[Gio]

Eugine, on Sep 4 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

OMFG. Democrats message is so simply yet effective... "WE NEED CHANGE. MCCAIN AGREES WITH BUSH ON NEARLY EVERYTHING! THAT'S NOT CHANGE!"
**** YOU BUSH!!

I just don't see how the Dems can run on something so untrue.

[Eugine]

Well, it's true. The Obama campaign always spouts, "he voted with Bush 90% of the time" and the McCain campaign has yet to refute the claim so it must be true.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_i...voted_with.html
Read this factcheck.

Obama can say (rightfully so) he voted against Bush most of the time, but all democrats did...

[Gio]

Alright so maybe he did vote with him 95% of the time, but that is just a number and when considering how many things actually pass through congress and their many committees and sub-committees I would say being against your OWN parties president 5% of the time is a pretty decent amount of time. Then you have Obama who has voted against (or present) Bush probably somewhere near 100% of the time and even if you disagree with Bush you have to admit that he wasn't wrong anywhere near 100% of the time.

[Eugine]

Well, anyway, whoever look at both sides knows McCain is a maverick. Yeah, he voted with George Bush in 2007 90% of the time, and that 90% of the time included the surge Obama wrongfully opposed.

I was wrong in saying this war was unwinnable, but when the liberal media stopped reporting on it, obviously USA is winning the war to the democrats hate. Obama can't even admit the surge is working... OMFG. Politics before country!

One problem I have with the republican party... They need to have a more diversed party. Where the hell are the hispanics, blacks and asians?!?!

EDIT:
And to GL comfort, must I say... I never supported a winning candidate except George Bush (which is debatable anyway)

I supported Hillary. She lost. Not even VP!
I supported Mitt Romney. He lost. Not even VP!
In 2004, in my country, I supported the opposing party, and they LOST!
In 2008, I supported the ruling party, and they LOST!

I honestly hope I'm right this time... I got a bad track record for ALL elections I followed! Oh, and Bush made me love politics in 2000 btw. The recount was awesome! I can't believe I was into politics AT 10!
Oh, and btw, American politics rock. I gotta give credit to the US media for hyping up this election... I watched the election over PRISON BREAK. EXCITING!!!!! Best farking thing on TV now.

Going to bed at 2:00 now... WHAT WILL THE PUNDITS SAY ABOUT MCCAIN SPEECH? WHEN WILL OBAMA MAKE A MISTAKE? WILL SARAH PALIN DELIVER? WILL THEY COVER BIDEN SON SCANDAL?
STAY TUNED!

[Drizzy Drake]

just thought i'd throw it out there that i am not a supporter of ms.eskimobiitch. she is pro gun and anti gay, and i just dont think thats right.

plus the hypocriticalness of her un married pregnant teen daughter.

oh and that jeff guy retelling mcains nam stories was a little much.

[Gio]

i hope you realize that it isn't hypocritical. It is two different ppl which means two different beliefs and decisions. Now if Palin was pregnant as a teen that would be hypocritical.

[Drizzy Drake]

Gio, on Sep 5 2008, 02:53 AM, said:

i hope you realize that it isn't hypocritical. It is two different ppl which means two different beliefs and decisions. Now if Palin was pregnant as a teen that would be hypocritical.

if she cant enforce the rules of/run her own house, how can you expect her to semi run a country?

[Gio]

Well lets see the executive part of a democracy sort of works like a parent child relationship. If the child(lawbreaker) breaks a rule(law) then the parent(government) carries out the punishment for breaking that rule or law. Even the president can't control what you as an individual do, but they definitely have the right to execute the law and carry out the punishment. And what goes on in a family has nothing to do with politics anyway.

The things ppl are coming up with trying to discredit Palin are ridiculous. I mean she is such a great pick for McCain no one in the media has been able to dig up any decent dirt, and they come up with ridiculous stuff since they can't find anything decent. Pitiful.

Bet you the media never told you that Obama used cocaine(might of been something else) when he was younger.

[Drizzy Drake]

Well, Bush was a huge cokehead and we all know how that turned out. But yes, I knew about that. But hey, ALOT of great people have done drugs before. He doesn't still yay right? No. So it shouldn't matter.

But still I can't support the anti gay thing.

I bet I know who Killer is supporting.

[Gio]

I aint even going to try a argue the gay thing. neither side is ever going to win that arguement because each side come from two absolutely and completely different perspectives.
but i think we are all in agreement when it comes to who coz would have supported.

[Drizzy Drake]

lol. yup.

And I'm not trying to argue the gay thing since you're right, it goes nowhere, I'm just saying I can't back someone with those beliefs.

[Eugine]

http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.barackobama.com

One day when I had nothing to do (actually, I ly... I wanted to do it badly for some reason) I went through both website "Issues" page, issue by issue. You know what? I came out understanding and appreciating McCain vision for USA more than Obama. Do it yourself and I hope you'll support McCain (especially GL). But then, you aren't undecided.

McCain NEEDS, desperately actually, to show USA he's not like Bush.
http://www.politico....0908/13181.html
Damn, this strategy will be so effective, and they are doing it well.
"The strategy: Relentlessly tie the new ticket to an unpopular president, portray the McCain/Palin convention as negative and backward-looking and hope Joe Biden once Joey Biden of Scranton still has the local touch." - Article

McCain will lose if he continues down this part. He needs to define himself rather than let Obama do it =(

And uh, John McCain supports equal rights for everyone. Unlike Obama, he simply doesn't call it "Civil Unions" to appease the conservative base. Also, Sarah doesn't like the idea of "Gay marriage", but she sure voted in Alaska to ensure same-sex couples have the same right. Oh, and Obama disagrees with gay marriage also. So basically, under the Obama/McCain administration the President will have the same stances on homosexuality. There is one thing homosexuals can favour Obama for - He will appoint liberal judges, who maybe more open to homosexuality.

And it's getting annoying that African-Americans are voting for Obama simply because he is black. He is expected to get 95% of the black vote. Obama is the Messiah in the Caribbean also. People here can't even vote for him, despite that he is most popular discussion currently! He does have one good plan for the Latin American and Caribbean countries - He plans to eliminate everyones debt. Doesn't he know America is broke? His country needs fixing first =)

Oh Gio, http://store.hannity.com/
Join the stop Obama express movement. Spread the word to your conservative and independent friends. You guys are in a losing election, you got to do the best you can.

[TheEnglishman]

I wonder if McCain is bothered by all the attention that Palin is getting. She seems to be overshadowing him at the conference.

[Eugine]

Sarah is a risk. She can either make or break John campaign imo.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=EcRA2AZsR2Q
Honestly, how can John McCain run against this message? Dude, I doubt even Karl Rove can win this election.

How unfortunate most people are absorbing the world "Hope" and "Change" without recognising it is empty change =(
Powerful message though. I doubt anything can compete with it.

Damn.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UCDxXJSucF4
Watch it while it's hot! I love Sarah Palin. She is a testament that you don't have to go the elite Ivy Leagues, or be part of the elite establishment to create positive change. She shows you can be NORMAL, everyday gal/guy and still leave an excellent and positive impact on the world. She gives me hope to me, the average person, and should give hope to you.
She is McCain's last hope. Make McCain proud!

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 5 2008, 07:57 AM, said:

http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.barackobama.com

One day when I had nothing to do (actually, I ly... I wanted to do it badly for some reason) I went through both website "Issues" page, issue by issue. You know what? I came out understanding and appreciating McCain vision for USA more than Obama. Do it yourself and I hope you'll support McCain (especially GL). But then, you aren't undecided.

And what if I told you that I honestly have looked at McCain's campaign site? I'm not someone who's uninformed about the issues. And likewise for the record, neither candidate can ever FULLY appease the base of the party. Surprising as it may sound, there are some things I do disagree with on Obama and things that I agree McCain has a better grasp of.

Quote

And it's getting annoying that African-Americans are voting for Obama simply because he is black. He is expected to get 95% of the black vote. Obama is the Messiah in the Caribbean also. People here can't even vote for him, despite that he is most popular discussion currently!

Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all got 90%, 85% of the African-American vote. Blacks have tended to the Democrats and liberal side of politics for a while now.

That said, the notion that only blacks are outright supporting Obama is silly.

Quote

He does have one good plan for the Latin American and Caribbean countries - He plans to eliminate everyones debt. Doesn't he know America is broke? His country needs fixing first =)

President Bush just approved $1 billion in aid to Georgia, all while the economy continues to deteriorate.

The USA has given aid to nations all throughout the years, through nearly ever President, both Republican and Democrat. I find it hard to believe you can disagree on something like this.

Quote

Oh Gio, http://store.hannity.com/
Join the stop Obama express movement. Spread the word to your conservative and independent friends. You guys are in a losing election, you got to do the best you can.

The Electoral Map is close. Obama has the slight lead because all the competitive states are ones that Bush won in 2004, while none (except for New Hampshire, only 4 electoral votes) voted Democrat and are possibly at risk of switching allegiences.

However, Obama needs to keep all the Kerry states (likely) and win at least 3 more states to tie or win the election. Surprisingly, Obama is routing McCain in Iowa - a typically conservative, white state - which nets him 7 votes. Obama has appealed to Latino voters (just as much as Hillary did), so New Mexico is likely to switch, that's another 5.

Out of 17 to tie, 18 to win, Obama just needs one other state.
And that's hella hard right now.

Virginia? Colorado? Nevada? These states haven't gone Democrat in many elections (Virginia not since 1964). It's a tall order.

All McCain's campaign has to do is defend and appeal to their strong history in these states.

Me111, on Sep 5 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

I wonder if McCain is bothered by all the attention that Palin is getting. She seems to be overshadowing him at the conference.

That's what I think the problem is. Palin is overshadowing, and at this rate, diminishing, McCain. As I said previously, the VP is supposed to complement and support - but not outshine - the person on top of the ticket.

It's possible this could end up differently of course. Many Republicans are likening Palin to the new Reagon. Other pundits say that once Palin's flair subsides, she might end up a Dan Quayle - the senior Bush's pick for the 1992 election widely considered to have brought him down.

[Eugine]

Well, good GL. Now before the election we need to have a policy debate since you researched both candidates. And the request to read both candidates issue was an open request to everyone (I hope Gio knows Obama's position, so he can say why he is not a good candidate in his opinion)... I was hoping that you can change your allegance to McCain though, but like I said, I doubt since you were an undecided.

Regards to the black vote, he is. During the primaries, he always got 90% of the black vote. And GL, more blacks are registering to vote simply to vote for Obama in this election. Personally, my sister who lives in USA calls me "racist" against black people, my friends think I hate black people, and now everyone thinks I should bleach my skin simply because I prefer McCain =(
Oh, I never said only blacks are supporting Obama. He won Iowa, which is mainly white, so me saying that would be stupid.

The aid issue -
The US is a generous country, and the most generous country in the world. I just think the US government needs to balance its budget, fix its broken economy, and so much more domestic issues first before it decides to fix another country. The American people probably donate to charity than the next most generous country on earth btw, so I doubt the US government has to now. It has more priorities.

But anyway, it's good to see the election is close in a democratic year.

Oh, and I may well start boycotting CNN now. They reported a lie, a smear. My goodness, journalism is dead in USA! The American people need an apology.
http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid...24-5377edd460cf

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Sep 6 2008, 04:48 AM, said:

The aid issue -
The US is a generous country, and the most generous country in the world. I just think the US government needs to balance its budget, fix its broken economy, and so much more domestic issues first before it decides to fix another country. The American people probably donate to charity than the next most generous country on earth btw, so I doubt the US government has to now. It has more priorities.

Yeah... go and stand in the corner please.

After reading a few well articles about John McCain I think my preference is switching to him. I think they're both idiots and disagree with quite a few of their policies. But McCain does seem safer and more likely to think a war through, and at least execute it properly. Palin as a vice though... no. I just don't like that woman's face. She looks like one of those women who always gossip and poke their noses into other people's business. Those mums that push their child way to hard and always think other children are spoilt/rude/wierd etc.

No but seriously, Biden would make a better vice.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 5 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

Oh, and I may well start boycotting CNN now. They reported a lie, a smear. My goodness, journalism is dead in USA! The American people need an apology.
http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid...24-5377edd460cf

So you quote www.gop.com - the official website of the Republicans - for this?
And for goodness sake, why are you determined to make it out as if only one side has distorted their claims?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/fa...ing_mccain.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/go...in_part_ii.html


Factcheck.org is a non-partisan site that scrutinizes the campaign from both ends, and validates (or clarifies) claims.

[Gio]

Granted that I believe you are correct GL. The media is spun on both sides. You have to admit, the liberal media is more blatantly obvious about their lean to the left.

[Golden Legacy]

I find it hard to believe that we can compromise at this. The conservatives always cry foul against a liberal media bias, the liberals always cry foul against a conservative media bias.

If you've looked at past coverage in the elections, those so-called "liberal media" networks have an inherent bias towards specific issues. It's just a veil thrown at people as self-defense for the (usually) conservative or Republican at hand.

There is an article I wanted to supplement this with. I'm still looking for it, but it made a pretty interesting deal about John Kerry and John McCain's records of serving the nation.

The "liberal media" four years was willing to go after John Kerry's image as a patriot; he looks French. His tastes are too European. He enjoys windsurfing. And oh yeah, he served his country in Vietnam? Overrated. Exaggerated. Some parts of it were even a lie.

Now, look at the media today - what do you think would happen if a media network had a report questioning how valid John McCain's record as a veteran is? Imagine the uproar that would occur. How dare they! They're unpatriotic. How dare they undermine the service that the man has given his nation!

When John Kerry received the media scrutiny, it was seen as fair game.
However, for John McCain that's an "untouchable" issue.


There have been similar recent examples regarding the potential First Ladies. Michelle Obama is always painted as an elitist, Cindy McCain is always seen as a straight-talking spouse to her husband.

At their respective conventions, Michelle Obama wore a dress around $140. Cindy McCain wore a full outfit, complete with accessories and earrings, that totaled $300,000. Any media focus on this? Of course not.

Now, I ask you, honestly: what if Michelle Obama had worn the outfit that had cost $300,000? What if she had gone on stage and given her speech with those same diamond earrings that Cindy McCain wore? Imagine how the media would have reacted. Imagine how you would have reacted.

"Michelle Obama is out of touch!"
"She's an elitist"
"She's rich and and completely full of herself"
"How dare she think she can understand the average American"

But, Cindy McCain wore the $300,000 outfit. And the "crazed liberal media" response?
Nothing.


At any rate, I found this amusing:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=OLQSEQuifH0

[Eugine]

Saturos Striker, on Sep 6 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

After reading a few well articles about John McCain I think my preference is switching to him.

Hopefully more Americans will also =)

Saturos Striker, on Sep 6 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

I just don't like that woman's face. She looks like one of those women who always gossip and poke their noses into other people's business. Those mums that push their child way to hard and always think other children are spoilt/rude/wierd etc.

...

Saturos Striker, on Sep 6 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

No but seriously, Biden would make a better vice.

Why?

Golden Legacy, on Sep 6 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

So you quote www.gop.com - the official website of the Republicans - for this?
And for goodness sake, why are you determined to make it out as if only one side has distorted their claims?

Of course =). Even more reason to believe it imo. Why would the GOP debunk a rumour, only to find out later it is false? Not really good on their image. Plus, they linked to an independent source. It's same way Obama made the Fight The Smears website.
And of course it's expected both sides to distort claims and accusation. That's the point of the campaign honestly. The media though, is not supposed to be biased, and the fact that CNN is taking talking points from left-leaning liberal blogs such as DailyKos and Huffingtonpost shows their journalism is leaning left. No wonder Fox is the most watched cable news station...
Oh, I may link to my HuffSpam dummy account, which is Pro-Sarah purposely. You should see the hate comments I get. Funny =)

And um, I'll respond to your last post tonight GL. Might I just say, the media is left leaning right, but this year, it was different... It was Obama-leaning. You should have seen what they did to Hillary. Too bad she is now forced to campaign for Obama, something she obviously doesn't want to do, and imo, should not do.

EDIT: Oh, and I'll leave with this quote and ad -
Can We Ask? Yes We Can.
"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 Palin

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 7 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Of course =). Even more reason to believe it imo. Why would the GOP debunk a rumour, only to find out later it is false? Not really good on their image. Plus, they linked to an independent source.

I'm not even sure where to begin on this. You don't ever go to the actual base of your party to show that it's not biased. It's contradictory. Even I don't go to the Dem's website (didn't know they had one) for my sources.

