companies use their land efficiently. But regardless of how it's used, it's better for them to have it than say, China, who's also trying to get some land sea out there.

[Gio]

inthenameofDT, on Aug 6 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

bob barr makes a good point about how it's scary that we dont know their running mates, since the vice president is essentially the second most powerful person in the world.

Eugine, on Aug 6 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

Well, we'll know before America votes anyway.
And really? Everytime I read an article about Hillary being Obama's VP, the article or the commentator always says the VP spot is the most powerless position in Washington.

eugine beat everyone to the punch there

Quote

Just as a background check, Congress historically receives very low support and approval. This is true for every administration there has ever been, regardless of party.

but it is the lowest it has ever been right now. Even lower than bush's approval rating :P

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Aug 7 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

but it is the lowest it has ever been right now. Even lower than bush's approval rating :P

Considering the average for Congress has historically been in the low 20's (including Republican and Democrat administrations), that's not much to write home about. Remember, it's Congress.

The president on the other hand is an entirely different issue. Bush has an approval rating around 27% last I checked. That's lower than both Carter and Nixon.

On the other hand, Reagon and Clinton both had approval ratings in the 70% range.


Basically, you're trying to sugarcoat the fact that Bush has the lowest ratings in the history of the presidency, when history has shown that actually adequate presidents will get the higher ratings they deserve.

[Eugine]

I love that Paris Hilton ad btw. It's awesome.
Totally hot party ftw!

Oh, and to me Nancy Pelosi is worse than President Bush honestly. And um, why is Obama doing so poorly in the polls?

[Saturos S.]

Because Paris entered the race, she's getting all the Hillary votes, and the giddy girl votes. ...duh?

I actually heard McCain speak for the first time today. At least he says smarter things then that he looks. But I wouldn't vote for him anyway. He dislikes the Hills. Sarcastic annoying twat with a bald spot, he is.

[Eugine]

I think you're kinda right. Maybe the disgruntled Hillary supporters are still angry with him.
And what is "the Hills"?

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Aug 7 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

Oh, and to me Nancy Pelosi is worse than President Bush honestly.

Doesn't change the fact that Bush is just as bad. Jeez, you can't try and cover this up. It's ultimately the President that the country's current state falls on.

Secondly, it's the summer lull. Most people aren't even following election coverage, people start paying attention once the conventions come around.

At any rate, it's the American people we're talking about here. Honestly I have such little faith in them to decide on the right candidate. So little faith, that is why I voted as McCain likely to win in November.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Aug 7 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

And what is "the Hills"?

That MTV show with those dumb hot bishes who work for Vogue.

[Eugine]

Oh. I don't watch MTV, so I have no idea watcha talking about. I shall Google.

Bush sucks really bad yes, but Pelosi seems really incapable of handling anything now imo. Honestly, what has the democratically controlled congress done this year?

[Golden Legacy]

"Democratic controlled" is a misnomer.

Senate: 49 Democrat, 49 Republican, 2 Independents
House: 237 Democrat, 198 Republican

The Senate is equal, and the House is far from the 2/3 majority.


P.S. http://cagle.com/working/080801/greenberg21.jpg

[Eugine]

My question still stands ^^. What has congress done this year?

[Golden Legacy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...States_Congress

Key Legislation:

Energy Independence and Security Act
Economic Stimulus Act
Housing and Economic Recovery Act
Troop, Veteran Care, Iraq Funding


For the rest of the legislation enacted (and proposed but vetoed):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_...jor_legislation

[Toasty]

The EIASA looks fairly okay imo, except for the federal buildings having to be "carbon neutral" by 2030, the phasing out of incandescent bubs, and the increased amount of biofuel in gasoline.
When my dad went Portland (or somewhere nearby) a month or so ago, he couldn't even find a single gas station that had regular gasoline. It was all E85, which doesn't run well, or anywhere near as efficiently in a regular car. He was driving his '76 Corvette too, which didn't really help matters.
But I'm overjoyed that they're preventing the use of corn ethanol and switching to sugar and cellulose based ethanol. Though that's still going to make farmers wat to grow corn more than wheat for the most part.

The tax rebate seems fine, though it's also adding $152 billion to our deficit.

The H&ERA, though seemingly justifiable, seems similar to government handouts, and will also put us back $300 billion dollars. Something we really don't need right now.

The T,VC,IF looks fine since there wasn't a definitive withdrawl timetable in it. I'm glad Bush vetoed it, because we would've ended up pulling out before we were ready. Though it's starting to look like it'll be safe for us to withdrawl soon.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 7 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

Doesn't change the fact that Bush is just as bad. Jeez, you can't try and cover this up. It's ultimately the President that the country's current state falls on.

Secondly, it's the summer lull. Most people aren't even following election coverage, people start paying attention once the conventions come around.

At any rate, it's the American people we're talking about here. Honestly I have such little faith in them to decide on the right candidate. So little faith, that is why I voted as McCain likely to win in November.

I think it's closer to you not letting it go than us trying to cover anything up. We get it. You hate Bush. But I don't, and I've rarely voiced my opinion as far as that goes. Infact, there's far more Bush bashing in here than loving, so I don't think there's much left you can do as far as letting people know how bad Bush is.

Anyway, the American people don't have a good choice of candidates anyway. In my opinon, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place with no dynamite in sight.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 7 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

Considering the average for Congress has historically been in the low 20's (including Republican and Democrat administrations), that's not much to write home about. Remember, it's Congress.

The president on the other hand is an entirely different issue. Bush has an approval rating around 27% last I checked. That's lower than both Carter and Nixon.

On the other hand, Reagon and Clinton both had approval ratings in the 70% range.
Basically, you're trying to sugarcoat the fact that Bush has the lowest ratings in the history of the presidency, when history has shown that actually adequate presidents will get the higher ratings they deserve.

just like your sugar coating the fact that congress is the lowest it has ever been.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 7 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

Doesn't change the fact that Bush is just as bad. Jeez, you can't try and cover this up. It's ultimately the President that the country's current state falls on.

Secondly, it's the summer lull. Most people aren't even following election coverage, people start paying attention once the conventions come around.

At any rate, it's the American people we're talking about here. Honestly I have such little faith in them to decide on the right candidate. So little faith, that is why I voted as McCain likely to win in November.

which is sad because it makes you realize that most people dont know how our government works and dont realize that it isnt always completely the presidents fault.

[Golden Legacy]

I'll respond to Toasty's post later, but for now:

Gio, on Aug 8 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

just like your sugar coating the fact that congress is the lowest it has ever been.

Congress ALWAYS has low ratings. You don't seem to get that. I'm not trying to cover it up, it's always been low. The Republican Congress under Clinton's reign barely broke 25%. The current Congress is a few points lower, which isn't saying much because it's both low.

Whereas, the President's ratings have a far higher range - from as high as 75/80% to as low as the 20's, which is where Bush is at.

The fact that the current Congress has the "lowest ratings" is practically normal for it. We're talking a point difference of four or five.
The fact that the President has the lowest ratings in history is saying something. We're talking a point difference of 40 or 50.

Quote

which is sad because it makes you realize that most people dont know how our government works and dont realize that it isnt always completely the presidents fault.

Then in that case, you had better be ready to blame Congress for any of the accusations you have against Clinton, since it's not "always completely the presidents fault".

It's hypocrisy that you say this in defense of Bush, yet you wouldn't hesitate to place all the blame on the President's shoulders if it's a Democrat/Liberal in power.



EDIT: LOL.

http://kirktoons.com/october_2004/images/Catsanddogs.jpg

[Eugine]

lol@ John Edwards. This guy wanted to be President?
Plus, GL wanted an Obama/Edwards ticket lmao. He would have ruined the democrats this year completely if he won the nomination or was the VP nominee.
He's so selfish...

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Aug 10 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

lol@ John Edwards. This guy wanted to be President?
Plus, GL wanted an Obama/Edwards ticket lmao. He would have ruined the democrats this year completely if he won the nomination or was the VP nominee.
He's so selfish...

I wanted an Obama/non-Hillary ticket, and Edwards was the most prominent one at the time. But yes, very unfortunate his scandal.

[Eugine]

Any of you watched the forum with Obama and McCain? I found Obama to be the better of the two at this forum. + for him.

John McCain did answer the first question better, and gave more specifics, but Obama was just better and more convincing.

[Eugine]

So, how was Obama's speech?

[My Best Wishes]

Yea, what's this speech I keep hearing so much about, couldn't find it on Google.

[Toasty]

The saddest thing about the Edwards scandal, is that his mistress was butt-ugly. Seriously, I think titleing it as a sex-scandal is just a coverup because it actually involved government secrets.

....yeah. That's it.

Toasty, on Aug 8 2008, 02:53 AM, said:

It was all E85, which doesn't run well, or anywhere near as efficiently in a regular car. He was driving his '76 Corvette too, which didn't really help matters.

Sorry, it was all E90, which can run in regular cars, but it's just as expenisve as normal gasoline, and less efficient. Screw environmentally friendly, I want to get the most energy for my dollar!


Anyway, the guy Obama picked for vice is just...horrible. I mean seriously. The guy's so bad that I'd take a bullet for Obama just to keep this other guy from becomming president.

[Golden Legacy]

It was a brilliant speech, absolutely flawless.

Passion and structure, emotion and also details. Obama provided a comprehensive outlook on his platform - and at the same time wiped aside every single criticism he has ever received from the Republicans.

A speech for the ages and a truly historically earth-shaking nomination.

[gsninja]

Doesn't change the fact that Obama's a big talker and nothing else. Seriously, it's only because of speeches like those that he's able to bring people to his side. That, and he's young and black. Obama hasn't been a senator for that long and his experience is **** compared to what Hilary and McCain have done. Unlike those two, Obama's done absolutely nothing to prove that he can actually do something. Obama's pretty much the make or break president: he'll either be able to pull the US out of the turmoil that Bush threw it in or he'll cause the country to fall into further chaos at a faster pace than Bush did.

To me, the choice between Obama and McCain is like this:

Either we choose Obama, the guy with little experience and has done nothing to prove himself, who can either save this country from what it is or pretty much screw it over...or we can choose McCain, the man who, although he didn't agree with everything Bush said, still went along with everything the horrid president did and still wants to fight a war we should have pulled out of long ago. McCain will pretty much keep us along the same track we've been on for the past eight years.

I'd rather risk Obama than have McCain and go through the Bush administration all over again.

[TheEnglishman]

He's impressive, but there's no way he can get rid of the criticism that he lacks experience.
It's funny, on Mock the Week last night they wondered why American politics is reported so heavily over here, when over there 'they think Tony Blair runs the country because he's the Queen's boyfriend.'

[Golden Legacy]

In response to gsninja, I'm going to once again post this quote to address the Obama vs. McCain issue on experience.

Quote

You have two choices for president:

The first one has one of the longest lines of political experience in history. He is exceedingly popular in congress. He was a soldier who volunteered to defend the United States in the Navy.

The second one has no real political experience outside of Illinois. He is tall and lanky with big ears. He even lost a few of his first attempts at gaining political office. He is an excellent speechwriter and orator. He is a good attorney and has a successful law practice.