Quote

And of course it's expected both sides to distort claims and accusation. That's the point of the campaign honestly. The media though, is not supposed to be biased, and the fact that CNN is taking talking points from left-leaning liberal blogs such as DailyKos and Huffingtonpost shows their journalism is leaning left. No wonder Fox is the most watched cable news station...

Fox has the most long-time viewers, CNN has the larger audience in terms of individuals that watch it.

Quote

And um, I'll respond to your last post tonight GL. Might I just say, the media is left leaning right, but this year, it was different... It was Obama-leaning. You should have seen what they did to Hillary. Too bad she is now forced to campaign for Obama, something she obviously doesn't want to do, and imo, should not do.

Yes, during the Barack vs. Hillary fight, the media clearly sided with Obama. No doubt.
During the Obama vs. McCain fight thus far, the media has been woefully biased.

Obama: 28% positive, 72% negative
McCain: 43% positive, 57% negative

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,6802141.story

The past summer, Obama received more air time, but the vast majority of it was very negative.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 7 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

I'm not even sure where to begin on this. You don't ever go to the actual base of your party to show that it's not biased. It's contradictory. Even I don't go to the Dem's website (didn't know they had one) for my sources.

Alright then. I'll not believe this website anymore then.

Golden Legacy, on Sep 7 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

Fox has the most long-time viewers, CNN has the larger audience in terms of individuals that watch it.

True, but more people are turning to Fox for fair and balanced election coverage due to the bias =)

Quote

Yes, during the Barack vs. Hillary fight, the media clearly sided with Obama. No doubt.
During the Obama vs. McCain fight thus far, the media has been woefully biased.

Obama: 28% positive, 72% negative
McCain: 43% positive, 57% negative

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,6802141.story

The past summer, Obama received more air time, but the vast majority of it was very negative.

They finally started to vet him properly. If he was vetted properly, Obama wouldn't have even made it past Iowa. Purely media created candidate imo.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 7 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

Alright then. I'll not believe this website anymore then.

Nice, but I wouldn't believe anything from the horse's mouth either. Racist lies and smears are something all people have to be against, universally. Besides, from what I can see, those are independent sources and verification they refer to.

Quote

True, but more people are turning to Fox for fair and balanced election coverage due to the bias =)

Since when have I ever been a proponent of American media? I've said time and time again I prefer BBC to any of the junk here in the states.

Quote

Maybe they finally started vetting him properly. If they vetted Obama properly, he wouldn't have even made it past Iowa imo. Purely media created candidate imo.

Well yes, because 'imo' is very much an argument.

[Eugine]

Well, it's my opinion not a fact. If it was a fact it would not be disputed (well, people dispute facts, but w/e), but we know the majority of Americans believe it though. I think it's pretty obvious the media is rooting for Obama and trying to get him elected.
I honestly prefer BBC, but BBC is an international news organisation. Their election coverage is pretty bad and not detailed imo.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...ence_than_obama

But anyway, must I say, Obama seems to be a nice guy, but honestly, with the media bias, I just begin to wonder if it's true. The guy story was written and told only by him. Self written. I just don't know if it true because when I see him associate himself with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Father Phleger and Louis Farrakhan (just Google them all. You'll be puzzled as to why he associates himself with them) I begin to doubt him.
And to make it even worse, he's running on a campaign which transcends race, but his old pastor is anti-White.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Sep 7 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

...
Why?

Because I think Biden will prove to be a better counterweight to Obama, balancing his flaws out. Palin has no qualities whatsoever in that for McCain.

Eugine, on Sep 7 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

"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 Palin

Palin should be ashamed and stand in the corner for saying that. So instead of giving more hate food for Palin, convince in why she would make a good vice.

[edit] And I find it pathetic how these campaigns seem to be more focused on the smears and making each other look bad instead of focusing on what the politicians have to say. Just let them have a few live debates where they can do that to each other. Because the next election news is more likely to be that McCain is secretly Osama Bin Laden's twice removed niece's pluche rabbit then something that actually about government policies.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 7 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

Well, it's my opinion not a fact. If it was a fact it would not be disputed (well, people dispute facts, but w/e), but we know the majority of Americans believe it though. I think it's pretty obvious the media is rooting for Obama and trying to get him elected.
I honestly prefer BBC, but BBC is an international news organisation. Their election coverage is pretty bad and not detailed imo.

And imo, their journalism standards far outrank that of America's. And their election coverage is sensible and surprisingly well-informed, and yes balanced. imo

Quote

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...ence_than_obama

No one is denying Palin. She's entered the picture recently. I've been arguing that since the primaries have been over for half a year now, Obama has received the brunt of negative coverage for 6 months, while McCain has had a comparatively easy ride.

Quote

But anyway, must I say, Obama seems to be a nice guy, but honestly, with the media bias, I just begin to wonder if it's true. The guy story was written and told only by him. Self written. I just don't know if it true because when I see him associate himself with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Father Phleger and Louis Farrakhan (just Google them all, you'll be puzzled as to why he associates himself with them) I begin to doubt him.
And to make it even worse, he's running on a campaign which transcends race, but his old pastor is anti-White.

This is my point! You are first of all "associating" a candidate with controversial and old links, instead of focusing on the candidate in question, in the now and present. It's not like anyone ever keeps ties with them. And let me tell you have ANY OF YOU ever heard of this man? This man that supports John McCain? [if Eugine can quote the GOP, then the 2nd link counts]

None of you, right? See? McCain, easy ride. Obama? Intense scrutiny, constant doubts.

[Eugine]

Wow, I'm gone... I just typed out so many paragraphs only to lose them! I'm done! Pissed.

EDIT: In a democratic year look at this...
http://www.politico....0908/13228.html
SURPRISE!

=)

[Golden Legacy]

You do realize that this is the post-convention bounce? Obama got one after the Democratic convention.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics..._conventio.html

[Eugine]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=74462

GL!!!!!! READ. THIS. ARTICLE. I CAN'T EVEN MOVE FROM MY CHAIR NOW.

My goodness, WHAT IS OBAMA'S TRUE INTENTIONS? I can't even believe DIGG is bashing this claim (and digg is very liberal)
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_s_..._as_Big_Brother

I need the mainstream to check this out!! This need to be dubunked IMMEDIATELY. IMMEDIATELY! This needs to be a smear, a ly, an untruth, because omfg...

EDIT:

Eugine, on Sep 7 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

But anyway, must I say, Obama seems to be a nice guy, but honestly, with the media bias, I just begin to wonder if it's true. The guy story was written and told only by him. Self written. I just don't know if it true because when I see him associate himself with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Father Phleger and Louis Farrakhan (just Google them all. You'll be puzzled as to why he associates himself with them) I begin to doubt him.
And to make it even worse, he's running on a campaign which transcends race, but his old pastor is anti-White.

I quote myself again.

[Golden Legacy]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 7 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

This is my point! You are first of all "associating" a candidate with controversial and old links, instead of focusing on the candidate in question, in the now and present. It's not like anyone ever keeps ties with them. And let me tell you have ANY OF YOU ever heard of this man? This man that supports John McCain? [if Eugine can quote the GOP, then the 2nd link counts]

None of you, right? See? McCain, easy ride. Obama? Intense scrutiny, constant doubts.

I quote myself again.
---


http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/art...rUnhidden=false
http://www.alternet.org/story/96945/theocr...on/?page=entire
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/07/...in4423486.shtml

EUGINE!!!!!! READ. THESE. ARTICLES. I CAN'T EVEN MOVE FROM MY CHAIR NOW.

My goodness, WHAT IS PALIN'S TRUE INTENTIONS?

I need the mainstream to check this out!! This need to be dubunked IMMEDIATELY. IMMEDIATELY! This needs to be a smear, a ly, an untruth, because omfg...

EDIT: and here we are- http://gawker.com/50...r-says-enquirer

[Gio]

For some strange and unusual reason my computer won't load your links GL. Weird right....yeah my comp just sucks.

Anyway I shall post when my comp decides to load the freaking links.

[Toasty]

The first article is slightly confusing, I've got a headache (so I didn;t read the others), and I'm sick (so things are fuzzy).

You wanna clarify the point you're trying to make with this GL?

[Eugine]

Personally do not see the big deal with the church issue regarding Sarah. My mom church is similar actually. You really need to talk to more evangelicals =)
Regarding Hagee endorsement of McCain, didn't Hagee remove his endorsement after?
And um, most evengelical churches condemn gays anyway (not that I agree with it, but w/e, it's in the Bible). People on DailyKos hate ALL religion btw.

And the McCain campaign already refuted the affair claim.

Now, look at these videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIJIyMyqAwQ...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJrNQBUVMvo...feature=related

Actually, just YouTube "Bill Ayers", then read the article I posted. Scary.
I think Obama is a Marxist.

Oh,
http://www.wnd.com/i...ew&pageId=69784
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Obama
He wants to create his own organisation to rival the military...

Honestly, Obama is a scary dude. Just my opinion. I'm no political pundit or anything, I'm not suppose to be objective... But the dude just scared me.
I honestly think it's time for the media to ask him even tougher questions.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Sep 8 2008, 08:27 AM, said:

Honestly, Obama is a scary dude. Just my opinion. I'm no political pundit or anything, I'm not suppose to be objective... But the dude just scared me.
I honestly think it's time for the media to ask him even tougher questions.

No, the media should shut up for a while. I want to see open debates McCain vs. Obama. Not more of these crackstories.

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Sep 8 2008, 12:19 AM, said:

For some strange and unusual reason my computer won't load your links GL. Weird right....yeah my comp just sucks.

Anyway I shall post when my comp decides to load the freaking links.

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 8 2008, 01:12 AM, said:

The first article is slightly confusing, I've got a headache (so I didn;t read the others), and I'm sick (so things are fuzzy).

You wanna clarify the point you're trying to make with this GL?

I was responding to Eugine's spazzness. Point to be made is that he went absolutely berserk, I'm pointing out that Palin could have similar skeletons and things weighing her down.

Basically, stop focusing on the candidates' pasts and start focusing on the present, their issues, their platforms, in the here and now.

I mean this for both sides.

SS summed it up well.

Saturos Striker, on Sep 8 2008, 09:57 AM, said:

No, the media should shut up for a while. I want to see open debates McCain vs. Obama. Not more of these crackstories.

[Gio]

I think you can ignore the past up to a point, but I think I have said this before, there is a point where you have to take what people did in the past and use it to question their character, and the best way to do that is probably confront the actual person with the information and she what they say, whether they denounce it, whether they say it was a mistake or not, you know just basic stuff. I don't think the media should be the ones ripping it apart.

But like SS said. I cannot wait for the debates. They will be interesting.

@Eugine- I think a lot of democrats are socialists and just won't say so. (not all of them)

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Sep 8 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

I think you can ignore the past up to a point, but I think I have said this before, there is a point where you have to take what people did in the past and use it to question their character, and the best way to do that is probably confront the actual person with the information and she what they say, whether they denounce it, whether they say it was a mistake or not, you know just basic stuff. I don't think the media should be the ones ripping it apart.

That's a good point, but it would have to be for every candidate. While the severity varies, each of the major candidates have their own past issues that would have to be brought into light, controversial links and such. Further, it keeps us off the current agenda and need for a comprehensive and fair platform.

That said, I'm going to quote what watch said earlier:

watch, on Aug 29 2008, 09:12 PM, said:

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.

Past associations, even personality, should ultimately be put aside.

Quote

But like SS said. I cannot wait for the debates. They will be interesting.

No doubt. While the Presidential debates matter most, watching Joe Biden and Sarah Palin go at it is going to be something intense.

Quote

@Eugine- I think a lot of democrats are socialists and just won't say so. (not all of them)

I honestly think a lot of republicans are racist bigots who believe segregation was the right idea, and just won't say so. (not all of them)

[Gio]

I was going to edit it. and say the same thing but then I saw you posting and figured what the heck. GL will say it for me. Anyway, it was mainly directed at Eugine's remark about Obama being a Marxist.

[Golden Legacy]

Ha, that's amusing. Well, no doubt, it's true in both cases.

[Eugine]

Hey GL, you need to be reminded of the party which ended slavery =)
I do think the republican party need to reach out to hispanics, arabs, asians and blacks though. It seems to be a party of old white men for some reason...

[Golden Legacy]

I have heard that line tossed around so many times it's not even funny. It's a horrendously cheap and cowardly way out. Considering that the entire South is (largely) Republican, and they have the most strict and backward minded attitudes towards minority groups ever. That's why Klansmen and other radical groups most closely identify with the Republican party today, and why events like the Jena Six occur.

Need I remind you further that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated?

[Eugine]

Hey, I wouldn't doubt some Republicans are closeminded, and this is why I think the party need to reach out more to minorities. I just want to know though, do Republican Presidents seem racist though? It's just the extremist of the parties that exibit these behaviors imo.

Look at this though -
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TpZZGTGVePE
The democratic party is very corrupt.

[Golden Legacy]

You seem to be confusing 'Democrat' with 'liberalism', if that is your intent, and 'Republican' with 'conservative' - which is something I admit I am at fault at doing at times.

People should realize that the two-party system is broken. They tailor to their own needs, as most politicians do, and they are without a doubt a people "away" from the actual reality of the nation. Corruption occurs everywhere - I counter your video by pointing you to the entire Bush administration. Blatantly have they disregarded the Constitution to serve their own needs.

You seem hell-bent on making out the Democrats to be corrupt, when Republicans fare no better. It's the matter of the party system, those political parties themselves are self-absorbed and leech off the benefits of the people who vote for them.


EDIT: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=OV5jYojNJKY , just because you want it. Look up these politicians and what they did, and all these events happened in a single year.

[Eugine]

Of course both parties are corrupt, and this is why I believe the only way to fix corruption is to decrease government, a conservative/republican principle (if you may, you can educate me on how to use them correctly ^^).

And Bush is a terrible example of conservatism imo

[Golden Legacy]

Depends on what you mean by "big government"

I feel the government should provide services to the poor and homeless.
I feel the government should subsidize health care companies to make it more affordable to those who need it most.
I feel the government should go out of its way to ensure that companies don't abuse their record profits at the expense of middle-class workers, that the government should invest in an alternative energy infrastructure (like the rest of the damn world), that the government should pursue open market and free trade with nations and not push them away or force them with war-mongering and politics of fear.

Are you against all this?

And further, how do you justify conservatives being against big government, when you conservatives are FOR moral legislation that would have the GOVERNMENT tell a woman what she could do with her body, that would support the GOVERNMENT dictating who can get married, that would give the GOVERNMENT the power to suspend habeus corpus and hold people without charge?

Against big government, what utter hypocrisy.

Quote

And Bush is a terrible example of conservatism imo

That's quite convenient for you, saying Bush isn't a true conservative. I wonder, if he had been a competent president and had high approval ratings, you and every other Republican would be touting him as the conservatism king.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 8 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

You seem to be confusing 'Democrat' with 'liberalism', if that is your intent, and 'Republican' with 'conservative' - which is something I admit I am at fault at doing at times.

People should realize that the two-party system is broken. They tailor to their own needs, as most politicians do, and they are without a doubt a people "away" from the actual reality of the nation. Corruption occurs everywhere - I counter your video by pointing you to the entire Bush administration. Blatantly have they disregarded the Constitution to serve their own needs.

If you are going to talk about constitution here. I do believe that the branch that is in the best condition constitutionally is the executive branch.
You look at what congress has been doing and a lot of it is unconstitutional and yes I mean all 8 years that Bush was in office that congress was this unconstitutional, in fact it has been a lot longer than that. The the Judicial branch has even been doing things unconstitutional for God knows how long. For instance, in Rowe v. Wade there is ABSOLUTELY no constitutional base for their verdict. They pulled it out of thin air. Last time I checked the constitution didn't say anything about a third trimester.

[Toasty]

Eugine, on Sep 8 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

And Bush is a terrible example of conservatism imo

*sigh*

Bush is a great example of a conservatism. It's how people see him that isn't a good example of conservatism.

If I need to quote myself again, I will.

Toasty, on Aug 30 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

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 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.

Bush isn't at fault for a lot of the "bad things" that happened during his administration.


And the government in general has been corrupted for quite some time. We've even put our own border patrolmen behind bars for trying to prevent a drug dealer from bringing cocaine into our country. What's worse, I think they even made it easier for him to do so.

It seems to me that more often than not, the failures of a Presidency occur when the President isn't capable of preventing officials from abusing the constitution. I.E. most of the "bad things" that occur durring a Pesidency are caused by the government, not the President.

That's not to say that the President is always a perfect angel. Case in point, Bill Clnton.

[Eugine]

The problem with Toasty, is that he sees everything in black and white, which is terrible.
"Liberals bad, conservatives good"
And if you think Bush was a great conservative, I'm not gonna argue.