So which one would you choose?


This is a trick question because both were already Presidents of the United States. The first one is the 15th President of the United States, James Buchannan. He is the President who mired us in the Civil War by declaring the action illegal but doing nothing when the south decided to seceed from the Union. He is largely considered by historians as being the worst President in American history.

He was followed by the other man who became the 16th President of the United States: Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is credited with the end of slavery, the end of the Civil War, and unification of the nation. He became president at a dark time when our country was deeply divided over very polarizing issues. He had no experience in Washington prior to his Presidency. He is widely considered by historians as one of the best Presidents in American History.

Which one would you prefer as your President now? We have an almost identical choice before us today between Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Could you sleep well at night if you made the wrong choice?

[My Best Wishes]

That sounds alot like something I read once.

It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates.

Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first, no peeking, then scroll down for the answer.

Spoiler

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

You guys shouldn't have kicked out Clinton.

[Toasty]

....wow GL. XD

Obama's got his head in the clouds. His hopes for what's possible are too ambitious, and I honestly don't think he's prepared to lead the country. He certainly thinks he is, though.

On another note, ****ING YES!!! McCain did something conservative for once and chose the Governor of Alaska as his Vice! Plus, he's been acting more like a conservative in general lately too.

Sarah (forgot her last name, Gov. of Alaska) would make an amazing President. She's better at foreign policy, she knows what's going to help this country, and she sued the government for not letting people drill for oil in Alaska.

[My Best Wishes]

She sued the Government because they didn't allow people to destroy natural habitat in an American State? Man thats crazy! :P

[Toasty]

The places where oil wells would be drilled are sparse and desolate. There's nothing even there but frozen ground. It's kinda hard to harm something that's not there, wouldn't you say?

[My Best Wishes]

So I take it you're not opposed to mining Antartica then as well?

[Toasty]

If it can be done practically and there's actually something there to mine, then no I'm not against it. Though obviously, I'd only be for it if there wasn't anything living within a dozen miles of the mining operation.

Anyway, Alaska is much closer and has a crapload of oil. Only a retard environmentalist wouldn't drill there. The spots proposed for drilling aren't even inhabited by anything anyway, so it's not going to kill off the (thriving) polarbear or anything.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Aug 30 2008, 03:05 AM, said:

....wow GL. XD

Obama's got his head in the clouds. His hopes for what's possible are too ambitious, and I honestly don't think he's prepared to lead the country. He certainly thinks he is, though.

Oh shut up on this already. Did you even read my post? His platform for the country is feasible. You're just spitting out the same nonsense your right-winged bigots have brainwashed you into. He's laid out a far more comprehensive platform and centrist campaign, very unlike McCain who has embraced Bush's policies in the past year.

Quote

On another note, ****ING YES!!! McCain did something conservative for once and chose the Governor of Alaska as his Vice! Plus, he's been acting more like a conservative in general lately too.

Yes, because clearly what we need in office is another conservative.
I actually didn't mind McCain much at first because he was surprisingly moderate/even liberal on many issues. Showed that he actually had an open-mind and had a record of bipartisanship.

But his shift to the right is exactly what he shouldn't have done. Moving closer to Bush and Cheney in his policies is not something the nation can afford again.

Quote

Sarah (forgot her last name, Gov. of Alaska) would make an amazing President. She's better at foreign policy, she knows what's going to help this country, and she sued the government for not letting people drill for oil in Alaska.

Sarah Palin
Governor of Alaska for 2 years
3 years as mayor of a town with a population of 6100 - yes, that does read 'six thousand one hundred'

McCain
72 years, has fought off four bouts of cancer
average lifetime age for a male in the USA - 74 years


If McCain were to die or fall ill during office, the Vice President would take over. Sarah Palin, 44 years, no foreign policy experience, most of her resume is leading over a town where the greatest concern is whether there will be enough snow on the ground for the annual ice dog racing event.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 07:41 AM, said:

But his shift to the right is exactly what he shouldn't have done. Moving closer to Bush and Cheney in his policies is not something the nation can afford again.
Sarah Palin
Governor of Alaska for 2 years
3 years as mayor of a town with a population of 6100 - yes, that does read 'six thousand one hundred'

McCain
72 years, has fought off four bouts of cancer
average lifetime age for a male in the USA - 74 years
If McCain were to die or fall ill during office, the Vice President would take over. Sarah Palin, 44 years, no foreign policy experience, most of her resume is leading over a town where the greatest concern is whether there will be enough snow on the ground for the annual ice dog racing event.

So now you are are calling our VP candidate inexperienced when earlier you would get mad when we called you presidential candidate inexperienced. It looks to me as if Sarah Palin has a bit more experience than your presidential nominee. An honestly i would much rather the inexperienced one run for VP than for president. Man your party screwed that one up.

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Aug 30 2008, 10:14 AM, said:

So now you are are calling our VP candidate inexperienced when earlier you would get mad when we called you presidential candidate inexperienced. It looks to me as if Sarah Palin has a bit more experience than your presidential nominee. An honestly i would much rather the inexperienced one run for VP than for president. Man your party screwed that one up.

It's called hypocrisy on your part. For all the attacks the Republicans have thrown against Obama about his inexperience, McCain chooses a VP candidate who he met only once, who is not known on the national scene, and has had the authority of several thousand people at best.

You're also missing the single most important job of the VP; they have to be ready to take over in the event the President is unable to. McCain, who has battled cancer repeatedly and has a family history of heart disease, at nearly 73 years of age has age and health working against him. The VP has to be ready to take over, instead of choosing countless other Republicans who have stronger and longer resumes, he puts his faith in a person he's only met once, who has five young children of her own to care for, who has never been to Iraq or Afghanistan, and who has confessed that she doesn't know what exactly a VP even does? That's the inherent problem.

On the contrary for Obama, who graduated top of his class from Harvard, had served 8 years in the Illinois Senate, member of the Foreign Relations Committee and Environment and Public Works Committee, 15 years in the Chicago public service, 12 years as a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and 4 years in the US Senate. There were more people in Obama's congressional district than in the entire state of Alaska.

Compare that with Palin's credentials in my previous post.


Secondly, this is AMERICA we're talking about here. Reality sets in. Did any of you in your right minds think that the American people would capable to elect a black man to the highest office in the land? At the DNC a few days ago, a man was arrested for having planned out an assassination of Obama, already. He had been receiving death threats since his campaign started, and there is no doubt that, as typical Americans, someone who invokes even a hint at racially different interactions is to die (see, Abraham Lincoln who emancipated the slaves, Dr. Martin Luther King who led the civil rights movement against discrimination and segregation - both killed).

I won't deny that for a long time I thought it was possible. A man with the youth and charisma of John F. Kennedy. The social relief and public service of the great Franklin D. Roosevelt. At a time of great division in the nation. And yes, a man who would have represented the triumph of civil rights progression in a nation founded by slaveowners.


There was a time when I would have been very content with John McCain. Save for his foreign policy (war, war, more war!), I thought he was moderate enough and even liberal on enough issues to effectively balance out the horrid Bush era. That's what won him the Republican primary. That's what won him the support of swing voters and a wide-reaching demographic.

Now, he's shifted right, back to being in line with Bush 90-95%. And he chooses Sarah Palin, an evangelical Christian who believes creationism should be taught in schools, that the Bible should be required reading in the classroom, and that abortions should not be allowed even in the case of rape or incest.

It's a backward step and it's disappointing on McCain's part. He calls himself a maverick, yet why shift to right-wing?

[Toasty]

I never thought it was impossible for a black man to become President. There's far less racism nowadays then there ever was before. The only thing that made me see it as unlikely as that it's never happened before.

That said, just because Obama could be the first black president, doesn't make him a great leader. It has nothing to do with color or nationality. Obama simply doesn't have what it takes to lead the country, and his VP is borderline crazy. Not to mention that Nanci Pilosy (lolsp?), who's approval rating really sucks, is also behind Obama. He's not helping himself with those picks, and I know Obama didn't pick his VP becuase he thought the guy would make a great President if need be.

I also fail to see how teaching kids Chrsitian ideals in school would be a bad thing. We might even end up with less violence, gangs, and drug abuse because of it. The way I see it, everywhere where Christianity has been taken out of the mix, things went a little sour.

Palin is a farmore "Maverick" choice than a left-wing guy because she's a woman. Obama picked a white guy, and McCain picked a woman. I think that's still pretty "Maverick"-ish.

You really need to quit writing out these long speeches on how Obama is practically the messiah, because you're sounding really blind.

I'm personally not sure if I like McCain right now because I don't know how right-wing he is at the moment, but he's looking like a wiser choice than Obama. And as for why choosing to "continue with 4 more yearss of Bush" isn't entirely a bad thing, read my reply to the second qoute in this post.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 05:41 AM, said:

Oh shut up on this already. Did you even read my post? His platform for the country is feasible. You're just spitting out the same nonsense your right-winged bigots have brainwashed you into. He's laid out a far more comprehensive platform and centrist campaign, very unlike McCain who has embraced Bush's policies in the past year.

His platform for the country is bullshyz. And I could say the same about you and your left-winged nutjobs. Liberals nowadays are borderline socialists. Socialism will be the downfall of our capitalistic society. Capitalism only works because people can be more wealthy and better off than someone else, or vise versa. Obama would much like to have everyone making the same wages, living in the same square-footage homes, and eating the same foods as everyone else.

Not to mention most liberals (Barrack included) blindly agree with what Al Gore has to say as far as "Global Warming" goes. The fear that putting carbon into the atmosphere will be the end to all humanity has already hindered us a great deal as far as driling for oil goes. It even spurred the ethanol craze, and I'm sure I don't have to remind you again about what that did for our economy. The most extreme GW activists would have us revert back to the stone age.

All Barrack's done is say that he'll "change America for the better" and "save our crumbling economy," and basically flip the entire government upside-down. He's not going to be able to prevent terrorism through diplomacy, because terrorists work outside the boundaries of rational thought. He's certainly not going to save the economy (which doesn't need saving, more on that later) by preventing people from drilling in Alaska. The only reason why the dollar is low right now is because the government inflated it so they could pay off our bills faster. Instead of owing 1 trillion dollars (like they did when the dollar was worth as much as a euro), they now only owe a bit over 500 billion. You'll start to see gas prices dropping within the next year or so as the dollar begins to deflate.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 05:41 AM, said:

Yes, because clearly what we need in office is another conservative.
I actually didn't mind McCain much at first because he was surprisingly moderate/even liberal on many issues. Showed that he actually had an open-mind and had a record of bipartisanship.

But his shift to the right is exactly what he shouldn't have done. Moving closer to Bush and Cheney in his policies is not something the nation can afford again.

Actually, ever since his shift, his approval ratings have skyrocketed. Because he's now acting like a conservative, he'll be giving Obama a real run for his money. Seems to me like people really do want a conserative again. And I think the nation can afford it again, because Bush's approval ratings were great in his first term. It's after we went to war that his ratings began to drop, and that's only because the media keept going on about how we weren't getting anything done over there (when we actually were, and Iraq's current state proves that).