Bill Clinton was a great President imo. I also think Hillary Clinton would make a great President, both liberals. Not so much Obama...

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 9 2008, 07:26 AM, said:

The problem with Toasty, is that he sees everything in black and white, which is terrible.
"Liberals bad, conservatives good"
And if you think Bush was a great conservative, I'm not gonna argue.

Quite unfortunate really. Even I, as much as I hate the fundamental notion of conservatism, realize that there are great conservatives as well as the awful. It would be nice if Toasty reciprocated that same idea towards liberals and realize that it goes both ways.

Further, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

Toasty said:

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 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 Bush administration stepped in on the side of the banks and the lenders as opposed to the people and the borrowers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...opinion/columns

While the blame is certainly shared with the Louisiana governor for certain, Bush was warned repeatedly about the threat of Katrina...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/

...and as the hurricane struck he was off doing this.
http://www.flickr.co...iew/2704635863/

Stem Cell research is immoral for you. Doesn't make it so for everyone else.

You seem to imply that only the people who are rich work hard, only the people who are living in poverty are lazy, and the middle class just aren't trying. That might work for an elitist perspective, but reality is different. That said, you're advocating the 'trickle down' theory, which is just that; a theory. In reality, the problem that happens is that giving money to the wealthy stays in the wealthy. All that money goes into investments, capital that never is fluid and never even has a chance to "filter down" through the rest of the economy. It stays concentrated at the top, with the wealthy reaping the benefits.

Just to be clear, Obama wants to LOWER taxes on the middle class and the poor, 95% of Americans. LOWER. Taxes. And he won't increase taxes on the wealthy, he will let the Bush tax CUTS expire. No increase, just reverse what Bush did and let those tax cuts on the wealthy expire.

That means more spending money for 95% of Americans. More money to invest back in the economy.

Stop talking about "trickle down" and start focusing on what ACTUALLY works and makes sense, working your way UP. Starting from the middle and lower class, and having the capital work its way UP through the economy.

This single link addresses many of the issues under the Bush administration and its incompetence:
http://dpc.senate.go...ame=fs-110-1-70

The quote in particular on the subject of the wealthy and the middle class:

Quote

Bush’s deficit-financed tax cuts have widened the income gap between millionaires and middle-class workers. In testimony before the Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned against rising income inequality: “[T]o the extent that incomes and wealth are spreading apart, I think that is not a good trend.”[28] Bernanke's predecessor as Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, expressed similar concerns in congressional testimony in July 2004.[29] In January 2007, for the first time, President Bush finally acknowledged that “income inequality is real; it’s been rising for more than 25 years.”[30] The Wall Street Journal, however, has attributed the widening income gap to President Bush’s tax policies: “[I]t appears that the highest-salaried workers – executives, managers and professionals – are widening their lead on the typical worker…The Bush tax cuts appear to have widened the income gap, according to many analyses.”[31]

In fact, President Bush’s capital gains and dividends tax cuts will cost $197 billion over ten years, with most of the benefits going to multimillionaires. In an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, economists found that the immediate effect of the Bush tax cuts has been “skewed in favor of those with high incomes,” benefiting the most wealthy households the most.[32] In 2006, for example, “families making more than $1 million a year saw their after-tax income increase by 6 percent because of the tax cuts, while families making $40,000 to $75,000 saw after-tax income rise by about 2.5 percent.”[33]

And for the record, Bill Clinton was a fine president. Not perfect, but there is a reason why he is likely the most widely respected US statesman in the entire world. Bush will never come even close to Clinton's popularity, appeal, and yes his economic success.

[Gio]

Alright really tired about Bush getting blamed for Katrina.
It amazes me that you can blame Bush and completely ignore how this system works. The first level of government is obviously local. When a mayor need help he appeals to the governor for assistance and the governor tends to give that assistance. Well when the governor is overwhelmed by the situation the they are supposed to declare a state of emergency for the state. Then and ONLY then is the federal government allowed to send their people in to help. ONLY after the state has given them the right. If the Federal government were to come in before they would be stepping all over that states sovereignty. The only reason Bush was able to go in was because of the executive order he gave after calling the idiotic governor of Louisiana not once, but twice and asking her to put the state of Louisiana into a state of emergency, which she never did. If he had gone in early democrats would be crying foul because he intruded on state sovereignty. So really there is no way for him to win.

[My Best Wishes]

I'm sorry Gio but it took how many days for the Worlds leading power to get water, the most basic thing on earth, to New Orleans after Katrina? **** the right of States, Bush should have stepped up.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 9 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Quite unfortunate really. Even I, as much as I hate the fundamental notion of conservatism, realize that there are great conservatives as well as the awful. It would be nice if Toasty reciprocated that same idea towards liberals and realize that it goes both ways.

Further, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion


The Bush administration stepped in on the side of the banks and the lenders as opposed to the people and the borrowers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...opinion/columns

The Liberals caused the problem in the first place. It's a lose-lose situation this time around. You're party is just as bad as the conservatives.

While the blame is certainly shared with the Louisiana governor for certain, Bush was warned repeatedly about the threat of Katrina...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/

...and as the hurricane struck he was off doing this.
http://www.flickr.co...iew/2704635863/

....Wow GL. This one really came back to bite you in the ass. Bush's birthday? That happened on July 6th. Katrina formed on August 23rd.
http://en.wikipedia..../George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia....rricane_Katrina

Without issuing an executive order (as Gio described), Bush couldn't do anything to help. This one's on Louisianna's Governor's shoulders.

Stem Cell research is immoral for you. Doesn't make it so for everyone else.

I guess you don't mind using potential human lives as test subjects then? This is similar to the abortion argument in that you're killing/altering a potential human life. I don't agree to that.

You seem to imply that only the people who are rich work hard, only the people who are living in poverty are lazy, and the middle class just aren't trying. That might work for an elitist perspective, but reality is different. That said, you're advocating the 'trickle down' theory, which is just that; a theory. In reality, the problem that happens is that giving money to the wealthy stays in the wealthy. All that money goes into investments, capital that never is fluid and never even has a chance to "filter down" through the rest of the economy. It stays concentrated at the top, with the wealthy reaping the benefits.

Seeing as most of the taxes that they'll pay will stay in the government, I fail to see how increased taxes will take their money and put it back into the economy.

The trick isn't to tax them, it's to make spending money as tantilizing as possible. I.E. reducing taxes so that they're free to spend more. They wouldn't need to hoard their money if taxes were low and the economy was thriving.

Also, due to the way our society works, anyone can make it to the top and "reap the benefits" as long as they have the intelligence and drive to do so. If you need money for school, apply for a grant. The government gives them to people to get them out of credit card debt, so if you apply for one to help pay for an education, you're likely goig to get it (as long as you apply before others, since there's a limited amount of money set aside). The best part? You don't have to pay back a cent. It's basicaly free money.

Just to be clear, Obama wants to LOWER taxes on the middle class and the poor, 95% of Americans. LOWER. Taxes. And he won't increase taxes on the wealthy, he will let the Bush tax CUTS expire. No increase, just reverse what Bush did and let those tax cuts on the wealthy expire.

Let me quote Winston Churchill again:

Quote

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.

It doesn't matter who you're taxing GL, the benefits are nowhere to be found.

That means more spending money for 95% of Americans. More money to invest back in the economy.

And there'd be even more money to invest back into the economy if yu got the rich to spend their wealth. If you're taxing people heavily for spending their money, they're not going to want to spend a lot of money, am I right?

Stop talking about "trickle down" and start focusing on what ACTUALLY works and makes sense, working your way UP. Starting from the middle and lower class, and having the capital work its way UP through the economy.



This single link addresses many of the issues under the Bush administration and its incompetence:
http://dpc.senate.go...ame=fs-110-1-70

The quote in particular on the subject of the wealthy and the middle class:

Well if you actually payed attention to reality instead of the Democrat Policy Committee, you'd realise that it's the Liberal's fault for the increase in cost of most of our necessities.

The promotion of corn ethanol has skyrocketed the cost of bread, and everything is increasing in cost as both gas prices increase, and the dollar's worth decreases. If we could've started drilling for our own freaking oil in Alaska during Clinton's Presidency, gas would be half the cost of what is is for Americans right now. Though the federal government is also partially to blame for purpously decreasing the worth of the dollar, they're starting to reverse it now. The dollar is already starting to rise again.

Government run healthcare would be a nightmare, because the government would be the one to say whether or not you could be funded for what kind of treatment. Not you, not the doctor, and certainly not a private healthcare provider. They might fund a bladder transplant to a heart disease patient, but they won't fund a heart transplant.
That kind of thing is exactly what will happen if the government takes control of healthcare.

College tuition has risen in part to the fall of the dollar.

And for the record, Bill Clinton was a fine president. Not perfect, but there is a reason why he is likely the most widely respected US statesman in the entire world. Bush will never come even close to Clinton's popularity, appeal, and yes his economic success.

The last part is true, but Bill got lucky. A lot of actions taken by past presidents began to shine through during his term. You can thank Reagan, not Bill, for the flourishing economy we had during Bill's term. I believe it was within three years of Reagan's assive taxcust that we were in the green.

Taxcuts work. Taxes don't.

On top of that, I don't care whether he did a good job or not. I would have rather had a president who didn't sell government secrets to our enemies, and didn't get impeached numerous times, but was horribly unpopular, than Bill Clinton.

But let me make something clear. Most of the time, when a President puts forth something like a taxcut, the effects aren't seen immediately. For us to be getting cheap gas right now, we would have had to be drilling in Alaska 8 or more years ago. And it wouldn't matter which President let us drill, because the guy who becomes President when the effects are seen, is the one who will reap the reward or take the blame.

Oh, and I appreciate the compliments guys. I really do.

I know there are some good Liberals out there. There was that one recently who worked on an energy bill proposal with a conservative that sounded really solid. I also think that Obama has mostly good morals.

Bill Clinton wasn't a good Liberal. Well liked by the public maybe, but a "good person" doesn't get impeached even once.

[Eugine]

(I'm too lazy to do a policy debate.)

I blame Bush for -
1) Bad handling of Katrina. He sure did learn from his errors. He handled Gustav excellent. I think Jindal has to take more credit though.
2) Poorly fighting the war on terror. Thank God for McCain. He made America go from being defeated, to winning.
3) Increased government spending. He's spending like democrats, but we have to remember, America is singlehandedly fighting an expensive war on terror. It's annoying that one country, who controls um, 5% of the world population is singlehandedly tackling most of the world terrorism.
4) Making America even more divided. Imo, it's the divided states of America.

Number 4, imo, is the most important reason why I believe McCain will be the better President. Imo, it's not that the US congress doesn't care, it is just too divided and broken. I think McCain, who has a record of working with both democrats and republicans (ever wonder why conservatives like Toasty doesn't like McCain? It's because he has a history of working with democrats. He's too "liberal") can repair Washington to make it work again. And with Palin, who has a record of challenging her OWN party, and reforming Alaska for the better, will live up to their promises of working together for the betterment of USA. Like McCain says, he's willing to work with both parties, something which Obama has never done, but only said.

Like Obama always said, it's time for the "red states", "blue states" analogy to be put aside, to work for the common good. McCain has a history of doing just that. Putting away political party interest, and working for the American people. Like he said, he has the scars to prove it. Obama does not.

[Golden Legacy]

I don't have time to fully respond right now (class starts in ten minutes), but to these comments from Toasty:

Quote

The last part is true, but Bill got lucky. A lot of actions taken by past presidents began to shine through during his term. You can thank Reagan, not Bill, for the flourishing economy we had during Bill's term. I believe it was within three years of Reagan's assive taxcust that we were in the green.

This made me laugh actually. Did you forget that there is an ENTIRE presidency between Reagon and Clinton? Have you forgotten the senior Bush?

If Reagon left behind a flourishing economy, then how did the president right after - Bush Sr. - INCREASE the deficit?

Once more:

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/greenberg21.jpg

P.S. 3 years after Reagon is solid Bush Sr., clearly the economy was booming under him.

Quote

....Wow GL. This one really came back to bite you in the ass. Bush's birthday? That happened on July 6th. Katrina formed on August 23rd.
http://en.wikipedia..../George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia....rricane_Katrina

http://www.flickr.co...iew/2704635863/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...-0125-515h.html
It was McCAIN'S birthday. August 29th.
Feeling pretty stupid now, aren't you?

[Gio]

watch, on Sep 10 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

I'm sorry Gio but it took how many days for the Worlds leading power to get water, the most basic thing on earth, to New Orleans after Katrina? **** the right of States, Bush should have stepped up.

Yeah into a city that is basically a bowl after the storm had been through and flooded the city when Bush had to force himself in with an executive order. and what do you mean **** the rights of states. See that is one of the problems. People are choosing when they want to pay attention to the constitution and when they don't. Which leads me back to what I said earlier about the executive branch being the healthiest branch of the government constitutionally. Bush acted by the constitution the whole way through Katrina and he gets blamed, when the idiotic governor of Louisianna wouldn't even declare a state of emergency.

and just for good measure i am going to quote myself.

Quote

Alright really tired about Bush getting blamed for Katrina.
It amazes me that you can blame Bush and completely ignore how this system works. The first level of government is obviously local. When a mayor need help he appeals to the governor for assistance and the governor tends to give that assistance. Well when the governor is overwhelmed by the situation the they are supposed to declare a state of emergency for the state. Then and ONLY then is the federal government allowed to send their people in to help. ONLY after the state has given them the right. If the Federal government were to come in before they would be stepping all over that states sovereignty. The only reason Bush was able to go in was because of the executive order he gave after calling the idiotic governor of Louisiana not once, but twice and asking her to put the state of Louisiana into a state of emergency, which she never did. If he had gone in early democrats would be crying foul because he intruded on state sovereignty. So really there is no way for him to win.

[Saturos S.]

With devastation on that scale and that many people's lives destoyed, common sense can overrule government policies to a certain degree. No one would be angry for sending help, they would for waiting with it.

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, you are mistaken; the federal government has every right and ability to declare a state of emergency.

http://www.rte.ie/ne...830/gustav.html

US President George W Bush has declared a state of emergency in both Louisiana and Mississippi.

(this is for the recent Hurricane Gustav).


And what SS said. As I have mentioned, when surely in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina it became clear how devastating it was, Bush and FEMA needed to follow through.

Instead, as I pointed out, Bush was off celebrating John McCain's 69th birthday.

[Eugine]

I think Bush should take most of the blame on Katrina. But w/e, Bush is not McCain, McCain is not Bush, and that's the real issue now.

GL, what's happening to your party? It's like they're having a meltdown for crying out loud. Do you read Politico GL?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart...n_.html?showall
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/090...dia_sexism.html

It's like they're having a panic attack...

Actually...
http://dyn.politico....dex.cfm?catid=3

Read em up.

[Golden Legacy]

You'd just like for all that to be true, don't you?
I'm not going to deny, the McCain campaign has strengthened vigorously, and timing Palin's announcement with the RNC was a powerful combination. I disagree with McCain's right-wing shift incredibly (not the same politician he was in 2000 that embraced bipartisanship) and adding an Evangelical on the ticket who wants creationism taught, abortion outlawed in all cases, etc. is a shocking move. It has invigorated the Republican party though, which is what they needed.

That said, I'm not worrying.

http://www.gallup.co...te-Support.aspx
http://www.politico....swingstate.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma...bama_vs_mccain/


Obama himself got a convention boost after the DNC:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/28/ga...vention-bounce/
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics..._conventio.html

And this is the Republicans' boost currently going on. That's all it is.

[Eugine]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/090...o_Clinton_.html

lol. I can see an ad right here. lol... Why didn't Obama pick Hillary?

[My Best Wishes]

Gio, on Sep 11 2008, 03:11 AM, said:

Yeah into a city that is basically a bowl after the storm had been through and flooded the city when Bush had to force himself in with an executive order. and what do you mean **** the rights of states. See that is one of the problems. People are choosing when they want to pay attention to the constitution and when they don't. Which leads me back to what I said earlier about the executive branch being the healthiest branch of the government constitutionally. Bush acted by the constitution the whole way through Katrina and he gets blamed, when the idiotic governor of Louisianna wouldn't even declare a state of emergency.

Saturos Striker, on Sep 11 2008, 05:27 AM, said:

With devastation on that scale and that many people's lives destoyed, common sense can overrule government policies to a certain degree. No one would be angry for sending help, they would for waiting with it.

[Gio]

yeah which makes me wonder why the governor didn't take action. you can't blame one person. It was a combination of local, state, and federal government failing. Mostly local and state.

[Eugine]

You honestly think the state and local response teams were able to respond well to Katrina without the federal government? I'm sorry, but I just think President Bush should take most of the blame for the disaster of Katrina. The state was way to overwhelmed man, and definetely did not have the capacity to respond well enough, hence why the federal government was needed, and Bush failed dramatically.
This hurricane will damage his legacy forever. Worst response eva. TERRIBLE.

I saw DEAD BODIES floating in New Orleans. I saw people begging for food, crying into cameras... I saw people sleeping in the streets. Wtf, America responds quicker to foreign countries aid than they did to Katrina. It was like New Orleans was Haiti!
God, Bush should apologise for his terrible response. FEMA should be ashamed.

They should be thanked for the good Gustav response though.

[Golden Legacy]

Well, of course they had to respond well to Gustav; not doing so would have been political suicide, and Katrina was horrible enough.

[Golden Legacy]

Not to double post or anything, but it was very touching to see Barack Obama and John McCain go to Ground Zero in NYC together. The two had a mutual agreement not to run negative ads today, and it's a very respectful gesture that goes a long way.

[Drizzy Drake]

Behind all the sex scandels *cough* Clinton *cough*, controversial drug use *cough* Clinton *cough*, lack of intelligence *cough* BUSH!!!!!! no1 compares *cough*, and just dumè decisions *cough* Clinton, Bush, Reagen, Nixon, G. Dubya Bush, Rosevelt etc. *cough*, the presidents and canidates actually have hearts.

[Ironsight]

Eugine, on Sep 11 2008, 07:06 AM, said:

I saw DEAD BODIES floating in New Orleans. I saw people begging for food, crying into cameras... I saw people sleeping in the streets.

Did you see any looters too?

[Eugine]

Yes I did. I saw people who had to resort to looting because the government provided no aid for about, um, a week?
Did you see any looting in Gustav? No. It's because the government did their job this time.

[Ironsight]

Eugine, on Sep 12 2008, 04:57 AM, said:

Yes I did. I saw people who had to resort to looting because the government provided no aid for about, um, a week?
Did you see any looting in Gustav? No. It's because the government did their job this time.

You can't eat a 40 inch television.

[Eugine]

Anyway, I'm only here to argue politics, and not some retarded post of yours. I'm just gonna say, you obviously never experienced a natural disaster and move on.

So GL, why do you support Obama?

[Golden Legacy]

Do you want a full policy by policy explanation, or just the reasons that matter to me most?

I'd also like to hear the same from the McCain supporters, as well as anyone else who wants to voice their opinions on the elections.

[Eugine]

Well, what made you support him in the primary, and now the general election? What made him stand out.

[Toasty]

I'd vote for McCain because he'll let the soldiers in Iraq finish what needs to be finished (instead pf dragging them out too early), he supports off-shore drilling, he's not going to just let the Bush taxcuts expire (or at least that's what I've heard, could be wrong though), He'll handle illegal immigration the right way, he's more experienced, and if we're lucky, he'll have a heart attack soon after he comes into office, and Palin will take over.

[Golden Legacy]

The most important issues for me are education and healthcare, they have always been priority for me. Primary and secondary education in the United States is laughable and deplorable. The emphasis is now on preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized exams, students are now just tools to help the school get funding. It's no longer even a basic education, the entire year is molded into preparing for exams that provide little creativity and stagnate the nurturing minds. Class sizes have gone up, high school drop-outs now amount to a 1/3 of all students, and just the overall standard of education has dropped for such a supposed "superpower".

So much for Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act".

Barack Obama will address these failed standards, at least moreso than McCain.
http://www.barackoba...sues/education/

To summarize his stance, providing reform and funding for the new recruitments of teachers, Math and Science emphasis, new community and social service opportunities for students, a tax credit of $4000 and tuition paid off for struggling families, college outreach programs, etc.


Healthcare. For being the "greatest nation" in the world, it's ridiculously lame and foolish that 47 million Americans are uninsured still, a figure that has only grown with the Bush administration. It's about time this was addressed.

http://www.barackoba...ues/healthcare/

To emphasize, this is not a universal healthcare system. What it is, is government subsidies to healthcare companies to make them more affordable. People can STILL choose private healthcare if they so choose, completely separate from all this. The only difference is that they are now to adhere to regulations that encourages fairness and not have hidden agendas with loopholes that rob people. New initiatives in biomedical research, reforming mental illness care, and so much more. It's fairly hefty, so use the link to go through it (SERIOUSLY just give it a chance and read through it, I promise you it's better than you think). There's a reason why Barack Obama is strongly favored in healthcare over John McCain.

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 15 2008, 06:54 PM, said:

I'd vote for McCain because he'll let the soldiers in Iraq finish what needs to be finished (instead pf dragging them out too early)

I'll support the leader who had the good sense not to go into Iraq in the first place, thank you very much.

Quote

he's not going to just let the Bush taxcuts expire (or at least that's what I've heard, could be wrong though)

This is a fantastic and well-informed read of Obama vs. McCain on taxes.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...0611_220050.htm

To quote:

Len Burman, a former Treasury tax official who is now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, says if Obama's proposals—which include plans to rescind the Bush tax cuts on couples making more than $250,000, close corporate tax loopholes, and tax private equity earnings known as "carried interest" as ordinary income—were adopted in 2009, for example, married couples with earnings in the lowest quintile of the population would see their aftertax income rise 5.8%. Those in the next quintile would see an increase of 4%. Those breaks would be paid for by those with high incomes: the top 1% of taxpayers would see aftertax income fall 8.4%.

Under McCain's proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top. If his plans went into effect in 2009, married couples in the bottom fifth of the population would see aftertax income go up just 0.2%, while those in the next quintile would see a 0.7% hike. But those in the top quintile would see a bump up in aftertax income of 2.7%.

"It's just flat wrong" to say people would do worse under Obama, says Burman. "Most lower- and middle-class people would pay less taxes under Obama than they would under the proposals being put forth by McCain."

Quote

he's more experienced, and if we're lucky, he'll have a heart attack soon after he comes into office, and Palin will take over.

... this deserves a resounding:

W T F

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 15 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

The most important issues for me are education and healthcare, they have always been priority for me. Primary and secondary education in the United States is laughable and deplorable. The emphasis is now on preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized exams, students are now just tools to help the school get funding. It's no longer even a basic education, the entire year is molded into preparing for exams that provide little creativity and stagnate the nurturing minds. Class sizes have gone up, high school drop-outs now amount to a 1/3 of all students, and just the overall standard of education has dropped for such a supposed "superpower".

So much for Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act".

Barack Obama will address these failures.
http://www.barackoba...sues/education/

To summarize his stance, providing reform and funding for the new recruitments of teachers, Math and Science emphasis, new community and social service opportunities for students, a tax credit of $4000 and tuition paid off for struggling families, college outreach programs, etc.


Healthcare. For being the "greatest nation" in the world, it's ridiculously lame and foolish that 47 million Americans are uninsured still, a figure that has only grown with the Bush administration. It's about time this was addressed.

http://www.barackoba...ues/healthcare/

To emphasize, this is not a universal healthcare system. What it is, is government subsidies to healthcare companies to make them more affordable. People can STILL choose private healthcare if they so choose, completely separate from all this. The only difference is that they are now to adhere to regulations that encourages fairness and not have hidden agendas with loopholes that rob people. New initiatives in biomedical research, reforming mental illness care, and so much more. It's fairly hefty, so use the link to go through it (SERIOUSLY just give it a chance and read through it, I promise you it's better than you think). There's a reason why Barack Obama is strongly favored in healthcare over John McCain.



I'll support the leader who had the good sense not to go into Iraq in the first place, thank you very much.




This is a fantastic and well-informed read of Obama vs. McCain on taxes.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...0611_220050.htm

To quote:

Len Burman, a former Treasury tax official who is now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, says if Obama's proposals—which include plans to rescind the Bush tax cuts on couples making more than $250,000, close corporate tax loopholes, and tax private equity earnings known as "carried interest" as ordinary income—were adopted in 2009, for example, married couples with earnings in the lowest quintile of the population would see their aftertax income rise 5.8%. Those in the next quintile would see an increase of 4%. Those breaks would be paid for by those with high incomes: the top 1% of taxpayers would see aftertax income fall 8.4%.

Under McCain's proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top. If his plans went into effect in 2009, married couples in the bottom fifth of the population would see aftertax income go up just 0.2%, while those in the next quintile would see a 0.7% hike. But those in the top quintile would see a bump up in aftertax income of 2.7%.

"It's just flat wrong" to say people would do worse under Obama, says Burman. "Most lower- and middle-class people would pay less taxes under Obama than they would under the proposals being put forth by McCain."



... this deserves a resounding:

W T F

Oxymoronic maybe, but I'd still rather have Palin in than McCain. McCain's more experienced, but Palin would make for a better president in my opinion.

I can see how Obama's policy on taxes could be better as far as income for the middle/lower class goes, but the more you tax the upper-class, the less money they put back into the economy. And since the upper-class is loaded, they're the best resource when it comes to putting money back in the economy through buying the merchandise and services of America.

If you could take the tax reductions for the middle/lower-class that Obama proposed, and then also reduce the taxes of the upper class, you'll see a bigger reduction in the country's deficit, and a boost to the economy aswell (at the very least, as long as something besides lowering taxes is done to help persuade the upper-clas to open their wallets).

People in general might not do worse under Obama's tax policy, but the economy will be better under McCain's.


And I fail to see how giving Iraqis a chance at a democracy is a bad decision. First off, regardless of what you say about things being worse off over there than they were under Saddam, that may be true now, but it won't be in a few years from now. Most of them don't hate us either, despite what the media would lead a lot of people to believe.
And on top of actually giving Iraqi's a brighter future, it's a good move as far as the fight on terrorism goes. Which, by the way, is not fueled by a lust for oil or ego. It actually benefits every country that doesn't assosciate themselves with terrorism.

It may have been bad for our economy, but it will offer many benefits in time.

[Eugine]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._old_map_almost

Read this. Really close race...
McCain should make an ad with Obama's bitter comment and play it day and night in Pennsylvania to win that state.

[Golden Legacy]

Considering that Democrats have a 1 million+ voter registration advantage in Pennsylvania, that's unlikely. I'd be more worried about McCain's chances in Florida, where there are 500,000 registered African-American voters that didn't vote in 2004, and, I believe, 1.4 million young voters that either did not vote or are still unregistered.

The most underappreciated aspect of the elections is voter registration, and the Democrats have a hefty advantage in major swing states - they're even pushing for strong conservative areas like North Carolina, Georgia, and Obama has tied McCain in Virginia, which is incredible considered it hasn't voted Democrat in 44 years.

[Eugine]

But anyway, I honestly do not see how McCain can win. I think the election will be close with McCain coming a respectable second. The media is pro-Obama and the economy is having some problems which should favour Obama. I dunno how McCain can win.

Well, let us look on the bright side... America will have its first black President!

[Golden Legacy]

Are you @#$%ing kidding me? There is no way in hell Obama is going to win. America just isn't ready for its first black president, no way no how. It's been shown in the polls, many people say they are going to vote for Obama, but when they go to cast their vote secretly behind a curtain, they won't be able to.

A generic Democrat leads a generic Republican 50 to 35%. When it's the first African-American candidate as the Democrat, the polls become dead even.

It's just not going to happen. It's going to be John McCain.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 18 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

It's just not going to happen. It's going to be John McCain.

Well, I hope you're right =)

But I think you're wrong...
http://gallup.com/home.aspx

Obama is up 4 points...

[Golden Legacy]

New Hampshire primary, 2008: Obama opens a 9 point lead over Clinton, average of four different polls. This is after Obama's now famous Iowa caucus victory.

Obama loses the state by 3% points.

Once again, I point you to: http://en.wikipedia..../Bradley_effect

[Eugine]

Don't think 2008 and 1982 can be compared. I honestly think there are many reasons why not to vote for Obama, and that doesn't include race.

[Golden Legacy]

It was first documented in 1982, that's why it's named after that. It's still very much reminiscent today, as the section on the Democratic primaries indicates about Obama.

For me, there was a time when I would have been more than happy with McCain. In fact, I was quite happy when he was chosen as the Republican nominee, after reading into his platform and seeing that he was moderate and even liberal enough to really bring the country back on track - either a Democrat (Hillary or Barack at the time) or it would be McCain, the best options possible, no more of the conservative right-winged failed agenda that Bush will forever be known by.

But McCain's shifted, he's shifted so much to the right. He's shifted to conservative stances on energy (shifted from favoring alternative energy to "drill, baby, drill!"), on abortion (once a supporter, now insists he will be a "pro-life president" and outs Roe v. Wade at risk), immigration (once such a reformer on this subject, now highlights immigrants as a "security crisis"), just as a few telling examples - and this is not even getting into his VP pick, Palin who is a Christian fundamentalist and would have creationism taught in schools and abortion banned in rape.

And what concerns me most about McCain, he is into war. That's his mantra. That's where's he comfortable most on the international stage. Bush was bad enough, but at least he tried justifying it (however wrong Bush was, and he was very much so), but to have someone who will use war, war, war, pre-emptive strike, violence, even reinstate the draft as he once favored, it's just a frightening prospect.

[Toasty]

And the fact that people are starting to over-react towards racism isn't really helping. I mean, racism isn't a god thing by any means, but it's starts getting just as bad when people start accusing others of being racist over such small things as calling black kids playing in a tree "monkeys".

Anyway the "bradley effect" won't be the deciding factor imo, but it will definately contribute to the outcome. I say this because fewer people nowadays are likely to vote for McCain solely because he's not black. Racism is out there, but just as there are white people who won't vote for a black man, there are black people who won't vote for a white man.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 18 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

immigration (once such a reformer on this subject, now highlights immigrants as a "security crisis")

They are a security crisis. The Illigal ones, at least.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 18 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

For me, there was a time when I would have been more than happy with McCain. In fact, I was quite happy when he was chosen as the Republican nominee, after reading into his platform and seeing that he was moderate and even liberal enough to really bring the country back on track - either a Democrat (Hillary or Barack at the time) or it would be McCain, the best options possible, no more of the conservative right-winged failed agenda that Bush will forever be known by.

But McCain's shifted, he's shifted so much to the right. He's shifted to conservative stances on energy (shifted from favoring alternative energy to "drill, baby, drill!"), on abortion (once a supporter, now insists he will be a "pro-life president" and outs Roe v. Wade at risk), immigration (once such a reformer on this subject, now highlights immigrants as a "security crisis"), just as a few telling examples - and this is not even getting into his VP pick, Palin who is a Christian fundamentalist and would have creationism taught in schools and abortion banned in rape.

And what concerns me most about McCain, he is into war. That's his mantra. That's where's he comfortable most on the international stage. Bush was bad enough, but at least he tried justifying it (however wrong Bush was, and he was very much so), but to have someone who will use war, war, war, pre-emptive strike, violence, even reinstate the draft as he once favored, it's just a frightening prospect.

You're a frightening prospect. I'm only pro-war if it's to keep our asses safe. If we have an option of going to war or not, and the fallout of not attacking is minimal, I'm happy to not start a war. But if someone's about to attack America, I'd want to take them out first.

The one thing that you don't seem to get about the whole energy thing, is that to even begin to think about becoming energy independent with alternative fuels, we have to do it first with oil. Oil is heavily integrated into our infrastructure already, and getting ourselves energy independent with oil is the quickest and best option. Alternative fuels are there to keep us energy independent. Not get us energy independent. Alternative energy as it stands is not advanced and refined enough to get us independent. Once we become independent with oil, we'll be able to put a lot more focus on alternative fuels without the stress that could lead to implimenting an alternative fuel pre-maturely.
Not drilling for our own oil is one of the most absurd and stupid ideas proposed by Liberals thus far.

Seeing as there are people who want evolution taught in schools, I fail to see how it's so bad that Palin would want to teach creationsim. Though really, I think both should be left out of schools entirely.
However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging chrsitan morals in schools, so long as it's not thrown in people's faces (because as history has shown before, forcing things on anyone prooves to rarely work). We might even see a rise in common sense among teenagers.

I've already stated my stance on abortion. I'm right on the line between allowing and not allowing it in rape. But for any other reason besides that, abortion shouldn't be allowed. If you're having sex, even if you take all of the right precautions, you still run the risk of getting someone pregnant. That's something everyone should realise.

Illegal immigrants are absolutely a security risk. It's like people breaking into your own home. I'm pretty sure that if anyone broke into your house/apartment/whatever, that you wouldn't greet them with open arms. Unless it was a friend or something. And as far as I know, most conservatives aren't against immigration. They just don't want quite as much as we have right now. I can't remember which President it was, be he pretty much flipped the immigration regulations around so that a whole lot more foreigners could be allowed in. I'm not against immigration, but the more the minorities grow in size, the less the majorities' voices are heard. And if we suddenly started getting a whole lot of, say, French immigrants, so many to the point that they became a majority, then America would stop looking so much like America, and it'd start looking like France.