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 05:41 AM, said:

Sarah Palin
Governor of Alaska for 2 years
3 years as mayor of a town with a population of 6100 - yes, that does read 'six thousand one hundred'

McCain
72 years, has fought off four bouts of cancer
average lifetime age for a male in the USA - 74 years


If McCain were to die or fall ill during office, the Vice President would take over. Sarah Palin, 44 years, no foreign policy experience, most of her resume is leading over a town where the greatest concern is whether there will be enough snow on the ground for the annual ice dog racing event.

Sarah (unlike Obama) has been surrounding herself with experts. Obama has done very few things in any one of his offices. He has little foreign policy experience, and he chooses to not surround himself with experts. As it stands, Sarah would be the better pick between the two. All Obama has going for himself is his great speaking skills. Apparently all he has to do is provide empty promises to seduce people into voting for him.

Sarah has also done more for her home town, and state, then Barrack ever did for his (or this country, for that matter). It may have a small population, but the people there adore her.

Obama said that he is his"brother's keeper." His brother is dirt poor, from what I hear.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Aug 30 2008, 12:47 PM, said:

I never thought it was impossible for a black man to become President. There's far less racism nowadays then there ever was before. The only thing that made me see it as unlikely as that it's never happened before.

Let me tell you a quick story.

I was donating blood one time. Just had the needle pinch my arm. The girl sitting in the other chair next to me was just finishing up. Your typical American.

She asks the nurse, who is black, "does my blood work with black people?"

Quote

That said, just because Obama could be the first black president, doesn't make him a great leader. It has nothing to do with color or nationality. Obama simply doesn't have what it takes to lead the country, and his VP is borderline crazy. Not to mention that Nanci Pilosy (lolsp?), who's approval rating really sucks, is also behind Obama. He's not helping himself with those picks, and I know Obama didn't pick his VP becuase he thought the guy would make a great President if need be.

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that there are people who won't even CONSIDER Obama because he is black. People who deride him and can't live with the fact that he's African-American (actually biracial, but that's besides the point).

Don't you deny it either. You know as well as I that there are whites who still spread lies and rumors about him, wanting to insult him in any way possible.

Besides, Congress' approval ratings are always low. It was a historic low under the previous Republican administration. It always is.

Besides, Bush who was the lowest approval ratings of any actual President, has supported McCain, so that's not helping him.

And Joe Biden, btw, is even more experienced than John McCain. The former has had 37+ years in the Senate, McCain has about ten years less. Also, Biden is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Obama is a part of.

Based on that, surely he is absolutely ready and capable of being President should the need ever arise.

Quote

I also fail to see how teaching kids Chrsitian ideals in school would be a bad thing. We might even end up with less violence, gangs, and drug abuse because of it. The way I see it, everywhere where Christianity has been taken out of the mix, things went a little sour.

YOU. ARE. AN. IDIOT.
There are so many things wrong with your statement, I don't even know where to begin. Christianity in schools? Bible alongside science in the classrooms?

No Toasty. Just no. That's called being backward minded and arrogant about your faith.

Quote

Palin is a farmore "Maverick" choice than a left-wing guy because she's a woman. Obama picked a white guy, and McCain picked a woman. I think that's still pretty "Maverick"-ish.

Yet you claim before that the fact that a person's race or gender should have no bearing on how their principles are.

I'm attacking Palin because she's a right-wing fundamentalist who believes against abortions in the case of rape. I mean, dear God, even most pro-life people make exceptions. And now she wants to introduce religion into education?

Separation of Church and State. I can't emphasize that enough. You're alone in thinking that the two should mix.

Quote

His platform for the country is bullshyz. And I could say the same about you and your left-winged nutjobs. Liberals nowadays are borderline socialists. Socialism will be the downfall of our capitalistic society. Capitalism only works because people can be more wealthy and better off than someone else, or vise versa. Obama would much like to have everyone making the same wages, living in the same square-footage homes, and eating the same foods as everyone else.

You're once again displaying your ignorance. You're creating a false platform that you're attacking.

Liberals favor a progressive tax system. We've been over this. That doesn't mean a drastic redistribution of wealth - it means that the top 0.1% of the population, that have been shown to have investments alone that measure 60% of the entire nation's wealth - pay their share, which is higher. It doesn't break them, it's a fairer system than shifting the burden on the MANY more poor and middle-class.

They are not socialists. Liberals are more left than you are, of course, but what you're spitting out is just the same junk that racist bigots like Rush Limbaugh say, which I know you listen to.

And before you say it, I rely on outside, non-American sources - such as the BBC and The Economist - for my news and world views. The level of journalism in the US is disgustingly stupid.


Also - and I want to emphasize this - Barack Obama's platform calls for cutting taxes for 95% of the population. Yes, you read that right; cutting taxes. Lowering them. Decreasing them. Whatever terminology you use. Barack Obama's platform calls for lowering taxes for the population.

Did you get that? I want to repeat it again, because you seem intent on shouting out lies and false data.

Barack Obama will. lower. taxes. for the middle class. for the poor. for 95% of Americans.

Quote

Not to mention most liberals (Barrack included) blindly agree with what Al Gore has to say as far as "Global Warming" goes. The fear that putting carbon into the atmosphere will be the end to all humanity has already hindered us a great deal as far as driling for oil goes. It even spurred the ethanol craze, and I'm sure I don't have to remind you again about what that did for our economy. The most extreme GW activists would have us revert back to the stone age.

And the most extreme right-winged nuts would have us stay stagnant, relying on oil without ever contributing a cent to new technologies. Let the world pass the USA by, I'm sure that's clearly what you want.

And btw, John McCain believes in Global Warming and is against drilling in Alaska. Sarah Palin and the other right-wingers are for drilling and believe Global Warming is a hoax.

Hypocrisy much?

Quote

The only reason why the dollar is low right now is because the government inflated it so they could pay off our bills faster. Instead of owing 1 trillion dollars (like they did when the dollar was worth as much as a euro), they now only owe a bit over 500 billion. You'll start to see gas prices dropping within the next year or so as the dollar begins to deflate.

Right. So basically, your logic is that it's perfectly ok that President Bush tripled the national debt to 8 trillion USD. That's fine with you. Because debts and deficits are good.

Quote

Actually, ever since his shift, his approval ratings have skyrocketed. Because he's now acting like a conservative, he'll be giving Obama a real run for his money. Seems to me like people really do want a conserative again. And I think the nation can afford it again, because Bush's approval ratings were great in his first term. It's after we went to war that his ratings began to drop, and that's only because the media keept going on about how we weren't getting anything done over there (when we actually were, and Iraq's current state proves that).

His approval ratings among conservatives. Obviously.
His ratings among moderates have fallen since he's gone right-wing. And the nation can't afford another conservative. You make it sound as though the only time the nation has been content and prosperous is under Bush/a conservative reign.

FDR and Clinton both had far more prosperous and stronger economies, far higher standards of living (for their time), and remain far more popular even today.

You also make it sound as though the public is only discontent with Bush because of the Iraq War. That's a huge part of it, but there are many things about the Bush administration that has been an abysmal failure.

The uninsured population has gone up, the worst mortgage crisis in history, the handling of Katrina, Bush's insistence on depriving the USA of scientific research in areas like stem cell research (potential cure for many deadly diseases), millions have lost manufacturing jobs, the wealth inequality gap has grown larger with the wealth concentrated at the top, tax breaks for companies, the loss of money reserves for Social Security has greatly accelerated under Bush, etc.

Not to mention a foreign policy that has cost the USA alliances are the world.

Quote

Sarah (unlike Obama) has been surrounding herself with experts. Obama has done very few things in any one of his offices. He has little foreign policy experience, and he chooses to not surround himself with experts. As it stands, Sarah would be the better pick between the two. All Obama has going for himself is his great speaking skills. Apparently all he has to do is provide empty promises to seduce people into voting for him.

Okay, there's spitting out bias, and then there's throwing out lies.

Toasty. You are lying. Flat out lying. To everyone that's reading this, I can't believe Toasty even has the audacity to just keep talking like this. OMFG, are you an idiot? Seriously? Where do you get this junk?

Did I not provide references explaining that Obama was part of the Foreign Relations Senate Committee? Have I not already mentioned that he has tens, even hundreds, of economic and foreign advisors that he has relations with, all of whom have been contributing to his campaign and supporting his platform? His economic plans have been ratified by 300 top economists in the USA.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with a leader who's inspirational. I'd rather take the President who has both the right policies AND soaring words rather than a President who lacks both a decent platform and is far from inspiring.



All that said:
I'm getting tired of this. Everytime I say something which is entirely factual, Toasty will throw out something about how it's wrong, without ever supporting his claim.

Remember the debate we had over torture? This is how the conversation went (in 3rd person):


GL: Torture is wrong and fundamentally inhumane.
Toasty: Torture is perfectly ok. There's a reason for it. The prisoners deserve what they're getting.
GL: Most of those "prisoners" are innocent. They have committed no crimes.
Toasty: Quit lying. The American military wouldn't have arrested them if there was no reason for it. They can't do wrong. There's a reason for it.
GL: Why do you believe America can't do wrong? The fact is, it's been documented, it's cruel and unusual torture that accomplishes little and only serves to alienate the USA's "cause".
Toasty: No, torture is good. Americans are good. They're bad. They deserve it.
GL: *provides source indicating 70-90% of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are completely innocent* - see?
Toasty: Who cares? They still deserve it.
GL: ... they're innocent.
Toasty: Besides, that source is wrong.
GL: ... it's the International Red Cross.
Toasty: So? They're wrong. They probably have something against America. Why should we trust them?
GL: Fine then, why don't YOU provide a source supporting your point?
Toasty: I don't need to. Your source is wrong. It just is. I'm right. America is right. What we're doing is ok.


So when I post a source that indicates America might be doing something wrong, it's simply not credible. But when Toasty DOESN'T provide a source, he's automatically right because he thinks America can do no wrong?

This is what frustrates me constantly. Toasty continues to deny the most basic facts, as in the most rudimentary knowledge of our topics, and provides these baseless claims as entirely true.

[TheEnglishman]

Toasty holds the views that infuriate most European people.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Let me tell you a quick story.

I was donating blood one time. Just had the needle pinch my arm. The girl sitting in the other chair next to me was just finishing up. Your typical American.

She asks the nurse, who is black, "does my blood work with black people?"

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe she didn't know? Just because she asked that question, doesn't make her racist. It's like that one woman calling a group of black kids playing in a tree "monkeys." Obama tried to fine her a few hundred dollars for being racist. Luckily, the sherrif thought that was bullshyz and didn't fine her.

I think times are starting to become exactly opposite of what they used to be. Obviously there's still racist people out there, so don't go putting words in my mouth. But ever since Obama started running for president, people have been getting fined, sued, etc. over every small little thing that might even seem remotely racist. I believe Reverend Sharpton even tried to sue someone for using the term "black hole" when the guy was referring to a black man who was eating a lot of food (might have even been his own friend). I probably have the story slightly off, but I know Sharp was mad about someone using the term "black hole".