Immigration is fine as long as it's not overdone. If everyone was allowed to move freely to whichever country they pleased, then eventually, the country that say, you moved to, wouldn't look like what you wanted anymore. All the countries would start to look the same.



And Bush was not wrong in going to war in Iraq. What was wrong, was the execution of it all. Because of the constant tug o' war going on between the parties, things rarely got done in a timely fashion. The Liberals wanted to just pull the plug on it before things were finished (which would have been even more disasterous), while the Conservatives wanted to finish what we went there to do in the first place (which was severely hindered due to the constant quarreling).

If we hadn't gone to Iraq, I can almost garuntee that we would have had a second 9/11 attack. You shouldn't be blaming Bush, you should be blaming the bureaucrats.

[Golden Legacy]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 19 2008, 04:09 AM, said:

You're a frightening prospect. I'm only pro-war if it's to keep our asses safe. If we have an option of going to war or not, and the fallout of not attacking is minimal, I'm happy to not start a war. But if someone's about to attack America, I'd want to take them out first.

The one thing that you don't seem to get about the whole energy thing, is that to even begin to think about becoming energy independent with alternative fuels, we have to do it first with oil. Oil is heavily integrated into our infrastructure already, and getting ourselves energy independent with oil is the quickest and best option. Alternative fuels are there to keep us energy independent. Not get us energy independent. Alternative energy as it stands is not advanced and refined enough to get us independent. Once we become independent with oil, we'll be able to put a lot more focus on alternative fuels without the stress that could lead to implimenting an alternative fuel pre-maturely.
Not drilling for our own oil is one of the most absurd and stupid ideas proposed by Liberals thus far.

Seeing as there are people who want evolution taught in schools, I fail to see how it's so bad that Palin would want to teach creationsim. Though really, I think both should be left out of schools entirely.
However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging chrsitan morals in schools, so long as it's not thrown in people's faces (because as history has shown before, forcing things on anyone prooves to rarely work). We might even see a rise in common sense among teenagers.

I've already stated my stance on abortion. I'm right on the line between allowing and not allowing it in rape. But for any other reason besides that, abortion shouldn't be allowed. If you're having sex, even if you take all of the right precautions, you still run the risk of getting someone pregnant. That's something everyone should realise.

Illegal immigrants are absolutely a security risk. It's like people breaking into your own home. I'm pretty sure that if anyone broke into your house/apartment/whatever, that you wouldn't greet them with open arms. Unless it was a friend or something. And as far as I know, most conservatives aren't against immigration. They just don't want quite as much as we have right now. I can't remember which President it was, be he pretty much flipped the immigration regulations around so that a whole lot more foreigners could be allowed in. I'm not against immigration, but the more the minorities grow in size, the less the majorities' voices are heard. And if we suddenly started getting a whole lot of, say, French immigrants, so many to the point that they became a majority, then America would stop looking so much like America, and it'd start looking like France.

Immigration is fine as long as it's not overdone. If everyone was allowed to move freely to whichever country they pleased, then eventually, the country that say, you moved to, wouldn't look like what you wanted anymore. All the countries would start to look the same.

And Bush was not wrong in going to war in Iraq. What was wrong, was the execution of it all. Because of the constant tug o' war going on between the parties, things rarely got done in a timely fashion. The Liberals wanted to just pull the plug on it before things were finished (which would have been even more disasterous), while the Conservatives wanted to finish what we went there to do in the first place (which was severely hindered due to the constant quarreling).

If we hadn't gone to Iraq, I can almost garuntee that we would have had a second 9/11 attack. You shouldn't be blaming Bush, you should be blaming the bureaucrats.

The USA had a right to react to 9/11. No one is denying that. However, every logical argument in the world points to going after the people who actually committed the act, not waste your efforts and massacre a people that had nothing to do with it.

At any point, you are wrong. There will be another 9/11 because of Iraq. The insurgents that actually committed 9/11 have been regrouping in Afghanistan and are now stronger than ever. Iraq is now used to recruit people to their cause, in the relative sanctuary of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border because coalition forces there are no where as strong or as supported.

Besides, the Iraq War has destroyed the nation's infrastructure and unleashed a civil conflict. You seem perfectly content with the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have lost their lives, people whose lives could have been spared had the USA not decided to spread its "democracy" and "freedom" in the world.


On the whole oil drilling manner, considering that drilling for oil, at best, would have results coming in literally decades after oil drilling is made available, it's not a feasible solution (even when the effects are felt, we're talking a decrease of a few cents at the gas pump).

I'm not against oil drilling, nor are liberals against limited oil drilling, as Congress has recently passed a bipartisan bill that allows for offshore drilling in Alaska. But to make it out as the epitome of the energy solution is misguided. In the same time that you are drilling for oil and waiting for its "effects" to be felt, you should also simultaneously be investing in alternative energies, for like all things it requires research, development, and effort. That's how all new technology work.


It makes more sense to teach evolution in schools than creationism, as the former has a basis in the scientific process and method of thinking. However, if you want to teach creationism - which first of all, defies the basic notion of separation of church and state - which every developed Western nation in the world does a fine job of doing except for American Christian fundamentalists - you had better be prepared to teach morals from ALL RELIGIONS.

If you want Christian morals in school - assuming that should even be allowed - than you must follow through with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and every other major religion in the world. Morals are not limited to Christianity, and it's about time you came to embrace the presence of other peoples and races, and faiths too.


If any person feels that there are certain cases where abortion should be allowed, you are pro-choice. The fact that you are on the fence in whether it should be allowed in cases of rape means you acknowledge that it HAS merit, that it is sometimes necessary, and therefore you have chosen the circumstances to support it.

Saying further that having sex "always has the risk" of pregnancy is obviously true, but mistakes do happen, and it wouldn't be fair to force someone to go through a 9 month gestation period and to raise a child she never truly wanted.


What bothers me most about the immigration issue is how illegal immigrants are made out as "scapegoats" for the nation's problems. Economic turmoil? Those illegals. Increase in crime rate and drugs? Has to be illegals.

I'm exaggerating, but that's often what I hear from the more hardcore conservatives.

To be fair, this is going on all over the world. A lot of Western European nations are going through massive waves of immigration, which has led to a xenophobia gripping many nations, especially regarding the rise of Muslim immigrants.

I'm looking for the source on this, but it says that in a few decades whites in the USA will become a minority - they will still be the largest minority, but collectively will be less than 50% of the population, and the rest of the population will be minority groups. I don't see how that's a bad thing either. They would be just as much Americans as any of us, but simply represent a changing face of the USA. That should be embraced.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 20 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

I'm looking for the source on this, but it says that in a few decades whites in the USA will become a minority - they will still be the largest minority, but collectively will be less than 50% of the population, and the rest of the population will be minority groups. I don't see how that's a bad thing either. They would be just as much Americans as any of us, but simply represent a changing face of the USA. That should be embraced.

Welcome to Amexico.
The Illegals are a threat. Murderers, rapists, and child molesters repeatedly cross the border even after being deported multiple times. Weapons and drugs are traded often. And all the Illegals are hurting our economy. You can't have millions of people spending money without being taxed and expect it to not have any effect. They are not the only cause for our sluggish economy, but they are a major one.
We (californians) didn't have any problems with the Nortenyos (sp) and Sorenyos (sp) before the Mexico/America border situation statred to get out of hand, so you can't say crime hasn't risen because of the border issue.
Look at Mexico. You really want America to become like that ****hole country? Poverty widespread, limping economy ect.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 20 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

The USA had a right to react to 9/11. No one is denying that. However, every logical argument in the world points to going after the people who actually committed the act, not waste your efforts and massacre a people that had nothing to do with it.

Even if the people we "massacred" had nothing to do with it, those who were killed by us (not those killed by the insurgents), were at least related to terrorism. We didn;t massacre innocent people. The vast majority of innocents who were killed, were killed by the insurgents in their roadside bombings, and other such attacks. Obviously there are some people who were mistaken by US troops for terrorists, but those are very few in number. Especially when compared to those who were killed by insurgents.

At any point, you are wrong. There will be another 9/11 because of Iraq. The insurgents that actually committed 9/11 have been regrouping in Afghanistan and are now stronger than ever. Iraq is now used to recruit people to their cause, in the relative sanctuary of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border because coalition forces there are no where as strong or as supported.

That's why we've got some troops in/near Afghanistan aswell. We'd have more, but we're busy with keeping our promise to the Iraqi people that they'll have a democracy. On top of that, the left side of the isle is so bent on bringing all of our troops home that even after the Iraq war is finished, we won't be able to go into Afghanistan. And if we try to go into Afghanistan without the full support of both parties, we'll get another disaster.

Besides, the Iraq War has destroyed the nation's infrastructure and unleashed a civil conflict. You seem perfectly content with the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have lost their lives, people whose lives could have been spared had the USA not decided to spread its "democracy" and "freedom" in the world.

Were lives not lost when the Founding Fathers seperated from British rule? I don't think any American can say that their choice was a bad one, even inspite of the countless deaths. And I believe that more people died in that fight than have died in this one.

Like I've said before, even though the Iraqi economy is crap right now and the living conditions are poor, Iraq will flourish again as long as it has a democracy. Things almost always have to get worse before they get better.

On the whole oil drilling manner, considering that drilling for oil, at best, would have results coming in literally decades after oil drilling is made available, it's not a feasible solution (even when the effects are felt, we're talking a decrease of a few cents at the gas pump).

I know that even if we start drilling now, the effects won't be seen for a while, but it'll be almost as long for any alternative fuel to be as heavily integrated into the market as oil is now. We need to really start drilling now. It won't drop the gas prices be only a few cents. Once the effects of the drilling start to apear, the prices will drop by a lot. But we have to do a lot more drilling than the Liberals want to allow.

The effects won't be immediate, when you look at it, if we had started drilling back when Clinton was president, our gas would be a little over $2 a gallon right now.

I'm not against oil drilling, nor are liberals against limited oil drilling, as Congress has recently passed a bipartisan bill that allows for offshore drilling in Alaska. But to make it out as the epitome of the energy solution is misguided. In the same time that you are drilling for oil and waiting for its "effects" to be felt, you should also simultaneously be investing in alternative energies, for like all things it requires research, development, and effort. That's how all new technology work.

I never said we should forget about alternative fuels. My point is that they should be funded right now, but more funding should be put towards driling for oil. We can fund and advance alternative fuels while we're drilling, and then really take off with it once the effects of the drilling are showing up in the economy and gas prices. While we're stable, we can then put even more funding into alternative energy. It'll be far easier to get ourselves energy independant with oil because of our current infrastructure, but because of the limited supply, it won't keep us independant forever. We need alternative fuels for that.

It makes more sense to teach evolution in schools than creationism, as the former has a basis in the scientific process and method of thinking. However, if you want to teach creationism - which first of all, defies the basic notion of separation of church and state - which every developed Western nation in the world does a fine job of doing except for American Christian fundamentalists - you had better be prepared to teach morals from ALL RELIGIONS.

Even the religions that condone human sacrifices? I can;t think of any current one off the top of my head, but I don't think it would be wise to teach Aztec morals in schools.

If you want Christian morals in school - assuming that should even be allowed - than you must follow through with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and every other major religion in the world. Morals are not limited to Christianity, and it's about time you came to embrace the presence of other peoples and races, and faiths too.

Just because I don't agree with other religions doesn't mean I don't acknowledge them. Many religions, such as Islam and Judaism, share many of the same morals as Christianity. How they're interpreted is what's different.
Besides that, it would only make logical sense to promote the morals of the religion our country was founded upon.

If any person feels that there are certain cases where abortion should be allowed, you are pro-choice. The fact that you are on the fence in whether it should be allowed in cases of rape means you acknowledge that it HAS merit, that it is sometimes necessary, and therefore you have chosen the circumstances to support it.

No, I'm not pro-choice. Nor am I entirely pro-life. Like I said, I'm between the fence. When it comes to anything but rape, I'm pro-life. When it comes to rape, I'm partially undecided with a slight lean towards pro-life.

When I consider which side I'm on, I look from the perspective of the unborn child first, and the mother second.

There's this woman that goes around teaching kids about sex and why it's better to stay abstinent. Her father was a rapeist, and her mother was the victim. However, she says that she's glad her mother chose to give her life. She's also happily married with two kids.

So just because the child was concieved by rape, doesn't always meam the child will live a horrible life.

Saying further that having sex "always has the risk" of pregnancy is obviously true, but mistakes do happen, and it wouldn't be fair to force someone to go through a 9 month gestation period and to raise a child she never truly wanted.

And what about the child? Even if the child isn't loved by it's mother, it could still prefer to be alive than to never exist at all.

What bothers me most about the immigration issue is how illegal immigrants are made out as "scapegoats" for the nation's problems. Economic turmoil? Those illegals. Increase in crime rate and drugs? Has to be illegals.

I'm exaggerating, but that's often what I hear from the more hardcore conservatives.

To be fair, this is going on all over the world. A lot of Western European nations are going through massive waves of immigration, which has led to a xenophobia gripping many nations, especially regarding the rise of Muslim immigrants.

I'm looking for the source on this, but it says that in a few decades whites in the USA will become a minority - they will still be the largest minority, but collectively will be less than 50% of the population, and the rest of the population will be minority groups. I don't see how that's a bad thing either. They would be just as much Americans as any of us, but simply represent a changing face of the USA. That should be embraced.

I'm going to let DS's explanation answer all this.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 18 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

But McCain's shifted, he's shifted so much to the right. He's shifted to conservative stances on energy (shifted from favoring alternative energy to "drill, baby, drill!"), on abortion (once a supporter, now insists he will be a "pro-life president" and outs Roe v. Wade at risk), immigration (once such a reformer on this subject, now highlights immigrants as a "security crisis"), just as a few telling examples - and this is not even getting into his VP pick, Palin who is a Christian fundamentalist and would have creationism taught in schools and abortion banned in rape.

lol, you act like if the right is so bad.
- McCain favours everything Obama favours plus Nuclear power and Offshore Drilling.
- I'm personally pro-choice, so yeah, I disagree with him there. McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade to let the states decide, so that explains his position.
- Actually, he thinks illegal immigration is a security crisis, and it is lol. DS explained it well. He actually justs wants to secure the border first before he tackles immigration reform.
- She doesn't want it to be part of the curriculum. She simply wants the children to be able to discuss it if the topic comes up. I think that's healthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos..._in_public_life
- She said although she will choose life no matter what because she has "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." she will never force her beliefs on people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos..._Palin#Abortion

I honestly think Sarah Palin is the best of the four candidates. I honestly think so.
Why? She is authentic. Many people in Alaska says her positions are right, but she always governed from the center and I think that is the best way to do it. Barack Obama is way too liberal to want to bring republicans and democrats together, so is Biden. I think McCain is cool though.
Palin > McCain > Obama > Biden (Why didn't he pick Hillary?)

Anyway, I've honestly given up on McCain chances of winning to be honest. Obama gains a point everyday...
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Ah well, I better start adjusting my mind for an Obama Presidency.

The guy
1) Who wants to meet with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and other dictators without preconditions
2) Who wants to decrease the size of the US military and slow military advacements despite increasing threats from other countries
3) Who think Iran is not a serious threat to Israel and the world despite it speedily developing Nuclear weapons.
4) Who wants to raise taxes despite the economic hardship America faces
5) Who wants to redistribute income
6) Who insulted his own country in Germany

May well be the next President of USA...
Shocking! How did he even make it past the primaries?

Ah well, atleast he's black!

[Golden Legacy]

Miley Cyrus, on Sep 20 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

Welcome to Amexico.
The Illegals are a threat. Murderers, rapists, and child molesters repeatedly cross the border even after being deported multiple times. Weapons and drugs are traded often. And all the Illegals are hurting our economy. You can't have millions of people spending money without being taxed and expect it to not have any effect. They are not the only cause for our sluggish economy, but they are a major one.
We (californians) didn't have any problems with the Nortenyos (sp) and Sorenyos (sp) before the Mexico/America border situation statred to get out of hand, so you can't say crime hasn't risen because of the border issue.
Look at Mexico. You really want America to become like that ****hole country? Poverty widespread, limping economy ect.

Thank you for proving that the stereotype of Americans being backward bigots is entirely true. Really, fantastic job there, you did all the work yourself.

Let's get some things straight.

- 50,000 people die each year due to drunk drivers
- 92,455 women are raped in the USA annually; that works out to a rape reported in the USA every 5 minutes. By the time you finish reading and responding to this post, another one will have occurred.
- That's only considering rapes that are reported - only 16% of victims of rape ever admit to it and tell the police, the vast majority stay silent about it
- 2,183,746 burglaries occur each year
- 17,034 murders and manslaughter occur in the USA each year

If I were you, I'd care less about keeping people outside of our borders, and worry more about what's going on inside.



Ahh, and now dear old Toasty.

Quote

Even if the people we "massacred" had nothing to do with it, those who were killed by us (not those killed by the insurgents), were at least related to terrorism. We didn;t massacre innocent people. The vast majority of innocents who were killed, were killed by the insurgents in their roadside bombings, and other such attacks. Obviously there are some people who were mistaken by US troops for terrorists, but those are very few in number. Especially when compared to those who were killed by insurgents.

Why do you continue to insist that American troops have not killed civilians? The American media obviously would never show you this:


We want the Americans to go back home. Iraq is our country, not theirs. However, the Americans seem to think it is their country. It is not theirs now, nor will it ever be theirs, unless they kill all of us, men, women and children. We are raising our children to resist this illegal, this immoral, this un-Christian occupation. I am a Christian, my husband is a Muslim, we both want the Americans out. They are causing us nothing but harm, sickness, poverty and lawlessness.

We did not like Saddam Hussein, but at least under him we had clean drinking water, good hospitals, food on the table, safety in the streets and our homes were not attacked day and night by foreign troops. All we have now is misery, poverty, disease and fear. We never know when American troops will raid our homes, steal our jewels and money, rape our women, beat our men and scare our children.

I am an educator in Baghdad. The trauma suffered by our children will last for generations. This trauma will also make these children hate the Americans and the British, but the Americans more because we know that George W. Bush was behind this rape of our country, its schools, its culture and its people.

We will continue fighting back against this occupation, this rape, so long as any of us has a breath or an ounce of blood. We also know our Arab and Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters will come from other lands to help us drive out these devils that dress in the clothes of Americans. We also know that there are many Israelis here, both the Mossad and military advisors, and investors who are trying to steal our oil, our land and our resources. One day, we shall drive them all out, and may God punish these evil-doers. May Jesus Christ himself lead the charge against these devils who call themselves Christians and Jews. My husband prays that all Muslims will come to our aid, and I hope for Christians to stand up in their lands and condemn these devils who wear come to do us great harm.

I hope this letter will awaken some to understand that we do not want the Americans here and we will do all we can to drive them out and we will not rest until they are all gone.

Go home to your wives, your children, to your loved ones, do not stay here to torture and kill us, for us if stay, God will surely punish you and your country and you will lose your limbs, your life and also eventually your souls, your families and you will end us with nightmares and sickness from the Depleted Uranium and your own sense of guilt for having killed Iraqis for the devil himself, George W. Bush — may he be damned unto hell itself and burn eternally.

http://mindprod.com/...g.html#WHATWANT

Quote

Were lives not lost when the Founding Fathers seperated from British rule? I don't think any American can say that their choice was a bad one, even inspite of the countless deaths. And I believe that more people died in that fight than have died in this one.

Toasty, more AMERICANS died in the USA Revolutionary War, but IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS number in the hundreds of thousands. And 4 million at least have been displaced.

This is why I get frustrated when people make out only US troops here as the casualties. If people in America actually cared about Iraq, why do they not react to the deaths of Iraqi civilians, the people they are trying to "liberate"?

Quote

On the whole oil drilling manner, considering that drilling for oil, at best, would have results coming in literally decades after oil drilling is made available, it's not a feasible solution (even when the effects are felt, we're talking a decrease of a few cents at the gas pump).

I know that even if we start drilling now, the effects won't be seen for a while, but it'll be almost as long for any alternative fuel to be as heavily integrated into the market as oil is now. We need to really start drilling now. It won't drop the gas prices be only a few cents. Once the effects of the drilling start to apear, the prices will drop by a lot. But we have to do a lot more drilling than the Liberals want to allow.

The effects won't be immediate, when you look at it, if we had started drilling back when Clinton was president, our gas would be a little over $2 a gallon right now.

It sounds like we are in agreement here, we need both aspects. My question to you is, why didn't George Bush drill on the scale that's needed now, when he came into office and had a full Republican Congress? (for the record, gas under Bill Clinton was right under $2, I even remember it being $1.50 in some places, and I'm from New York City)

Quote

Even the religions that condone human sacrifices? I can;t think of any current one off the top of my head, but I don't think it would be wise to teach Aztec morals in schools.

Just because I don't agree with other religions doesn't mean I don't acknowledge them. Many religions, such as Islam and Judaism, share many of the same morals as Christianity. How they're interpreted is what's different.
Besides that, it would only make logical sense to promote the morals of the religion our country was founded upon.

Ideally, every major faith in the world should be represented. Nothing like the Aztecs (the hell you get that from?), but every present modern-day faith should have a basis in the classroom if - and only if - the USA ever decides to forgo secularism. Which is a bad move, really, considering with advancing societies being secular is simply the most logical thing to do.

Further, regardless of what morals the country might have been founded upon - centuries ago I might add - changing conditions call for a wider outreach. The world is connected, people migrate and spread cultures with them. I've seen it in the streets of NYC, every bit of culture and race imaginable, from the Caribbean to Arabs to Europeans to Asians to Latinos. That's the changing face of America, of every Western nation in the world, and it's about time the rest of America embraced that.

Quote

No, I'm not pro-choice. Nor am I entirely pro-life. Like I said, I'm between the fence. When it comes to anything but rape, I'm pro-life. When it comes to rape, I'm partially undecided with a slight lean towards pro-life.

When I consider which side I'm on, I look from the perspective of the unborn child first, and the mother second.

There's this woman that goes around teaching kids about sex and why it's better to stay abstinent. Her father was a rapeist, and her mother was the victim. However, she says that she's glad her mother chose to give her life. She's also happily married with two kids.

So just because the child was concieved by rape, doesn't always meam the child will live a horrible life.

And what about the child? Even if the child isn't loved by it's mother, it could still prefer to be alive than to never exist at all.

And likewise I've heard stories about children with mental and physical disabilities that are born, and live their whole lives absolutely miserable. They can't interact with people in society, they always have to be helped around. It's true that advancements have allowed them to live better lives, but what happens when they want to feel like adults and live on their own? What happens when they want to fall in love, to marry and to settle down?

They're forever bound by circumstances they can't control, by mental and physical limitations that traps them in a vessel that will never fully be able to live like others.

And many of these people go insane. They become depressed and they lose their sanity, it's stifling their vitality, their lives. Are these people better off experiencing this every waking moment?

[Eugine]

hmm, I agree with GL after ages of disagreement.

And regards to me saying "DS explained it well", let me clarify something... I do not agree with his stereotypes, but I think he explained well that illegal immigration is a crisis.

[Ironsight]

Nevermind.

[Eugine]

DS, there's a difference between hating America, and thinking it is going in the wrong direction =)

[Golden Legacy]

^ I hate what America does. I hate what America stands for under the Bush administration, and what it has become. I hate American arrogance and baseless pride.

That letter that I posted, you quoted, is a firsthand account from a Christian Iraqi Arab woman, a member of the same people the USA tried to "liberate".

Don't compare the USA giving aid to natural disasters to Iraq - it was America that brought about the Iraq War, America that has shifted its tone about the original intent of the Iraq War, and America that has caused anger and resentment in every country in the Middle East, America that has caused the world to turn its back on them, and the same America that has brought nothing but misery to the Iraqi people, as the same account I posted from that Iraqi woman indicates.

EDIT: I guess DS deleted his post and Eugine responded after.

Eugine, on Sep 20 2008, 09:26 PM, said:

Anyway, I've honestly given up on McCain chances of winning to be honest. Obama gains a point everyday...
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Ah well, I better start adjusting my mind for an Obama Presidency.

The guy
1) Who wants to meet with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and other dictators without preconditions
2) Who wants to decrease the size of the US military and slow military advacements despite increasing threats from other countries
3) Who think Iran is not a serious threat to Israel and the world despite it speedily developing Nuclear weapons.
4) Who wants to raise taxes despite the economic hardship America faces
5) Who wants to redistribute income
6) Who insulted his own country in Germany

May well be the next President of USA...
Shocking! How did he even make it past the primaries?

Ah well, atleast he's black!

First of all, Obama is not going to win. A generic Democrat leads a generic Republican 55-30% in polling, when the first African-American candidate enters that same poll, it becomes even. The debates will have a huge effect - the first one is this Friday, the 26th, at 9PM EST (-5 GMT) - but even lifelong Democrats can't get over Obama's race.

As for your points:

1) After months of taking a shun Iran approach, the Bush administration sent a representative to sit down with the Iranians at a meeting with the EU this past summer - just one month earlier, the Bush administration were calling Obama's plan "appeasement", and now they're willing to do it themselves

Besides, I fail to see how increased diplomacy is a bad thing. You are not supporting them just by having talks with them. At the very least a pretense for talks can simply accomplish nothing but it's better than isolating yourself. If there is at least a 1% chance that talking could accomplish even a minor achievement, surely it's worth taking?

2) The military only seems to be worsening America's position in the world, not helping it. I think Americans should help themselves and start focusing back on the domestic issues that have been left to rot under Bush.

3) That comment is taken out of context - Obama was comparing Iran to the former Soviet Union.

4) I am getting sick of this.
Obama favors LOWERING TAXES.
I repeat again, 95% of Americans will have LOWER TAXES under Obama's proposal, and in fact middle-class families will save more under Obama than with McCain's tax proposals.

5) Again, just another thing that's commonly spit out without understanding.
All it means here is that the wealthy elite 1% will be taxed slightly higher (reversing the Bush tax cuts) and the rest of the nation - average Americans, middle class and poor - will have their burdens lessened.

All Bush and "fiscal conservatism" ever accomplishes is increasing the wealth gap and concentrating 50% of the nation's wealth in the top 2% of the population, while leaving the 95% of the middle class and poor population to fight for scraps.

6) Obama was referring to how the USA had ruined its ties with the rest of the world, including Europe. This is completely true.

[Gio]

I feel like changing the topic real quick. I am having trouble finding it again, but has anyone else seen the rumors going around on the internet about how Biden is going to be dropping out of the race for "medical reason" and Clinton would take his spot. I know it is highly unlikely, but I found it funny that it would even brought up.

Anyway....continue with your discussion.

[Toasty]

I haven't heard of anything like that.

@GL:
Likewise, I don't hate you, I hate your ignorance, and biased viewpoint that American soldiers are heartless beasts.

1) The difference is that Obama would screw it up. He'd probably even let them develop nuclear energy so they can "lower their energy costs". Granted, a Conservative would probably end up angering Ahmedinejad, but at least he wouldn't give him the means with which to build nuclear weaponry.

2) Our popularity maybe poor, but at least were still alive (and safer at that).

3) Still, I doubt he considers Iran a serious threat. It's possible that he does, but it doesn't look like he'd even try to do anything about it if he did think that.

4/5) Yeah, he'll lower taxes for the middle and lower class, but raising the taxes on the rich won't help boost the economy, or even get us out of a deficit faster. It'll only do the opposite. Higher taxes for anyone does not equal a lower deficit or thriving economy.
By the way, I live in a middle-class family. We may be struglling a bit, but we're hardly "fighting for scraps".

6) [insert answer to #2 here]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 20 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

Thank you for proving that the stereotype of Americans being backward bigots is entirely true. Really, fantastic job there, you did all the work yourself.

Let's get some things straight.

- 50,000 people die each year due to drunk drivers
- 92,455 women are raped in the USA annually; that works out to a rape reported in the USA every 5 minutes. By the time you finish reading and responding to this post, another one will have occurred.
- That's only considering rapes that are reported - only 16% of victims of rape ever admit to it and tell the police, the vast majority stay silent about it
- 2,183,746 burglaries occur each year
- 17,034 murders and manslaughter occur in the USA each year

If I were you, I'd care less about keeping people outside of our borders, and worry more about what's going on inside.



Ahh, and now dear old Toasty.


Why do you continue to insist that American troops have not killed civilians? The American media obviously would never show you this:


We want the Americans to go back home. Iraq is our country, not theirs. However, the Americans seem to think it is their country. It is not theirs now, nor will it ever be theirs, unless they kill all of us, men, women and children. We are raising our children to resist this illegal, this immoral, this un-Christian occupation. I am a Christian, my husband is a Muslim, we both want the Americans out. They are causing us nothing but harm, sickness, poverty and lawlessness.

We did not like Saddam Hussein, but at least under him we had clean drinking water, good hospitals, food on the table, safety in the streets and our homes were not attacked day and night by foreign troops. All we have now is misery, poverty, disease and fear. We never know when American troops will raid our homes, steal our jewels and money, rape our women, beat our men and scare our children.

I am an educator in Baghdad. The trauma suffered by our children will last for generations. This trauma will also make these children hate the Americans and the British, but the Americans more because we know that George W. Bush was behind this rape of our country, its schools, its culture and its people.

We will continue fighting back against this occupation, this rape, so long as any of us has a breath or an ounce of blood. We also know our Arab and Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters will come from other lands to help us drive out these devils that dress in the clothes of Americans. We also know that there are many Israelis here, both the Mossad and military advisors, and investors who are trying to steal our oil, our land and our resources. One day, we shall drive them all out, and may God punish these evil-doers. May Jesus Christ himself lead the charge against these devils who call themselves Christians and Jews. My husband prays that all Muslims will come to our aid, and I hope for Christians to stand up in their lands and condemn these devils who wear come to do us great harm.

I hope this letter will awaken some to understand that we do not want the Americans here and we will do all we can to drive them out and we will not rest until they are all gone.

Go home to your wives, your children, to your loved ones, do not stay here to torture and kill us, for us if stay, God will surely punish you and your country and you will lose your limbs, your life and also eventually your souls, your families and you will end us with nightmares and sickness from the Depleted Uranium and your own sense of guilt for having killed Iraqis for the devil himself, George W. Bush — may he be damned unto hell itself and burn eternally.

http://mindprod.com/...g.html#WHATWANT



Toasty, more AMERICANS died in the USA Revolutionary War, but IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS number in the hundreds of thousands. And 4 million at least have been displaced.

This is why I get frustrated when people make out only US troops here as the casualties. If people in America actually cared about Iraq, why do they not react to the deaths of Iraqi civilians, the people they are trying to "liberate"?



It sounds like we are in agreement here, we need both aspects. My question to you is, why didn't George Bush drill on the scale that's needed now, when he came into office and had a full Republican Congress? (for the record, gas under Bill Clinton was right under $2, I even remember it being $1.50 in some places, and I'm from New York City)


Ideally, every major faith in the world should be represented. Nothing like the Aztecs (the hell you get that from?), but every present modern-day faith should have a basis in the classroom if - and only if - the USA ever decides to forgo secularism. Which is a bad move, really, considering with advancing societies being secular is simply the most logical thing to do.

Further, regardless of what morals the country might have been founded upon - centuries ago I might add - changing conditions call for a wider outreach. The world is connected, people migrate and spread cultures with them. I've seen it in the streets of NYC, every bit of culture and race imaginable, from the Caribbean to Arabs to Europeans to Asians to Latinos. That's the changing face of America, of every Western nation in the world, and it's about time the rest of America embraced that.


And likewise I've heard stories about children with mental and physical disabilities that are born, and live their whole lives absolutely miserable. They can't interact with people in society, they always have to be helped around. It's true that advancements have allowed them to live better lives, but what happens when they want to feel like adults and live on their own? What happens when they want to fall in love, to marry and to settle down?

They're forever bound by circumstances they can't control, by mental and physical limitations that traps them in a vessel that will never fully be able to live like others.

And many of these people go insane. They become depressed and they lose their sanity, it's stifling their vitality, their lives. Are these people better off experiencing this every waking moment?

Thank you for proving that the stereotype of Americans being idiots is true.

Let's get some things straight
-Illegal immigrants contribute to those numbers

If I were you, I'd care more about reducing the outside influence on our national crime rate (which is much more important due to the massive amount of illegal immigrants comming through the borders), rather than foolishly thinking that illegal immigrants have nothing to do with it.


And now on to your reply to my post.

I never said we didn't kill innocent civillians. It's obvious that civillians will be caught in the crossfire, or mistaken for enemies. Especially when the civilians and enemies come from the same nationality. My point is, is that we did not massacre any innocent people.

Get that through your head. And as for the media? If you didn't recall, the media, being heaviuly liberal, started opposing the war shortly after it started. It painted our soldiers as being mass-murderers, and that we were only harming the innocent civilians. Only recently in the past year or so has it become less biased.