Seriously. I don't get mad when people call me a cracker, ginger, or whatever. I've had far more than my fair share of insults directed my way (actual insults, mind you), and I've never tried to sue them, or get them sent to jail (or detention). Racism is bad, but get a grip. Not EVERYONE is racist.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that there are people who won't even CONSIDER Obama because he is black. People who deride him and can't live with the fact that he's African-American (actually biracial, but that's besides the point).

Don't you deny it either. You know as well as I that there are whites who still spread lies and rumors about him, wanting to insult him in any way possible.

I never denied anything, nor will I as far as this goes. I'm not retarded. The laws of probability state that unless you can control everyone's thoughts, there's always going to be racism somewhere. The best you can do is minimize it.

My point is as previously stated. Racism isn't prominent. You're only seeing more of it in the news because there's more people over-reacting about it nowadays.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Besides, Congress' approval ratings are always low. It was a historic low under the previous Republican administration. It always is.

Besides, Bush who was the lowest approval ratings of any actual President, has supported McCain, so that's not helping him.

And Joe Biden, btw, is even more experienced than John McCain. The former has had 37+ years in the Senate, McCain has about ten years less. Also, Biden is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Obama is a part of.

Based on that, surely he is absolutely ready and capable of being President should the need ever arise.

Congress's aproval ratings are low because half of the people in there are hated by half of America. The best that congress as a whole can hope to get is 30%-50%. Nanci, by herself, has a horrible approval rating. And that's because she's a lying, decieving pain in the ass. She told the liberal congressmen to lie if they had to about off-shore drilling so they could get re-elected. A quote from wikipedia has this to say "Since her election as Speaker, the approval rating of Congress has dropped to a historic low of 14%". As of July 8th, it was just 9% that's lower than with the previous speaker, mind you. You can state that it's always been low and whatnot, but just because it's always been low, doesn't mean that it should get even lower.

I've already stated why Bush's ratings are bad, but I agree that his endorcement isn't helping McCain much.

Obtaining a place office means absolutely nothing if you don't do anything while in it. That's my point with both Biden and Obama. I don't know much about Biden (other than I completely disagree with him), but Obama hasn't done anything really impressive or helpful in any office he's had, besides maybe something in the Illinois Senate. Experience means nothing if you have nothing to show for it.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

YOU. ARE. AN. IDIOT.
There are so many things wrong with your statement, I don't even know where to begin. Christianity in schools? Bible alongside science in the classrooms?

No Toasty. Just no. That's called being backward minded and arrogant about your faith.

I appreciate the petty insults, but lets be serious here.

The "Seperation of Church and State" put forth by our forfathers WHO WERE CHRISTIAN, was meant to seperate the state from the church. Not the church from the state. That's why "God Bless America" is still on many national emblems, and why "One nation under God" is still in the pledge of alliegence. That right was innacted to prevent the government from controlling the church, and enforcing one religion upon the people (including atheism).

As it stands, there's kids drawing christian crosses in schools and getting put in detention for it. Luckily, most of those kids were able to fight it thanks to some christian lawyers.

It may not be wise to teach Christianity in schools, but that's not what I said in the first place. I said Christian ideals. So next time, do some more research on the history of our Bill of Rights, and read my posts a little more closely.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Yet you claim before that the fact that a person's race or gender should have no bearing on how their principles are.

I'm attacking Palin because she's a right-wing fundamentalist who believes against abortions in the case of rape. I mean, dear God, even most pro-life people make exceptions. And now she wants to introduce religion into education?

Separation of Church and State. I can't emphasize that enough. You're alone in thinking that the two should mix.

Yeah, a person's race or gender don't have a bearing on their principals. What makes McCain a Maverick is the same thing that made Hilary a formidable foe for Obama. We've never had a female President (or Vice President).

I think abortion should only be allowed if rape is involved, but the bible is also against abortion in any instance. It's killing a human life without premise or proper justification. The baby deserves to die just because the mother didn't want it in the first place? The only difference is that the mother had no choice. I'm personally between the two, but I lean a little more to pro-abortion if rape is involved.

And sorry, but there's at least 50+% of the American population on my side for this one. The only thing is, is that there's more people on the other side of the isle who're more active about completely seperating the two. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

You're once again displaying your ignorance. You're creating a false platform that you're attacking.

Liberals favor a progressive tax system. We've been over this. That doesn't mean a drastic redistribution of wealth - it means that the top 0.1% of the population, that have been shown to have investments alone that measure 60% of the entire nation's wealth - pay their share, which is higher. It doesn't break them, it's a fairer system than shifting the burden on the MANY more poor and middle-class.

They are not socialists. Liberals are more left than you are, of course, but what you're spitting out is just the same junk that racist bigots like Rush Limbaugh say, which I know you listen to.

And before you say it, I rely on outside, non-American sources - such as the BBC and The Economist - for my news and world views. The level of journalism in the US is disgustingly stupid.

Yes. I'm a very ignorant person for disagreeing with you.

Liberals prefer a progressive tax system, but Obama wants a socialist society. He really does want to give everyone equal wages, he even said it himself. However, he knows that will never pass through congress. Therefore, he's just going to increae the contrast between the upper class's taxes, and the lower class's taxes, and give the lower class bigger tax-breaks (sometimes to the point where they get more money from the government than they give).

Not as extreme as what he'd like, but closer to it than what we've ever had before.

And again, you really like to call people racist. I'd go as far as to say you're even more anti-racist than Obama. To the point where you'll get after someone even if it's just a misunderstanding on your part.
Rush is not racist. However, he really dislikes Obama, his wife, and Reverend Sharp. All who happen to be black. Frankly, I don't like anyone of them either. Yet I have black friends and aquaintances. Does that make me racist? No.

And Liberals nowadays ARE far more liberal than they have been before. Liberalism eventually becomes socialism, which in turn eventually becomes communism. If you actually do some research, you'll notice that with each step, less control is given to the people, and more control is given to the government.

Government run healthcare is a socialist proposal. The fact that buisnesses in New York are being forced to provide Medicare to their employees rather than a privately owned healthcare provider is borderline communist, and has been put forth by liberals.

The more conservative you get, the less powerful the government gets. However, the government is given more power over the military in times of war. That's why I'm not super-extremely conservative like some people. In my eyes, the government needs power so that it can function properly and efficiently, but not so much that it can control the people. The people should have power over the government to keep it in line. It should be the government that is dependant on the people, not the people who are dependant on the government.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

And the most extreme right-winged nuts would have us stay stagnant, relying on oil without ever contributing a cent to new technologies. Let the world pass the USA by, I'm sure that's clearly what you want.

And btw, John McCain believes in Global Warming and is against drilling in Alaska. Sarah Palin and the other right-wingers are for drilling and believe Global Warming is a hoax.

Hypocrisy much?

Can it. I've stated many times before that I believe alternative energy is crucial to our future. However, unlike you, I realise that we aren't going to be getting off of oil any time soon, no matter how much funding we give these scientists. WE NEED OIL NOW. Alternative energy comes second to oil until it's been developed enough so that we can use it efficiently, and rely heavily on it without it collapsing.

That's why I'm unsure on whether I like McCain or not right now. He's been more conservative, but he still won't drill for oil in Alaska. And by the way GL, Obama has had is fair share of hypocrisy too. Saying he trusts the American people, but promising to take away some of their control at the same time. Hypocrisy much?

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Right. So basically, your logic is that it's perfectly ok that President Bush tripled the national debt to 8 trillion USD. That's fine with you. Because debts and deficits are good.

Shut up, you dang hipocrit. You get after me for putting words in your mouth, and now you're doing the same to me.

I said that the dollar is inflated so that we can reduce our debt. I said nothing about debt being good, only that the dollar is inflated so that we can get out of debt faster.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

His approval ratings among conservatives. Obviously.
His ratings among moderates have fallen since he's gone right-wing. And the nation can't afford another conservative. You make it sound as though the only time the nation has been content and prosperous is under Bush/a conservative reign.

FDR and Clinton both had far more prosperous and stronger economies, far higher standards of living (for their time), and remain far more popular even today.

You also make it sound as though the public is only discontent with Bush because of the Iraq War. That's a huge part of it, but there are many things about the Bush administration that has been an abysmal failure.

The uninsured population has gone up, the worst mortgage crisis in history, the handling of Katrina, Bush's insistence on depriving the USA of scientific research in areas like stem cell research (potential cure for many deadly diseases), millions have lost manufacturing jobs, the wealth inequality gap has grown larger with the wealth concentrated at the top, tax breaks for companies, the loss of money reserves for Social Security has greatly accelerated under Bush, etc.

Not to mention a foreign policy that has cost the USA alliances are the world.

If you hadn't noticed, McCain is a Republican. Democrats are far more like to vote for Obama, so it'd be really stupid of McCain to try and gain their vote while tossing the Republicans to the side. McCain Appealing to Democrats will only help Obama. I figured you followed politics enough to know that.

His approval rating in general has gone up. Obviously his approval rating with liberals has gone down, but really, there weren't many liberals suporting him.

You seem to think that everyone thinks exactly like you, and think that McCain will be exactly like Bush and/or Bush was a horrible, awful, despicable President.

The economy may have been good under Clinton, but Clinton was impeached numerous times. And yes, there was reason for his impeachments. FDR was a great President. One of the few Democrats that actually did something good for the country. Reagan was a great Conservative Republican President. Conservative Repiblican. McCain certainly isn't Reagan's second comming, but he's far closer to it than Obama. We don't need a Liberal, we need a Reagan.

You also seem to think that the morgage crisis is Bush's fault. You really do like to blame everything bad that's happened on the President. Heck, I'm surprised you haven't blamed the fact that hurricane Katrina spawned in the first plalce on Bush. The morgage crisis happened because the standards to get the loans were lowered, and the morgages given out were sub-prime. That's because the Liberals wanted those people to be able to get homes, despite the fact that the people they were trying to give homes to, couldn't afford it. This happened before Bush even got into office. When the people were told that they had to get real loans and that they would recieve a few years to obtain the credentials to be certified for real loans, they didn't. That's not Bush's fault. If anything, it's the Liberals fault. And if it's not theirs, then it's the people's fault for accepting those sub-prime morgages. So sorry, but this one isn't Bush's fault.

The uninsured rate is up because insurance rates are up. They're up because the dollar's worth is down. Congress was the one who prevented Katrina victims from recieving proper help, not Bush. Actual human stem cells should not be used for research, because it's immoral. Scientists have now found a work-around for that, and everything seems to be hunky-dory on that end. Manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas because it's cheaper. Also not Bush's fault. We live in a capitalistic society where most of the money floats to the top. ANYONE can get to the top if they work hard enough, as is the nature of a capitalist society. It's not Bush's fault, and frankly, it's not wrong either. If you don't like it, then work your way to the top and give craploads of your money to charity. That's how things are supposed to work. I fail to see how tax breaks for [i]anyone[/] is bad. As a very wise man once put it, "for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." Winston Churchill said that a few decades ago.