As for the source that letter came from, wow. Talk about biased. Of course there are people in Iraq who think that. And of course there are soldiers over there who do horrible things like that. But the few people who do end up encountering a few soldiers like that, are the ones who end up thinking that the majority of them are like that.

The vast majority of our soldiers [i[do not[/i] rape, murder, and steal from, Iraqi civilians.


Because most Americans don't care about the IRaqi civilians GL. That's why so many are saying "bring our troops home". They don't think that having Iraq as an ally will help us in any way (which is untrue), and they didn't (and don't) care about what would happen if we pulled out halfway through.

My main reason for wanting to "liberate" Iraq is so that we can have another ally in the middle-east. However, I wouldn't just start bombing Iraq to do so.
Though on top of all this, like I've said many times before, the living conditions over there will get better. They'll even grow to better than when they were before Saddam was in power. Unfortunately though, I doubt many people will thank us for giving them a democracy even after that happens.


Bush didn't drill because the Liberals locked everything up! He's been trying to drill since he got into office!
And I remember when gas was that cheap aswell. Then we went to war, and prices went up to $2.50-$3. Then the dollar started to fall, and it went up further to $4.

Around where I live, though, gas is $3.82 or something for regular.


About the Aztecs thing, I was making a point. There are morals out there which certain religions teach, that really, aren't very good. And that's not just my opinion either.

No one can honestly say that Christian morals promote hatred, killing, violence, or any other kind of bad thing. Pretty much every good moral that has been put forth by any other religions, is found in Chrstian teachings. So when you're teaching Chrstian morals, you're also teaching morals which many other religions promote aswell.

While society may advance, and many things must be changed to accomodate these advancements, religion should never be taken out of the equation, because religion is THE best way to promote good morals.

If you compare the America of now, to the America of say, 1850, or even 1950, the average American from back then was likely to never commit a crime, and had far better manners and morals (not to mention common sense). Heck, my mom grew up in a time where you didn't need to lock your car, or even your house for that matter. Back then, almost everyone went to church on a weekly basis.
As time has passed, we've seen the church attacked more an more. We've seen everything from the Ten Commandments on the doors of the Supreme Court to "God bless America" on the American dollar tried to be removed. And most of this was promoted by special interest groups. Minorities (and I don't mean that as in ethnicity or gender). 51% of Americans consider themselves Protestant while 28% consider themselves Catholic. That means nearly 80% of the American population is Christian.
Back then, if someone tried to get "One Nation Under God" removed from the pledge of allegience, the vast majority of the population would be in an uproar. It amazes me that even though 79% of the population is Christian, you saw few, if any, people actively opposing it. There probably were a lot of people who were unhappy with it when it happened a few years ago, but few of them actually tried to do anything about it.

There is a direct correlation between the increase in crime and a decrease in morals, and decrease in general religious beliefes.


There will obviously be people who end up like that, and people who don't. It all depends on what the child's character is like, and what the mother's character is like. If it's a strong willed, understanding child with a loving, caring mother, the child will do perfectly fine. But if the mother hates the child because of how he/she was concieved, and the child is (for lack of a better term) weak minded, the child will struggle.

But even if the child struggles, it's always possible to help him/her get over their pain and suffering. You can't do that if the child never existed.

[Golden Legacy]

I'm going to bed now and I'll respond tomorrow, but 2 points:

@Gio: Never heard anything like that, and considering Palin's effect has faded, Obama is now leading McCain. I'd be more worried about Palin - a report in the Times indicates that the McCain campaign actually went and insisted on changing the format of her debate with Joe Biden. It became more structured, with only a block of time to answer questions, but not a free-flowing discussion between Palin and Biden, they were apparently worried that if the two were left to debate one another freely, Palin wouldn't be able to hold her ground against Biden... which is likely true.

@Toasty: I knew you were going to twist those statistics. Somehow. OMFG.
Those statistics are ENTIRELY Americans. Not illegals. Home-grown Americans.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 20 2008, 09:58 PM, said:

@Toasty: I knew you were going to twist those statistics. Somehow. OMFG.
Those statistics are ENTIRELY Americans. Not illegals. Home-grown Americans.

Well maybe you should've said so? Regardless, illegal immigrants contribute a lot to the overall statistics. Not only that, but those overall statistics will only grow larger as time goes on if we don't secure our borders. The number of anual deaths caused by illegal immigrants is rising faster than the number killed by Americans.

We can take care of our domestic problems much more efficiently once we've taken care of the problems around us.

[Saturos S.]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 21 2008, 06:46 AM, said:

3) Still, I doubt he considers Iran a serious threat. It's possible that he does, but it doesn't look like he'd even try to do anything about it if he did think that.

4/5) Yeah, he'll lower taxes for the middle and lower class, but raising the taxes on the rich won't help boost the economy, or even get us out of a deficit faster. It'll only do the opposite. Higher taxes for anyone does not equal a lower deficit or thriving economy.
By the way, I live in a middle-class family. We may be struglling a bit, but we're hardly "fighting for scraps".

3) There isn't a lot of concrete evidence that Iran is a serious threat. I do think their intentions aren't all that good towards America and Western Europe but they still lack the technology to pause a real threat at the moment. Instead of threatening with war, they should start sanctioning, or improve relations.

4/5) The taxes aren't what's effecting your economy in any way. In a recession the generaly policy is too highten taxes and spend money on economic projects. Get people to work, inject money into the rulation. Break tensions at the stock market, taxes don't really effect any of those.


Further more, the last bit of your post was quite agreeable for a change.

[Eugine]

Actually, Iran primary reason for developing nuclear weapons is to destroy Israel. Iran isn't a serious threat (but it is a threat never the less) like you said, but a nuclear Iran is. And there isn't lots of concrete evidence? Iran boasts about nuclear enrichment advancements probably every six months... They are scapegoating their desire to develop Nuclear weapons with the desire for Nuclear energy though, which is complete bull.
And, you know, a Nuclear Iran will be less of a danger to USA than the entire world because of their defense system, yet they are at the forefront of disarmament. USA trying to save the world once again, yet it gets no thanks.
And lol, where have you been SS? Europe and to a lesser extent USA has been talking to Iran since 2001 and new sanctions are imposed by the UN on Iran every year, yet they do not comply. Talk and sanctions are not working. If I was George Bush, I would be bombing Iran's nuclear facilities right now tbh. A nuclear Iran is not worth the risk.

Anyway, your response to the economy is really, really wrong. You know what, it is actually the complete opposite. During an economy downturn, you decrease taxes for everyone, not increase taxes. With the decrease of taxes businesses will have more capital to grow, new jobs will be created through the private sector and the government will earn more money through revenues due to increase spending by the private sector. To make up for the decrease in taxes, you decrease government spending.
When you increase taxes you decrease capital businesses preciously need to expand and pay workers... Hence layoffs.

[Golden Legacy]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 21 2008, 12:46 AM, said:

I never said we didn't kill innocent civillians. It's obvious that civillians will be caught in the crossfire, or mistaken for enemies. Especially when the civilians and enemies come from the same nationality. My point is, is that we did not massacre any innocent people.

Get that through your head. And as for the media? If you didn't recall, the media, being heaviuly liberal, started opposing the war shortly after it started. It painted our soldiers as being mass-murderers, and that we were only harming the innocent civilians. Only recently in the past year or so has it become less biased.

As for the source that letter came from, wow. Talk about biased. Of course there are people in Iraq who think that. And of course there are soldiers over there who do horrible things like that. But the few people who do end up encountering a few soldiers like that, are the ones who end up thinking that the majority of them are like that.

So basically, if a firsthand account of an Iraqi woman doesn't agree with your statement, it's biased. Just because it doesn't agree with what you're saying.

Convenient.

Quote

Because most Americans don't care about the IRaqi civilians GL. That's why so many are saying "bring our troops home". They don't think that having Iraq as an ally will help us in any way (which is untrue), and they didn't (and don't) care about what would happen if we pulled out halfway through.

You're missing the point here. Conservatives - and I'm saying this generally, not all - who support the Iraq War are also the same people who are racist against other minority groups, notably Arabs and Muslims. (Not all, but MANY are). They spread lies about them and believe, personally, that all Arabs are terrorists, etc. These same people who associate a race with extremism, you expect me to believe that they want what's best for the Iraqi people?

Quote

About the Aztecs thing, I was making a point. There are morals out there which certain religions teach, that really, aren't very good. And that's not just my opinion either.

Examples.

Quote

No one can honestly say that Christian morals promote hatred, killing, violence, or any other kind of bad thing. Pretty much every good moral that has been put forth by any other religions, is found in Chrstian teachings. So when you're teaching Chrstian morals, you're also teaching morals which many other religions promote aswell.

Once again, you are being a self-absorbed Christian who thinks your faith can do no wrong, and that it is inherently better than other faiths. If you think that Christian morals are "promoting other religions" as well, then surely you may as well teach the morals under those same religions too.

Quote

If you compare the America of now, to the America of say, 1850, or even 1950, the average American from back then was likely to never commit a crime, and had far better manners and morals (not to mention common sense). Heck, my mom grew up in a time where you didn't need to lock your car, or even your house for that matter. Back then, almost everyone went to church on a weekly basis.
As time has passed, we've seen the church attacked more an more. We've seen everything from the Ten Commandments on the doors of the Supreme Court to "God bless America" on the American dollar tried to be removed. And most of this was promoted by special interest groups. Minorities (and I don't mean that as in ethnicity or gender). 51% of Americans consider themselves Protestant while 28% consider themselves Catholic. That means nearly 80% of the American population is Christian.
Back then, if someone tried to get "One Nation Under God" removed from the pledge of allegience, the vast majority of the population would be in an uproar. It amazes me that even though 79% of the population is Christian, you saw few, if any, people actively opposing it. There probably were a lot of people who were unhappy with it when it happened a few years ago, but few of them actually tried to do anything about it.

It's easy for you to say all this because you're a Christian. It's about time you opened your eyes to the changing face of the USA and the world. You're content with having "God Bless America" everywhere, and the 10 commandments on the Supreme Court, because you have no reason to oppose it, it conveniently is aligned with your beliefs.

Religion is not the only way to promote morals, nor is it the absolute best way. This is practically the first step forward for you to say that people should be encouraged - even obligated - to embrace Christianity because "they will be saved" and "they will become better human beings".

Quote

There is a direct correlation between the increase in crime and a decrease in morals, and decrease in general religious beliefes.

As far as I know, crime peaked but was then massively reduced in the 90's, with no correlation with religion.

Quote

There will obviously be people who end up like that, and people who don't. It all depends on what the child's character is like, and what the mother's character is like. If it's a strong willed, understanding child with a loving, caring mother, the child will do perfectly fine. But if the mother hates the child because of how he/she was concieved, and the child is (for lack of a better term) weak minded, the child will struggle.

But even if the child struggles, it's akways possible to help him/her get over their pain and suffering. You can't do that if the child never existed.

I related to you the pain and suffering of a child born who is mentally or physically disabled - my cousin as it were - that he will go through his entire life at the mercy and help of someone else, never being able to live on his own or to experience love or anything, that they become traumatized and depressed - and yet you still insist on "assuming" how they feel?

You can't summarize a person's life, you can't say you understand the pain they go through in just trying to survive.

Eugine, on Sep 21 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

Actually, Iran primary reason for developing nuclear weapons is to destroy Israel. Iran isn't a serious threat (but it is a threat never the less) like you said, but a nuclear Iran is. And there isn't lots of concrete evidence? Iran boasts about nuclear enrichment advancements probably every six months... They are scapegoating their desire to develop Nuclear weapons with the desire for Nuclear energy though, which is complete bull.
And, you know, a Nuclear Iran will be less of a danger to USA than the entire world because of their defense system, yet they are at the forefront of disarmament. USA trying to save the world once again, yet it gets no thanks.
And lol, where have you been SS? Europe and to a lesser extent USA has been talking to Iran since 2001 and new sanctions are imposed by the UN on Iran every year, yet they do not comply. Talk and sanctions are not working. If I was George Bush, I would be bombing Iran's nuclear facilities right now tbh. A nuclear Iran is not worth the risk.

Oh please, the more I read what you have to say, the more I think you're like George Bush in character and thinking.

With this logic, why not attack every nation in the world that has nuclear weapons? Russia, China, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India? Why not just have the USA bomb every nuclear site in the world because it's only America that can never do any wrong, and every other nation must be at fault?

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Sep 21 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

Actually, Iran primary reason for developing nuclear weapons is to destroy Israel. Iran isn't a serious threat (but it is a threat never the less) like you said, but a nuclear Iran is. And there isn't lots of concrete evidence? Iran boasts about nuclear enrichment advancements probably every six months... They are scapegoating their desire to develop Nuclear weapons with the desire for Nuclear energy though, which is complete bull.
And, you know, a Nuclear Iran will be less of a danger to USA than the entire world because of their defense system, yet they are at the forefront of disarmament. USA trying to save the world once again, yet it gets no thanks.
And lol, where have you been SS? Europe and to a lesser extent USA has been talking to Iran since 2001 and new sanctions are imposed by the UN on Iran every year, yet they do not comply. Talk and sanctions are not working. If I was George Bush, I would be bombing Iran's nuclear facilities right now tbh. A nuclear Iran is not worth the risk.

By sanctions I mean, bigger ones. They've been sanctioning on trade and everything since... well the '90's. I know that, but bombing is an even worse idea, considering the amount of money that would cost. Plus, the Iraq all-over scenario it would bring up.

Concrete evidence of them being able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction (WMD's?) By the time that there is, I don't think anyone would argue about invasion and destruction.

Eugine, on Sep 21 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

Anyway, your response to the economy is really, really wrong. You know what, it is actually the complete opposite. During an economy downturn, you decrease taxes for everyone, not increase taxes. With the decrease of taxes businesses will have more capital to grow, new jobs will be created through the private sector and the government will earn more money through revenues due to increase spending by the private sector. To make up for the decrease in taxes, you decrease government spending.
When you increase taxes you decrease capital businesses preciously need to expand and pay workers... Hence layoffs.

True, you don't highten taxes. I'm going to deny I ever said that. But you don't decrease government spending, at least not in the economic/trade sector. When things are going down, governments should invest and start up programs. Those programs don't have to be of a private initiative. The government should make sure there's more money roling, as well as keep the industry/private sectors running. In the last econmic recess in Holland, the government started up projects like DSM and CBS. DSM being a chemical company that was privatised later and CBS being a statistics group. They provided work and gave companies reassurance. The general rule is spend in a recession, save when it's going well.

I havn't read up in the details but I think America's solution to it all was starting a fund where companies could save their untradeable assets or something. Thus assuring the losses on the untradeable assets would stable itself.

[Golden Legacy]

Saturos Striker, on Sep 21 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

True, you don't highten taxes. I'm going to deny I ever said that. But you don't decrease government spending, at least not in the economic/trade sector. When things are going down, governments should invest and start up programs. Those programs don't have to be of a private initiative. The government should make sure there's more money roling, as well as keep the industry/private sectors running. In the last econmic recess in Holland, the government started up projects like DSM and CBS. DSM being a chemical company that was privatised later and CBS being a statistics group. They provided work and gave companies reassurance. The general rule is spend in a recession, save when it's going well.

I'm going to go on record and say this is exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt - widely considered to be one of the greatest Presidents in American history - did during the USA's Great Depression in the late 20's and 30's. Such programs include the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority, dealt with hydroelectric energy, dams, navigation), Social Security, FERA (Federal Emergency Relief Administration) and CWA (Civil Works Administration) creating $400 million in new public service projects, etc.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 21 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

So basically, if a firsthand account of an Iraqi woman doesn't agree with your statement, it's biased. Just because it doesn't agree with what you're saying.

Convenient.

The firsthand account of an Iraqi woman can be just as biased as anything else. It depends on their viewpoint, and what they've been exposed to as far as the personalities of the soldiers they've encounter go.

I never said there weren't Iraqi's who want our soldiers out. What I said, is that there are more who are grateful that we're giving them a democracy. Anyone can see that even though things are horrible now, they at least can get better in the future.

But I never said that the letter was biased. I said the source (as in the website) was biased. You will likley only find letters such as the one you posted on that website. The chances that they'll post a letter about how the soldiers are giving the Iraqi's freedom are slim to none.


You're missing the point here. Conservatives - and I'm saying this generally, not all - who support the Iraq War are also the same people who are racist against other minority groups, notably Arabs and Muslims. (Not all, but MANY are). They spread lies about them and believe, personally, that all Arabs are terrorists, etc. These same people who associate a race with extremism, you expect me to believe that they want what's best for the Iraqi people?