The money reserve for social security has been increaingly waneing ever since a certain Democrat dipped his hands in there to fund his campaign. If I remember right, he lost that election aswell.

So as you can see, though it's very easy and convinient to blame Bush for everything, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and many other neo-conservatives are right on this one. It's not his fault when it comes to most of this stuff. He was just unlucky that it all happened during his term.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Okay, there's spitting out bias, and then there's throwing out lies.

Toasty. You are lying. Flat out lying. To everyone that's reading this, I can't believe Toasty even has the audacity to just keep talking like this. OMFG, are you an idiot? Seriously? Where do you get this junk?

Did I not provide references explaining that Obama was part of the Foreign Relations Senate Committee? Have I not already mentioned that he has tens, even hundreds, of economic and foreign advisors that he has relations with, all of whom have been contributing to his campaign and supporting his platform? His economic plans have been ratified by 300 top economists in the USA.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with a leader who's inspirational. I'd rather take the President who has both the right policies AND soaring words rather than a President who lacks both a decent platform and is far from inspiring.

And there's also denial. He's obviously got advisors, but more likely than not, they're all liberal. Not only that, but you'll have to prove to me that any of them are even worth mentioning. Show me a list of these "top 300 economists"

Inspiration means nothing if it inspires a path of destruction. Hitler is a good example right there. Inspirational, and leader of the Nazis. And don't start putting words in my mouth, because I didn't call Obama Hitler.

Whether or not either candidate has a good platform is a matter of opinion. Obviously, we both disagree with the other's.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

All that said:
I'm getting tired of this. Everytime I say something which is entirely factual, Toasty will throw out something about how it's wrong, without ever supporting his claim.

Remember the debate we had over torture? This is how the conversation went (in 3rd person):


GL: Torture is wrong and fundamentally inhumane.
Toasty: Torture is perfectly ok. There's a reason for it. The prisoners deserve what they're getting.
GL: Most of those "prisoners" are innocent. They have committed no crimes.
Toasty: Quit lying. The American military wouldn't have arrested them if there was no reason for it. They can't do wrong. There's a reason for it.
GL: Why do you believe America can't do wrong? The fact is, it's been documented, it's cruel and unusual torture that accomplishes little and only serves to alienate the USA's "cause".
Toasty: No, torture is good. Americans are good. They're bad. They deserve it.
GL: *provides source indicating 70-90% of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are completely innocent* - see?
Toasty: Who cares? They still deserve it.
GL: ... they're innocent.
Toasty: Besides, that source is wrong.
GL: ... it's the International Red Cross.
Toasty: So? They're wrong. They probably have something against America. Why should we trust them?
GL: Fine then, why don't YOU provide a source supporting your point?
Toasty: I don't need to. Your source is wrong. It just is. I'm right. America is right. What we're doing is ok.


So when I post a source that indicates America might be doing something wrong, it's simply not credible. But when Toasty DOESN'T provide a source, he's automatically right because he thinks America can do no wrong?

This is what frustrates me constantly. Toasty continues to deny the most basic facts, as in the most rudimentary knowledge of our topics, and provides these baseless claims as entirely true.

Wow GL! You really did a good job at quoting my exact words there!

You seem hellbent on believing that I pull all this out of my ass, and that you're getting your information from Enstein himself.

Basic facts? A basic fact is that lower taxes lead to a government surplus. Something you deny. Another good fact is that Obama would like to see everyone recieving the same income, in reality, creating a socialistic (and not capitalistic) society. Something most Americans definately wouldn't like.

That debate between us didn't end well for me, but it's not like those prisoners were tortured at random. Obviously many were wrongfully imprisoned, but unless there's solid evidence that they're in cahoots iwth terrorists, they're just held captive. Not tortured. It's how we can be "better safe than sorry." Yeah, it's not fair to the innocent people who are imprisoned, but it's not like the majority of the iraqi population was imprisoned there either.

So yes, imprisoning innocent people is wrong. It's even worse when the majority are innocent. But again, they wouldn't be there without reason, and again, they wouldn't be tortured without proof. That's kinda how things work.

So GL, quit calling me a liar just because you don't agree with consevative ideas. The basic facts show that Liberals have done more to harm and hinder the US than conservatives have.


And in a debate, its usually considered rude to outright slander your opponent. Show me where I've done that to you.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Aug 30 2008, 08:52 PM, said:

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe she didn't know? Just because she asked that question, doesn't make her racist. It's like that one woman calling a group of black kids playing in a tree "monkeys." Obama tried to fine her a few hundred dollars for being racist. Luckily, the sherrif thought that was bullshyz and didn't fine her.

I think times are starting to become exactly opposite of what they used to be. Obviously there's still racist people out there, so don't go putting words in my mouth. But ever since Obama started running for president, people have been getting fined, sued, etc. over every small little thing that might even seem remotely racist. I believe Reverend Sharpton even tried to sue someone for using the term "black hole" when the guy was referring to a black man who was eating a lot of food (might have even been his own friend). I probably have the story slightly off, but I know Sharp was mad about someone using the term "black hole".

Seriously. I don't get mad when people call me a cracker, ginger, or whatever. I've had far more than my fair share of insults directed my way (actual insults, mind you), and I've never tried to sue them, or get them sent to jail (or detention). Racism is bad, but get a grip. Not EVERYONE is racist.
I never denied anything, nor will I as far as this goes. I'm not retarded. The laws of probability state that unless you can control everyone's thoughts, there's always going to be racism somewhere. The best you can do is minimize it.

My point is as previously stated. Racism isn't prominent. You're only seeing more of it in the news because there's more people over-reacting about it nowadays.

I've put all your quotes about racism together, to make it easier.

I will agree that there is a huge issue in America about being "politically correct". It's why people overreact to even the smallest acts of racism. That much is true. I always wish we were like Europe at times, where at the very least racism is open and obvious. Instinctively, it sounds worse, but having it all in the open is better than it being hushed-up when someone experiences it.

Not everyone is racist, to be sure. But people are close-minded, people are (perhaps instinctively as well) uncertain too. Maybe I demand too much out of people, but surely people can look past a name? I know people who are not voting for Obama for the simple reason his name is too similar to a certain terrorist.

I suppose also that since Obama is the first serious minority contender for President, it's only natural that the public would become over-"sensitive" to issues of race. It brought it back into the equation, something that hadn't happened since the 1960's civil rights era (and other unfortunate incidents in recent years, such as the Sean Bell shooting and the Jena 7).

Quote

Congress's aproval ratings are low because half of the people in there are hated by half of America. The best that congress as a whole can hope to get is 30%-50%. Nanci, by herself, has a horrible approval rating. And that's because she's a lying, decieving pain in the ass. She told the liberal congressmen to lie if they had to about off-shore drilling so they could get re-elected. A quote from wikipedia has this to say "Since her election as Speaker, the approval rating of Congress has dropped to a historic low of 14%". As of July 8th, it was just 9% that's lower than with the previous speaker, mind you. You can state that it's always been low and whatnot, but just because it's always been low, doesn't mean that it should get even lower.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't like Nancy Pelosi much either. Just that Congress on the whole is known for having low ratings, but you're right that it's been weaker under her reign. Ineffective.

It's also very much due to to the fact that the Executive and Legislative departments are in control by different political parties. You'd be surprised how hard it is to pass legislation when Congress leans liberal, the President is conservative. They cancel one another out, and the Republicans in Congress also filibuster bills, so it's not like the Democrats have had an easy time passing laws either. (The Senate, for example, actually favors the Republicans 51-50 once you include Dick Cheney who presides over it, and Joe Lieberman, for all intents and purposes a Republican and even a candidate for McCain's VP slot).

Quote

I've already stated why Bush's ratings are bad, but I agree that his endorcement isn't helping McCain much.

Obtaining a place office means absolutely nothing if you don't do anything while in it. That's my point with both Biden and Obama. I don't know much about Biden (other than I completely disagree with him), but Obama hasn't done anything really impressive or helpful in any office he's had, besides maybe something in the Illinois Senate. Experience means nothing if you have nothing to show for it.

Obama has plenty to show for it, on the scale of his time in Chicago and yes the Illinois Senate. Ethics and racial profiling, providing relief for low-income workers and recently unemployed, welfare reform, etc.

Yes, it is perhaps "local", but it's the sort of grass-roots level public service work that allowed him to rise up.

Quote

The "Seperation of Church and State" put forth by our forfathers WHO WERE CHRISTIAN, was meant to seperate the state from the church. Not the church from the state. That's why "God Bless America" is still on many national emblems, and why "One nation under God" is still in the pledge of alliegence. That right was innacted to prevent the government from controlling the church, and enforcing one religion upon the people (including atheism).

The founding fathers were also slaveowners.
The founding fathers never intended women to have the right to vote.
The founding fathers meant only for white males to own property.

Just be wary, is all I'm saying. Yes, America was founded as a Christian nation, but surely if the government were not to enforce religion on its people, they would make it truly secular?

Quote

As it stands, there's kids drawing christian crosses in schools and getting put in detention for it. Luckily, most of those kids were able to fight it thanks to some christian lawyers.

It may not be wise to teach Christianity in schools, but that's not what I said in the first place. I said Christian ideals. So next time, do some more research on the history of our Bill of Rights, and read my posts a little more closely.

How would you teach Christian "ideals" short of faith itself? How would it enter the classroom? I can see it, at best, being taught in a social studies course in a survey of religion - not exclusively Christianity - but how would it be in the classroom, I'm curious.

Also, that's horrible that kids are getting detention for drawing crosses. I'm in no way suggesting that religion be abolished of course, just that it shouldn't have forced mention in state institutions.

Quote

I think abortion should only be allowed if rape is involved, but the bible is also against abortion in any instance. It's killing a human life without premise or proper justification. The baby deserves to die just because the mother didn't want it in the first place? The only difference is that the mother had no choice. I'm personally between the two, but I lean a little more to pro-abortion if rape is involved.

And sorry, but there's at least 50+% of the American population on my side for this one. The only thing is, is that there's more people on the other side of the isle who're more active about completely seperating the two. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.

50% of Americans also identify themselves as super conservative or Evangelicals, so it doesn't surprise me.

You might find this surprising, but I'm actually fairly moderate in the issue of abortion. Yes, I do feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if circumstances necessitate it, but I also don't think that it should be used as a simple "alternative" to birth control. That's stupid and shows neglect.

I'll address the rest of your post in a little bit, don't quite have the time now.

But first, I want you to read this excerpt. I think you'll find it at least intriguing:

Quote

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices. And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

(APPLAUSE)

I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.

But this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

And yes, that brief excerpt was from Obama's acceptance speech last Thursday.

[My Best Wishes]

Bloody hell you guys are writing massive posts.
Personal opinion aside guys, whose gonna win? Because I wouldn't vote for either of your options based on what I've read.
Obama seems to be so obessed with correcting America's problems he's going to screw up. Also seems to be all talk cough*KevinRudd*
McCain sounds like George Dubya all over again.

Don't hate me, I'm Australian.

Oh and Toasty, there is no way you can defend that blood story and not sound like the biggest ****head I've ever met. No one in their right mind could defend that story, that there is the reason people hate Americans. "Does my blood work with black people" **** off.

[Golden Legacy]

watch, on Aug 30 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

Bloody hell you guys are writing massive posts.
Personal opinion aside guys, whose gonna win? Because I wouldn't vote for either of your options based on what I've read.
Obama seems to be so obessed with correcting America's problems he's going to screw up. Also seems to be all talk cough*KevinRudd*
McCain sounds like George Dubya all over again.

Don't hate me, I'm Australian.

When the poll for this topic opened, I put down that I expect John McCain to ultimately win the election. At the time, McCain was extremely moderate and centrist, and I believed that would offset any disagreements with his hardcore conservative base.

Also the fact that Obama is black, which Toasty and I debated just now. It's been shown via the "Bradley Effect" that people that are polled about which candidate they support will sometimes be scared into saying the minority for fear of being perceived as racist, which might have boosted Obama in the polls.

Ironically, during his battle with Clinton, the reverse was experienced - more people said they were supporting Hillary when in actuality they wanted Obama to win the nomination, but didn't want to say it out loud because Barack was still very much 'new'.


At any rate, if I'm making a big deal out of this, simply put, I expect Obama to win the popular vote, but McCain to win the Electoral Vote.

[Toasty]

That actually sounds like a solid prediction. A lot of people like Obama, but the electoral seems to lean towards the more experienced candidates.

Golden Legacy, on Aug 30 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

I've put all your quotes about racism together, to make it easier.

I will agree that there is a huge issue in America about being "politically correct". It's why people overreact to even the smallest acts of racism. That much is true. I always wish we were like Europe at times, where at the very least racism is open and obvious. Instinctively, it sounds worse, but having it all in the open is better than it being hushed-up when someone experiences it.

Not everyone is racist, to be sure. But people are close-minded, people are (perhaps instinctively as well) uncertain too. Maybe I demand too much out of people, but surely people can look past a name? I know people who are not voting for Obama for the simple reason his name is too similar to a certain terrorist.

I suppose also that since Obama is the first serious minority contender for President, it's only natural that the public would become over-"sensitive" to issues of race. It brought it back into the equation, something that hadn't happened since the 1960's civil rights era (and other unfortunate incidents in recent years, such as the Sean Bell shooting and the Jena 7).

I can agree with all of that, but I sure get tired of hearing about people getting yelled at for even mentioning the term "black hole." It's starting to get a bit rediculous.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't like Nancy Pelosi much either. Just that Congress on the whole is known for having low ratings, but you're right that it's been weaker under her reign. Ineffective.

It's also very much due to to the fact that the Executive and Legislative departments are in control by different political parties. You'd be surprised how hard it is to pass legislation when Congress leans liberal, the President is conservative. They cancel one another out, and the Republicans in Congress also filibuster bills, so it's not like the Democrats have had an easy time passing laws either. (The Senate, for example, actually favors the Republicans 51-50 once you include **** Cheney who presides over it, and Joe Lieberman, for all intents and purposes a Republican and even a candidate for McCain's VP slot).

Well at least we agree to hate Nanci. :(

Obama has plenty to show for it, on the scale of his time in Chicago and yes the Illinois Senate. Ethics and racial profiling, providing relief for low-income workers and recently unemployed, welfare reform, etc.

Yes, it is perhaps "local", but it's the sort of grass-roots level public service work that allowed him to rise up.

Local services are fine and dandy (and actually show that the candidate is human), but they don't help when it comes to foreign policy. I guess you could say the same for Sarah and her town of 6100.

The founding fathers were also slaveowners.
The founding fathers never intended women to have the right to vote.
The founding fathers meant only for white males to own property.

Just be wary, is all I'm saying. Yes, America was founded as a Christian nation, but surely if the government were not to enforce religion on its people, they would make it truly secular?

Well things have sure shown a pattern of becoming secular where religion is absent. At least most of the time. My mother was raised in an era where people would leave their cars and houses unlocked, and a stolen car or break-in was a very rare occurance. During that same era, Christian beliefs and teachingswere more prominent then they are today. The founding fathers may have commited sins according to the bible, but no man is sinless. I'm just trying to point out that without Christianity, we wouldn't even have an America today. Or at least, the one we had would be a borderline hell-hole.

How would you teach Christian "ideals" short of faith itself? How would it enter the classroom? I can see it, at best, being taught in a social studies course in a survey of religion - not exclusively Christianity - but how would it be in the classroom, I'm curious.

Also, that's horrible that kids are getting detention for drawing crosses. I'm in no way suggesting that religion be abolished of course, just that it shouldn't have forced mention in state institutions.

You know the ten commandments? They can be taught and encouraged more heavily in schools without even mentioning Christianity, if you throw out the "Thou shalt not worship false gods" commandment.

Also, I've onlyever heard of one class in any city I've lived in, in my entire liftime, where anything related to Christianity was taught in schools. It was in a class my sister took in middle school. It covered the "Towe of Babel." However, most other history classes in that same middleschool covered either American history (with practically no emphasis on Chrstianity), or ancient and modern middle-eastern history, with no emphasis on Israel, and only a brief mention of Christianity and Jewdaism.

50% of Americans also identify themselves as super conservative or Evangelicals, so it doesn't surprise me.

You might find this surprising, but I'm actually fairly moderate in the issue of abortion. Yes, I do feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if circumstances necessitate it, but I also don't think that it should be used as a simple "alternative" to birth control. That's stupid and shows neglect.

I'll address the rest of your post in a little bit, don't quite have the time now.

But first, I want you to read this excerpt. I think you'll find it at least intriguing:




And yes, that brief excerpt was from Obama's acceptance speech last Thursday.

If this was the first thing I'd ever read about Obama, I'd be in love with him. However, even though keeping AK-47's out of the hands of gangs is nice, people who legally own guns are already having them confiscated in New Orleans. I don't know Obama's stance on guns entirely, but if he even mentions taking guns away from citiczens, or even further limiting what is legal to posses, it'll be hipocrisy.

I'd also like to know how he proposes to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies i the country, when the only thing I can see him being able to do is making birth control pills easier to obtain. He can't control whether rape happens or not, nor can he prevent teenagers from having sex without violating their rights.

As far as immigration goes, we need to seriously punish the organisations that support hiring illegals, and tighten the security on the border ten-fold. That proposed border fence should have been completed a year ago. The less enticing we make America look to illegals, the less likely they are to enter illegally. Remove the cheese from the house, and the mice won't bother.


He's got some great ideals in that speech, but I still disagree with him on many other matters.

watch, on Aug 30 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Bloody hell you guys are writing massive posts.
Personal opinion aside guys, whose gonna win? Because I wouldn't vote for either of your options based on what I've read.
Obama seems to be so obessed with correcting America's problems he's going to screw up. Also seems to be all talk cough*KevinRudd*
McCain sounds like George Dubya all over again.

Don't hate me, I'm Australian.

Oh and Toasty, there is no way you can defend that blood story and not sound like the biggest ****head I've ever met. No one in their right mind could defend that story, that there is the reason people hate Americans. "Does my blood work with black people" **** off.

We've got a lot to say. :P


And Watch, I've witnessed many moments where someone accidentally said something that might have offended someone. Could easily picture a "dumb blonde" asking the black lady that question without realising how racist it might have sounded. Heck, I might have actually said it if I were 7 or 8 years old, but I've never harbored a hatred for another race. The closest to racism I've ever gotten is hating illegal immigrants, and that's just because the majority of them are Mexican. However, I do have Mexican friends at school, as well as black friends, and Ukrainean aquaintances.

What that girl said sounded racist, but it doesn't mean she said it on purpose. Do you understand where I'm comming from on this?

Though I guess it would be GL's call, since he's the only one who can acurately determine whether the girl was intentionally trying to be racist or not.

[My Best Wishes]

Toasty, on Aug 31 2008, 02:40 PM, said:

And Watch, I've witnessed many moments where someone accidentally said something that might have offended someone. Could easily picture a "dumb blonde" asking the black lady that question without realising how racist it might have sounded. Heck, I might have actually said it if I were 7 or 8 years old, but I've never harbored a hatred for another race. The closest to racism I've ever gotten is hating illegal immigrants, and that's just because the majority of them are Mexican. However, I do have Mexican friends at school, as well as black friends, and Ukrainean aquaintances.

What that girl said sounded racist, but it doesn't mean she said it on purpose. Do you understand where I'm comming from on this?

Though I guess it would be GL's call, since he's the only one who can acurately determine whether the girl was intentionally trying to be racist or not.

You misunderstand what I meant by that, I don't care that she said it to a black women, the point is she didn't know that blood works in everyone, what a dumb *****.

[Eugine]

If this new scandal is true... OBAMA WON THE PRESIDENCY!
http://www.dailykos....8/30/121350/137

I can't ****ing believe this ***** has the audacity to accept the VP job when she knew this scandal could ruin McCain chances of winning.
I'm sorry, I would have rather have this election decided on policies, but come on... This is serious imo.

And you know what? I was going to defend Sarah today. I love her, and I think she's an excellent candidate, and better than Obama imo, but damn... I hope this isn't true cuz I like her!

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Aug 31 2008, 12:40 AM, said:

Though I guess it would be GL's call, since he's the only one who can acurately determine whether the girl was intentionally trying to be racist or not.

To be entirely 100% fair, it did sound as though she was both taken aback and unsure. That the thought never crossed her mind that her blood is compatible with a black person's, but now considering it seemed like a rather, err, at least "awkward" concept.

Stupidity and inherent distaste, best way I could describe it.

watch, on Aug 31 2008, 04:33 AM, said:

You misunderstand what I meant by that, I don't care that she said it to a black women, the point is she didn't know that blood works in everyone, what a dumb *****.

Yeah, that's your average American. =/

Eugine, on Aug 31 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

If this new scandal is true... OBAMA WON THE PRESIDENCY!
http://www.dailykos....8/30/121350/137

I can't ****ing believe this ***** has the audacity to accept the VP job when she knew this scandal could ruin McCain chances of winning.
I'm sorry, I would have rather have this election decided on policies, but come on... This is serious imo.

And you know what? I was going to defend Sarah today. I love her, and I think she's an excellent candidate, and better than Obama imo, but damn... I hope this isn't true cuz I like her!

All right, as someone who has had to defend Obama constantly against lies and rumors about his being Muslim, his patriotism, etc. I'm going to be cautious about this one. If it is true, then perhaps it'll only be a matter of time before the mainstream media catches on as the election heats up.

For now, in fairness I'll have to consider it as nothing more than a conspiracy theory, albeit one that does seem to have some basis (those pictures especially).

[TheEnglishman]

It seems surprising for her to try and hide this from the world if it's true. She may not like the idea of her daughter being pregnant at 16, but lying about it doesn't make her much better.
Still, I'm not a fan of personal issues being used in politics.

[Golden Legacy]

If I may have a quick post for the humor:

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/897/iqgf5.jpg

[Eugine]

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png

I need answers!

[Toasty]

The article is pretty convincing. For now I'm actually going to have to go under the assumption that it's true, because it seems more likely to be true than not. Especially with the pictures of her daughter.

Though honestly, she did what a lot of other mothers would have done if their child was pregant. Not the best choice, but it's not like she's the only one to have ever done it.

Honestly tough, this scandal doesn't prove that she'd be a horrible president, nor will it garuntee that McCain will lose the election. He'll obviously lose some votes though.

[My Best Wishes]

Why would she feel the need to cover it up? Certainly that's not something she wants to come out and address to the nation, but by covering it up and not fronting up about it will just make the reaction worse, and surely they could have played on her coming out about it and how she's got strong moral fibre or some rubbish, I'm not a Spin Doctor.

[Toasty]

watch, on Aug 31 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

Why would she feel the need to cover it up? Certainly that's not something she wants to come out and address to the nation, but by covering it up and not fronting up about it will just make the reaction worse, and surely they could have played on her coming out about it and how she's got strong moral fibre or some rubbish, I'm not a Spin Doctor.

Why would anyone try to hide something embarrassing? Because it's embarrassing. Usually people who try to hide something like this feel like they can keep it hidden. Usually that's not the case.

Really though, the best thing to do would be to keep quiet about everything until the baby was born, and then tell the public that it's her daughter's son. That way, the press doesn't revisit the scandal 7 and a half months later, and she won't be convicted of trying to cover anything up.

Comming out and saying that her daughter's pregnant in the beginning would be fine if it didn't mean that the press would spend more time on the subject.

[Golden Legacy]

I agree with Toasty and watch. It's not so much that Sarah Palin is covering up for her daughter - which is actually very respectable of her and shows she's a caring mother - it's that she hasn't come out with it and admitted it.

I can already see it as what's commonly referred to in the media as the "October surprise", right before the election takes place.

[Eugine]

Nice spins. I like it =)
Oh well, I'm less worried now if it is true. I just hope it isn't tbh. I don't want the McCain campaign to go off message.

(btw, I really like this site - http://www.politico.com/ ... Not biased at all, unlike the site I posted before)

Here's why I like Sarah Palin:
She's a reformer, and a maverick. She is known to fight corruption in her own party and state. Like someone said, a Maverick picked a Maverick.
She is a fiscal conservative, and a proven one, unlike the Bush Administration.
She fought big oil in her state, and like Obama enforced a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.
(Assuming Trig is her son) The birth of Trig is remarkable, and deserves applause imo. Her doctor told her Trig was diagnosed with Down Syndrome, a learning disability, and due to her pro-life stance she keeped him despite the known challenges he would face. 90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted.
She made a pledge to reduce Alaska's dependence on federal money, and do not use federal money on wasteful constructions.

Man, she's awesome. I sure hope she doesn't have any major scandals since it was proven she was not properly vetted, and this is why I overreacted to the Trig story =(

A maverick picked a maverick. A reformer picked a reformer!

Now, like I always said, I like Obama, and I think he's a wonderful guy when he speaks from a teleprompter. I just fundamentally disagree with his vision. You don't fix a broken government by increasing it... You fix a broken government by reducing it =(
I wouldn't mind if he wins anyway...

EDIT: Rumours were false.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...ncy-915378.html

[Saturos S.]

Next scandal: The age of the man her daughter's marrying.

[Gio]

Despite the whole situation with Palin's daughter being pregnant. I have to hand it to Obama. When questioned about it he replied by saying that family matters should be kept out of politics. I think he handled that with class and he has earned some of my respect for the way he handled that.

[Toasty]

I agree. I don't like Obama's policies, but he at least has a decent head on his shoulders.

[Eugine]

My goodness, might I just say...
I hate the US media except CNN (maybe) and Fox News, I dislike those extreme liberals and I'm really dissapointed in Barack Obama.

Although my voice will not matter on November 4th, must I say... McCain-Palin 08! How unfortunate I believe McCain will lose since the polls are discouraging. And might I say, journalism in USA is officially dead.

[Golden Legacy]

Which is why I hate American media and always rely on the BBC.

Also, need I mention that Obama has condemned the media repeatedly for its treatment of Palin's daughter? Toasty and Gio both mentioned this. Obama has even said that he will -outright- fire any member of his campaign if they get themselves involved in this.

[Eugine]

My goodness, it's all in Obama's plan. Obama has the entire media doing his dirty work for him while he stays 'above' them and their smears.
The US media never vetted Obama properly (except the Wright controvery maybe... All except Fox and CNN tried to bury the story).

Come on, in 5 days of picking Palin, her family has underwent more scrutiny than Obama's entire campaign!

Why is his association with a terrorist Bill Ayers, Father Phleger and Wright not important and does not disqualify him to be President, but the fact that Sarah has 5 children makes her unfit to be VP (yes, people are saying that in the mainstream media!)

My goodness, the smears are downright atrocious against Palin. I really hope there are blowback.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 3 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

My goodness, it's all in Obama's plan. Obama has the entire media doing his dirty work for him while he stays 'above' them and smears.
The US media never vetted Obama properly (except the Wright controvery maybe... All except Fox and CNN tried to bury the story).

Come on, in 5 days of picking Palin, her family has underwent more scrutiny than Obama's entire campaign!

Why is his association with a terrorist Bill Ayers, Father Phleger and Wright not important and does not disqualify him to be President, but the fact that Sarah has 5 children makes her unfit to be VP (yes, people are saying that in the mainstream media!)

My goodness, the smears are downright atrocious against Palin. I really hope there are blowback.

OBAMA. HAS. NOT. ATTACKED. PALIN'S. FAMILY.

I don't know how much more clear this can be made. Also - and I want to emphasize this - why would Obama attack Palin's daughter, when Obama's own mother gave birth to him at 18 years old?

Not only did Obama's mother give birth to him as a teenager herself, but Obama's father left his mother and him when Barack was just 2 years old.

Obama has both the respect not to partake in these attacks, and it just wouldn't make sense even if he did. He went through just as hard circumstances.

[Eugine]

I never said he did though.

I said he does not need to since the entire media will do it for him (neither will it do him any good anyway). New York Times entire frontpage was covered with anti-Palin stories.
CBS, ABC, MSNBC (thats the big names right?) all covered those anti-Palin stories despite being false. They were reporting Sarah was a member of a pro-Alaska and anti-American party when it is untrue (they now have to retrack their statements).

I thought liberals were all for self sufficient women? Now we learn that Sarah is pro-life, and does not support abortion she will get no women vote because that's the most important issues women have (sarcasm)! (and contrary to their accusations, polls show the economy is their number one issue). Now we learn they are only for liberal women.

And exactly about the fact that Obama mother gave birth to him at 18 years. Do you know another report? Sarah is unfit to be VP since she allowed her underage daughter to have a baby... Do they know their own nominee was born to a 18 year old?

[Golden Legacy]

Well then, you have every right to accuse the media of its bias. That's fine. I'm simply arguing - reiterating, confirming, whatever - that Barack himself went through similar circumstances, if not tougher, so from a logical and a moral standpoint, not only would Barack not do so, but he wouldn't be encouraging the media either (which is what I thought you suggested).

No, you have every right to be upset with the media. It's to be expected perhaps, because Palin was a shocker just last week, and already she had something like this on her. The media, unfortunately, thrives on stories like this. It will largely subside once Palin gives her speech tonight.


To be fair though, you can bet that we'll be seeing all those stories about Obama return again. Ever hear of the "October surprise"?

Quote

I thought liberals were all for self sufficient women? Now we learn that Sarah is pro-life, and does not support abortion she will get no women vote because that's the most important issues women has (sarcasm)! (and contrary to their accusations, polls show the economy is their number one issue). Now we learn they are only for liberal women.

Well obviously, and for conservative women, being pro-life is a priority. The fact that Palin is a woman is a neat bonus, but had McCain chosen any staunchly pro-life VP, it would have supported his conservative base (McCain himself has been pro-choice, then largely 'undecided' on the issue).


I still have to wonder if McCain's shift to the right is positive or negative. It will help that the evangelicals are fired up, but considering they are concentrated in largely conservative states - Kansas, Nebraska, Georgia, South Carolina, etc. - these Bible-belt states would go Republican anyway.

I feel that McCain risks losing his moderate appeal with Palin, once the "shock" of her being the first Republican woman on the ticket subsides with time. The fact that he's embraced Bush's policies this past year can't help him either.

[Eugine]

Well, those are legit issues to be raised GL. I am just tired of the obvious pro-Obama bias the media has.
Why can't they vet both tickets properly, be objective, and not be biased like they obviously are, then let the American people decide who is best the represent their country? I think the American people deserve better.

http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/palinnnnnnn__oPt.jpg
http://www.donkeydish.com/images/gallery/why-barack-loves-her_290x394.jpg

This isn't laughable, but damn, I'm really surprised the American people hasn't stood up. So biased.

And mind you, most stories except the fact that Bristol is pregnant were blatantly biased and false as reported by CNN.

[Golden Legacy]

I'm going to make the simple comment that the cover of Barack and Michelle Obama was for the June 30th, 2008 issue. Well before any of the Vice Presidents were even known, let alone the recent Palin craziness.

[Toasty]

True, but the media does lean left in general. There's ones that are fairly neutral, a few that are even slightly right-winged, but most of the media is liberal.

It also doesn't help that the vast majority of actors and producers in Hollywood are liberal.

[Eugine]

Muhahaha. I just watched Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin, and might I say, McCain-Palin is a winning team!
This is Obama's year, and he's expected to win, but I believe if Sarah does it right (and McCain) they can win.

I never even like Mr. 911, but wow, he and everyone were effective. And lmao GL, might I ask what smear and lies? (from Facebook)

[Toasty]

The media had to go all the way back to 1986 to find dirt on Palin's husband, and all they found was a DUI. Not exactly a good thing to do, but there's been much worse dirt found on other candidates in the past.

But I find it funny that Sarah Palin got more votes running for Mayor than Biden got while running for President.

[Lightning Star]

I freakin loved Palin's speech at the RNC. Though she didn't write it, I've never seen a woman so poised and collected-- not even in Hillary.

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening."

lmao.

[Eugine]

Sarah's speech was brilliant, and the best I've ever seen Icy. Dude, America got an excellent VP... Oh, and her records are brilliant, and by far better than Obama (I'll love to see GL debate this)

The way she jabbed Obama (rightfully) in a nice, funny yet blunt way was excellent. Dude, she's the future of the republican party right there.

"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change." - Sarah, so true.

I'm not even American but I'm in love with Sarah. W00t.

Anyway, the REAL test is how she does on the campaign trail. Oh, and its so funny ALL the Obama supporters talking points are "McCain-Palin will provide 4 more years of the same Geoge Bush politics!" when it is proven McCain is a maverick.

[Gio]

Let me just say that all the speeches given last night were pretty amazing. I watched them on Cspan so I wouldn't get any of the bias mess in between them, and I was just blown away by all of the speeches. I enjoyed Huckabee's and Rudy's speeches. Unfortunately I missed Romney's speech because of school. I also have to say that another amazing speech i listened to on tuesday was Fred Thompson's. I have to say his acting skills probably helped make his so good, but it was still amazing. But Palin's speech.......HOLY CRAP is all I can say. It was amazing.

[Golden Legacy]

Well, I felt the same way watching the Democratic National Convention. Michelle Obama's speech was beautiful and heartwarming and the scene with Barack making his appearance with his wife and daughters showed just how loving a family they are. Ted Kennedy (the 'lion of the Senate') made an unexpected but inspiring appearance after suffering a stroke-induced coma and showed just how much vitality he has. Hillary spoke with the clarity that she needed early in the year, and left no doubt to her supporters ('No way, No how, No McCain') about support and unity. Bill Clinton gave a powerful speech and came out with a ringing endorsement and pride in Obama and his vision.

Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, and especially Tim Kaine (all former VP candidates) came out strong and invoked each of their regional affiliations, different perspective but relating it all to a central focus.

Joe Biden gave perhaps the most lighthearted speech of the convention [... and that's why George Bu- I mean, John McCain (ahh, Freudian slip! Freudian slip!)] and it was touching to see his son Beau Biden vouch for his father. Joe Biden lost his wife and daughter in a car accident, and his sons were severely hurt.

Biden took the oath of office as Senator besides his children's hospital beds.


And of course, Barack Obama's speech in Invesco Field was absolutely mind-numbing. I was honestly shaking when it was over. So profound, yet it hit all the details, detrailed all the criticisms, and was simply overwhelmingly powerful (the most watched convention yet can't be wrong)



All that said, I find it hard to believe that posting in this topic will accomplish much if it's going to be just me against Toasty, Gio, Eugine, Icy.

[TheEnglishman]

To be fair, I doubt anyone posting in this topic is going to have an impact on American politics.

[Caael]

No ****ing way, you really think so?

[Eugine]

Obviously Me111 =)
Nothing said on GSSF has an impact on the wider world.

We can debate this topic as political pundits, and hope the American people are debating it the same way we are. Hopefully, non-biased, unlike the, uh nvm.

Eugine, on Sep 4 2008, 07:49 AM, said:

Oh, and its so funny ALL the Obama supporters talking points are "McCain-Palin will provide 4 more years of the same Geoge Bush politics!" when it is proven McCain is a maverick.

Golden Legacy, on Sep 4 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

[... and that's why George Bu- I mean, John McCain (ahh, Freudian slip! Freudian slip!)]

lol GL, my point exactly... That is all the Obama campaign runs on =(

[TheEnglishman]

I didn't mean it seriously. Never mind though.
I can't believe how much of the news this is taking up though. Seriously, every night the main news comes from the conventions.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, you do realize that McCain has shifted closer to Bush the past year, yes? This is solid, verifiable fact.

An excerpt:

I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain. To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician, I say, let's compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it.

Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself.

- John Kerry, DNC 2008


McCain won the Republican nomination on a platform of independent thinking and moderate appeal, often going against what his party believed in. He's now embraced the conservative foundation - the Bush policies - that, as noted above, he once opposed himself.

[Drizzy Drake]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 4 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

Eugine, you do realize that McCain has shifted closer to Bush the past year, yes? This is solid, verifiable fact.

An excerpt:

I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain. To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician, I say, let's compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it.
Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself.

- John Kerry, DNC 2008
McCain won the Republican nomination on a platform of independent thinking and moderate appeal, often going against what his party believed in. He's now embraced the conservative foundation - the Bush policies - that, as noted above, he once opposed himself.

merked.

[Toasty]

Skidz, be quiet unless you actually have something to say.

Golden Legacy, on Sep 4 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

Eugine, you do realize that McCain has shifted closer to Bush the past year, yes? This is solid, verifiable fact.

An excerpt:

I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain. To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician, I say, let's compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it.

Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself.

- John Kerry, DNC 2008


McCain won the Republican nomination on a platform of independent thinking and moderate appeal, often going against what his party believed in. He's now embraced the conservative foundation - the Bush policies - that, as noted above, he once opposed himself.

I don't like John Kerry in the slightest, but to be fair, this is why I'm still not entirely pleased with McCain. I'm glad he's more conservative now (and infact, being more like Bush isn't a bad thing, but really, McCain isn't anything like Bush), but I hate flip-floppers.

Though a flip-flopper who flopped to the conservative side is obviously better than a stubborn liberal imo. But that's me.


Anyway, anyone who says McCain will be 4 more years of Bush needs to stfu. If you actually take the time to compare their character and decisions, McCain and Bush are two very different people.

And I'll say it again if I have to, but Bush isn't responsible for most of the "bad" things that have happened during his two terms.

[Eugine]

I just watched McCain speech, and might I say... I WANNA VOTE FOR MCCAIN!! GIO VOTE FOR MCCAIN FOR ME!!!

[Golden Legacy]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 4 2008, 11:05 PM, said:

And I'll say it again if I have to, but Bush isn't responsible for most of the "bad" things that have happened during his two terms.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a great president in a hard time. He got us OUT of a depression. He fought a JUST war AGAINST his will and WON. Great presidents are defined by the times in which they lead, and the way by which they do so.

Eugine, on Sep 4 2008, 11:05 PM, said:

I just watched McCain speech, and might I say... I WANNA VOTE FOR MCCAIN!! GIO VOTE FOR MCCAIN FOR ME!!!

Are you kidding me? LOL, did everyone see the hecklers that crashed his speech? HAHAHA.
Besides that, woefully boring, if not typical. Decent amount of bipartisanship and reform, but awful delivery and skimped out on the issues.

oh btw, did anyone know McCain was a POW? I had no idea! [/sarcasm]

[Eugine]

Yeah lol, I want an explination as to why the woman did that.

And lol, he is a terrible speaker yeah... Republicans doesn't got much to work with regarding that, BUT I think his plans for America was excellent.
Education. Energy independence. HE MENTIONED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY... AND MORE...
FAR from the greatness of Sarah Palin's but still good.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 4 2008, 11:22 PM, said:

FAR from the greatness of Sarah Palin's but still good.

This is what I think Republicans should be concerned about. Anyone with half a brain could see that Palin was unbelievable and strong, while McCain came off as - to simply put it - weak and old. Palin has far overshadowed him.

The VP candidate is not supposed to "outshine" the person on top of the ticket, but rather bolster him. I think it's a legitimate concern that while Palin has brought the incredible energy and enthusiasm to the ticket, McCain could very well be shunted aside. Not to mention, Palin also highlights his age (72 years) and health (four bouts of cancer), and Republicans would do well to be careful on diminishing McCain's image.

After hearing his speech, in my honest opinion, I think it was the weakest out of all the four members of the ticket. Palin and Obama easily wiped the floor and exploded, Biden had an easygoing speech with humor and warmth that came naturally, but McCain's just came out as... forced. Almost grating.

The issues, all the candidates touched on to varying degree, but image is also important, and my honest impartial opinion is that McCain's speech got the job done, but absolutely did not hold a candle to anyone, not even his own VP.

[Eugine]

Honestly, I didn't watch Biden's speech. I did watch Bill's speech though =)
I honestly didn't follow the DNC that much, but from the speeches I've seen...

Palin > Bill > Hillary > Obama > Rudy > Cidney > Michelle > Huckabee > Romney.
Who from the DNC do you recommend I watch?

And omg, everyone is insulting the speech!! LMAO!!! MCCAIN SUCKS AT GIVING SPEECHES. OMFG, even my faithful Fox is insulting it.... BOYCOTT! IM SWITCHING THE MSNBC-OBAMA!

EDIT: Lmao, McCain speech is really not memorable... I forgot to put it in my >>>

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 4 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

Honestly, I didn't watch Biden's speech. I did watch Bill's speech though =)
I honestly didn't follow the DNC that much, but from the speeches I've seen...

Palin > Bill > Hillary > Obama > Rudy > Cidney > Michelle > Huckabee > Romney.
Who from the DNC do you recommend I watch?

And omg, everyone is insulting the speech!! LMAO!!! MCCAIN SUCKS AT GIVING SPEECHES. OMFG, even my faithful Fox is insulting it.... BOYCOTT! IM SWITCHING THE MSNBC-OBAMA!

Hmm. I'll rank my preferences in terms of tiers (and I obviously paid much more attention to the DNC, the RNC barely):


Top:
Barack Obama
Sarah Palin
Bill Clinton
Rudy Guliani (as much as I HATE THE @#$%ING BASTARD LIKE EVERY OTHER NEW YORKER, his speech was horrendously effective)

Middle:
Hillary Clinton
Michelle Obama
Mitt Romney
John Kerry
Al Gore
Joe Biden
Tim Kaine (Governor of Virginia)**
Evan Bayh (fmr. Governor, Senator of Indiana)**

Bottom:
John McCain
eh... Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico)? maybe?

**were high priorities on Obama's VP list



Also, wait, did I just hear Eugine say "my faithful Fox"? *shudders*
Don't turn to the American media. I'm serious. This is all you need.

[Eugine]

Imo, Fox is the best American news media. Not in the tank for anyone. Fox and CNN ie.

Anyway, I honestly do not like Biden. I like Tim Kaine though.

But OMFG, McCain is getting his ass kicked in the electorial map :D
243 vs 189. Damn... GIO GET OUT AND CAMPAIGN!!

[Gio]

Eugine, on Sep 4 2008, 10:05 PM, said:

I just watched McCain speech, and might I say... I WANNA VOTE FOR MCCAIN!! GIO VOTE FOR MCCAIN FOR ME!!!

Eugine, on Sep 4 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

Imo, Fox is the best American news media. Not in the tank for anyone. Fox and CNN ie.

Anyway, I honestly do not like Biden. I like Tim Kaine though.

But OMFG, McCain is getting his ass kicked in the electorial map :D
243 vs 189. Damn... GIO GET OUT AND CAMPAIGN!!

There isn't much campaigning needing to be done in the panhandle of Florida since it is mostly conservative and will vote republican no matter what.

But I am hereby dedicating my vote for McCain to Eugine.

My favorite speeches were Palin's and Rudy's. I also liked Fred Thompson's speech and great deal to. But as far as Obama's speech goes I thought it was very negative and he did more attacking McCain and republicans in general than talk about what he was going to do to help this country. Or as Carl Cameron would put it "Very Vice-Presidential."

Also I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that Obama said Palin's speech had no substance. And that leads me to say that McCain's speech may have not had any "FLARE" but at least he talked about what he would do as president.

O I just can't wait for the debates.

[Eugine]

Oh well, it's a democratic year. Republicans should be jumping in joy the democratic nominee wasn't Hillary cuz she would have definetely won. People are just not comfortable with an Obama presidency (look at the CBS poll.. Palin basically removed Obama bounce! McCain may well give it back though lmao)

Honestly, I liked his vision, and I guess that's why I was excited at first... but his delivery was poor tbh.

OMFG. Democrats message is so simply yet effective... "WE NEED CHANGE. MCCAIN AGREES WITH BUSH ON NEARLY EVERYTHING! THAT'S NOT CHANGE!"
**** YOU BUSH!!