No, but I expect you to believe that giving Iraq a democracy is better than leaving them high and dry with no other options other than to be taken over by extremeists and thrown into another dictatorship. Or at least to fight a bloddy civil war on their own that was brought on by the US invasion.
The civil war over there may be bad, but it's extremeists against people who want freedom. The US is on the side of freedom.


Examples.

Satanists. Devil worshipers. Many witchdoctors in Africa.


Once again, you are being a self-absorbed Christian who thinks your faith can do no wrong, and that it is inherently better than other faiths. If you think that Christian morals are "promoting other religions" as well, then surely you may as well teach the morals under those same religions too.

Self absorbed? I'm stating facts. I guess telling you the truth is akin to being full of myself. "Do unto others as you would have done to you" is a teaching that is prominent throughout many religions. Including chrsitianity. And I never said Christianity promoted other religions I said "when you're teaching Chrstian morals, you're also teaching morals which many other religions promote aswell." Christianity promotes many morals that other religions promote aswell.


It's easy for you to say all this because you're a Christian. It's about time you opened your eyes to the changing face of the USA and the world. You're content with having "God Bless America" everywhere, and the 10 commandments on the Supreme Court, because you have no reason to oppose it, it conveniently is aligned with your beliefs.

Religion is not the only way to promote morals, nor is it the absolute best way. This is practically the first step forward for you to say that people should be encouraged - even obligated - to embrace Christianity because "they will be saved" and "they will become better human beings".

Don't deny those statistics. The vast majority of Americans are christian, so to keep the vast majority of Americans happy, it only makes sense to keep the ten commandments on the doors of the Supreme Court. If people suddenly started switching to different religions, and the percentage of American Christians fell to say, 30%, then it would make sense to get rid of those commandments if another religion was more prominent (at say, 40 or 50%).

This country was founded on Christianity, it was raised on christianity, and now people are tryng to abandon christianity because "it offends them". This is more about being politically correct than anything else. If they really don't like seeing "God bless America" on the dollar bill, they can move to another country. Canada's on the other side of the northern border.

And generally speaking, those who actually follow christian teachings and go to church on a regular basis are "better human beings." Not because they're christian, but because they hold good morals in higher regard. Obviously, there's people who call themselves christians and still commit crimes or have bad morals. But on average, a devout christian is far less likely to commit a crime than someone who didn't follow any religion. That's because a devout christian is taught to uphold the morals they're given. An agnostic person can still have good morals and be a good christian, but when was the last time you heard about a christian gangster?


As far as I know, crime peaked but was then massively reduced in the 90's, with no correlation with religion.

Crime rose as people began throwing christianity out the window. It was massively reduced due to a crackdown on lawbreakers and increased support for police officers.


I related to you the pain and suffering of a child born who is mentally or physically disabled - my cousin as it were - that he will go through his entire life at the mercy and help of someone else, never being able to live on his own or to experience love or anything, that they become traumatized and depressed - and yet you still insist on "assuming" how they feel?

You can't summarize a person's life, you can't say you understand the pain they go through in just trying to survive.

GL, not every child who's concieved by rape will be mentally of physically disabled because of it. They might become mentally insecure if they don't recieve the proper care, but if they do, they can get over it if they recieve the right influences.

I believe you're talking about (for lack of a better word) "retarded" or physically disabled people while I'm referring to people who are mentally insecure because their mother didn't love them.

And GL, you can't understand it either, unless you're mentally/physically disabled. Personally, if I were, I'd hate it even more if people pitied me.


Oh please, the more I read what you have to say, the more I think you're like George Bush in character and thinking.

With this logic, why not attack every nation in the world that has nuclear weapons? Russia, China, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India? Why not just have the USA bomb every nuclear site in the world because it's only America that can never do any wrong, and every other nation must be at fault?

Will you shut the hell up with the mocking about "America never doing any wrong"? For Christ's sake already! We get that you think America is a horrible tyrannous country! Unfortunaltey for you, we're in the real world. America is undeniably not perfect. Not country is. But America is a FAR better country than you make it out and believe it to be. We do far more good for the world than many believe, and while we have done bad things, we certainly haven't done as many as the Nazi's, the Soviets, Saddam, or any other real evil country/government you can think of.

We can't bomb them because there are people who actuly do need nuclear energy, and won't abuse it to make nuclear weapons. However, Iran DOES NOT need nuclear facilities. They have a ****load of oil, which is more than enough to suffice for them. They don't need nuclear energy, nor should we allow them to have it. Not because the people will abuse it, but because the government will.

I'd also like to make another thing clear. You CAN NOT determine whether a military is good or bad from only the [might I add "few"] bad things it does. The American military has done some bad stuff, and there are definately some bad eggs in there aswell. But you CAN NOT sumnmarize the entire military by the examples of just a few men! There are obviously soldiers muredering and raping people in Iraq. But the number of them who are doing that is relatively few. For the most part, the soldiers are doing what they're told, and not violating any international laws.

So quit saying that all the American military is doing is terrorizing the Iraqi people.

[Golden Legacy]

Quote

Don't deny those statistics. The vast majority of Americans are christian, so to keep the vast majority of Americans happy, it only makes sense to keep the ten commandments on the doors of the Supreme Court. If people suddenly started switching to different religions, and the percentage of American Christians fell to say, 30%, then it would make sense to get rid of those commandments if another religion was more prominent (at say, 40 or 50%).

This country was founded on Christianity, it was raised on christianity, and now people are tryng to abandon christianity because "it offends them". This is more about being politically correct than anything else. If they really don't like seeing "God bless America" on the dollar bill, they can move to another country. Canada's on the other side of the northern border.

Let's get something straight here. Being religious and having a religious state are two ENTIRELY different things.

You can have a people that are religious and the NATION, officially, can be secular.

Turkey. 70 million people. 99% Sunni Muslim. Secular state. Democracy, strong economy.
Its people are highly faithful. Devout Muslims. And it's flourished as a Republic for eight decades. (Now, there are those who will point out recent clashes in the politics of Turkey regarding a conservative administration, but thus far religion has stayed officially out of the state, and the state out of religion)

Just one example out of many. Europe, South America, Australia, everywhere. It's a hallmark of modern industrialized nations, in the West and otherwise.

Once more, you don't need "God Bless America" everywhere. And yes, it is offensive because the nation as it was founded 232 years ago is not the same nation that exists in 2008. Waves of immigration, people from different cultures and races, have made the USA their home.

I know conservatism has to do with "tradition" and keeping things as they are, but there's a fine line between coming off as protecting a heritage and being a supremacist.

Quote

And generally speaking, those who actually follow christian teachings and go to church on a regular basis are "better human beings." Not because they're christian, but because they hold good morals in higher regard. Obviously, there's people who call themselves christians and still commit crimes or have bad morals. But on average, a devout christian is far less likely to commit a crime than someone who didn't follow any religion. That's because a devout christian is taught to uphold the morals they're given. An agnostic person can still have good morals and be a good christian, but when was the last time you heard about a christian gangster?

You answered your own question here.

Quote

Crime rose as people began throwing christianity out the window. It was massively reduced due to a crackdown on lawbreakers and increased support for police officers.

... Which basically just proves my point that you don't need religion to decrease crime. Law enforcement and support for police officers accomplished this just fine.

Quote

GL, not every child who's concieved by rape will be mentally of physically disabled because of it. They might become mentally insecure if they don't recieve the proper care, but if they do, they can get over it if they recieve the right influences.

I believe you're talking about (for lack of a better word) "retarded" or physically disabled people while I'm referring to people who are mentally insecure because their mother didn't love them.

And GL, you can't understand it either, unless you're mentally/physically disabled. Personally, if I were, I'd hate it even more if people pitied me.

That still doesn't explain how a lifetime of pain and misery is any better. You can be JUST as morally devout and faithful by having an abortion if you don't want to put a human being through that.

Quote

Will you shut the hell up with the mocking about "America never doing any wrong"? For Christ's sake already! We get that you think America is a horrible tyrannous country! Unfortunaltey for you, we're in the real world. America is undeniably not perfect. Not country is. But America is a FAR better country than you make it out and believe it to be. We do far more good for the world than many believe, and while we have done bad things, we certainly haven't done as many as the Nazi's, the Soviets, Saddam, or any other real evil country/government you can think of.

When have I ever said that America was as bad as the Nazis and the Soviets?
America has become ruthless and a war-mongerer, mostly under the neo-conservative regime that runs the Bush administration in the background. The USA was never this bad, I agree, but it has become so.
And for the last time, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are sickening. If it were ANY other country in the whole world that did that to American troops, you would be furious and angry and you would call them out for being evil and horrible and blood-vicious.

But, when it's the USA that conducts the prison and torture chambers, 90% of whom are completely innocent civilians, it's "justified" for a "war on terror".

Quote

We can't bomb them because there are people who actuly do need nuclear energy, and won't abuse it to make nuclear weapons. However, Iran DOES NOT need nuclear facilities. They have a ****load of oil, which is more than enough to suffice for them. They don't need nuclear energy, nor should we allow them to have it. Not because the people will abuse it, but because the government will.

The USA has the largest economy in the world. Why do we need nuclear weapons?
Russia is the largest nation by far and has the largest and most diverse bountiful supply of natural resource. Why do they need nuclear weapons?
China has a population of 1.3 billion people, an economy that is absolutely exploding. Why do they need nuclear weapons?

With your logic, every nation in the world should disarm. That includes the USA.
And further, on what basis do you assume that the USA would NOT abuse nuclear weapons? Clearly you've forgotten about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Quote

I'd also like to make another thing clear. You CAN NOT determine whether a military is good or bad from only the [might I add "few"] bad things it does. The American military has done some bad stuff, and there are definately some bad eggs in there aswell. But you CAN NOT sumnmarize the entire military by the examples of just a few men! There are obviously soldiers muredering and raping people in Iraq. But the number of them who are doing that is relatively few. For the most part, the soldiers are doing what they're told, and not violating any international laws.

So quit saying that all the American military is doing is terrorizing the Iraqi people.

And once more, you CAN NOT determine whether a military is good or bad based solely on what you would LIKE to see and what you would PREFER to be true. How do you know the soldiers that commit rapes and murders are only "the few"? How do you know for certain that the USA sent its massive military for purely benevolent intents? It's one thing to want to believe what your government justifies it as, it's another to do a reality check and realize:

79% of Iraqis believe the United States has had a negative influence on their country
61% of Iraqis now support attacks against US troops
71% want the USA to withdraw its troops within a year
58% believe that the US withdrawing its troops would decrease violence

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf...q_Sep06_rpt.pdf

[Toasty]

GL, let me ask you something. Do you think the American Government wants to take over the world?

[Golden Legacy]

I think the US government under the Bush regime has become ruthless, catering to its own war-mongering interests, heightening the nation in a sense of urgency and fear for a never-ending "war on terror" to achieve its goals.

What are those goals? Well, the creed of neo-conservatism of course. (first video)

The US government has never been entirely perfect when it came to international affairs. Corrupt and horrendous, no doubt, when it comes to its goals on the world stage. But it never was heartless and vicious to the extent we see today, believing in slaughter as a means justified by the end.

[Toasty]

First off, note how that video stated that neo-conservatives came from the far left (which would make sense, since there's a number of neo-conservative ideals I don't agree with).


But you didn't answer my question. GL, do you think that the American Government wants to take over the world?

[Golden Legacy]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 21 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

First off, note how that video stated that neo-conservatives came from the far left (which would make sense, since there's a number of neo-conservative ideals I don't agree with).

I'm aware of that. When you go to the extremes in either direction, you come to ruthless dictatorships. Fascism on the right, Stalinism on the left. One and the same in how they act out their regimes.

And yes, Toasty, if my answer didn't make it clear, I believe that hardcore conservatives in America - and I'm referring to "real" conservatives, not the neo-conservatives that I was referring to earlier - wouldn't mind agreeing with, say, wiping out the Middle East because we're entitled to the oil more. Or, as Bush and his conservative cronies go on about, that spreading "democracy" is a good cause when all it is is a veil to hide their desire for growing US influence.

So in short, yes.

[Toasty]

GL, the U.S. Government isn't interested in taking over the world. Getting rid of communism/dictatorships which despise America and replacing them with democracies who would be our allies maybe, but not allies who'm we control.

George Bush himself is not interested in controlling the world. Only in making it safer for the American people.

And there aren't many conservatives (not including Bush) who want to just bomb Iran and take the oil. We have our own oil reserves. Most conservatives just want to drill for the oil in our own backyard. It's easier, it's safer, and it doesn't make people hate us.

[Golden Legacy]

Can I ask why it's the USA's duty to determine who needs to be taken down and who needs to be replaced?

To use an example that we've labored over countless times in arguing, Saddam Hussein WAS evil for the crimes he committed. There is no doubt about that, and few people would ever argue otherwise.

However, the vast majority of the Iraqi people prospered. Iraq was doing well economically, one of the fastest growing nations in the Middle East. University and higher education were top, people came from nearby nations to get degrees in medicine. Job growth was up, unemployment down, the middle class was getting by. Cheap food, water, and even a strong sense of national identity as Iraqis.

The same goes for Vladmir Putin. Regardless of what the USA may say about him, the man took the reins of the Russian presidency at a time of chaos and misery, and Putin singlehandedly cut poverty in half, expanded the nation's GDP six-fold, and raised salaries for families tremendously. There is a reason why Putin's approval ratings were in the 90s%, and why he is still the most widely respected leader by his people in the entire world perhaps.

Maybe - just maybe - could there have been people who didn't mind how things were? Maybe the people were perfectly content? Perhaps there was some discontent against their leader - there always is, in every nation - but their nation was united, most people got by with their lives, and if anything the nation was improving.

Why is it that the USA dictates who should be in power and more importantly, why is it that the USA should tell a people what's "fair" and "ideal" for them??

[Toasty]

And now that Saddam is gone, the world is safer, and the Iraqi people have a chance to become even more prosperous than they were under Saddam Hussein's rule. Things may be crap now, but it's a win-win situation.

And anyone who rules a country with their interests put before the citiczens', deserves to be de-throned. Though action should only be taken if they pose a threat to the United States or her allies.

And tell me GL, what is more fair and ideal? Disregarding the hardships required to achieve either one, which type of government would be better? A dictatorship, or a democracy?

If I lived in Iraq, I'd be glad Saddam was kicked out and killed. Even if the times were absolutely horrible right afterwards, a chance at a fair democracy where I might truely be able to prosper without the leader stealing my money and killing my neighbors would be well worth it.
I just think that the Iraqi's who are against the war don't think that a democracy will ever be able to work, solely because of the insurgents. What I think, is that they belive that the times wont get any better, and that all they can do is keep things from getting worse by kicking out the troops. But that's just speculation.

Though really, as long as the troops acomplish what needs to be done (getting Iraq in a position where they can protect themselves), things will get better once they leave. Though I can garuntee you that the withdrawl of the troops will be blamed for Iraq's eminent prosperity. Not the fact that the troops liberated them and gave them a chance at a fair democracy.

[Ironsight]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 21 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

If I lived in Iraq, I'd be glad Saddam was kicked out and killed. Even if the times were absolutely horrible right afterwards, a chance at a fair democracy where I might truely be able to prosper without the leader stealing my money and killing my neighbors would be well worth it.
I just think that the Iraqi's who are against the war don't think that a democracy will ever be able to work, solely because of the insurgents. What I think, is that they belive that the times wont get any better, and that all they can do is keep things from getting worse by kicking out the troops. But that's just speculation..

Plus, you know, you don't have to worry about being thrown into a wood cipper feet-first for the hell of it.

[Golden Legacy]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 21 2008, 09:13 PM, said:

And tell me GL, what is more fair and ideal? Disregarding the hardships required to achieve either one, which type of government would be better? A dictatorship, or a democracy?

If I lived in Iraq, I'd be glad Saddam was kicked out and killed. Even if the times were absolutely horrible right afterwards, a chance at a fair democracy where I might truely be able to prosper without the leader stealing my money and killing my neighbors would be well worth it.

Well, of course, given a choice between a democracy and a dictatorship, the choice would be clear.

I'm very much against the idea of "sacrifice for the greater good". At least 100,000 Iraqi people, fathers and mothers and children, are gone now and they will never be able to experience this so-called "Iraqi future".

Do you think I enjoy talking about the plight of the Iraqis? Do you think it makes me happy that I use their torn lives and casualties to be disgusted with what the USA has done? That I have to look at these images and have my blood boil with anger and sorrow?

Even if I'm willing to believe - what is still far-fetched in my eyes - that the USA had purely benevolent intents in Iraq, even if that were true (and this is disregarding Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and the other torture prisons), this bloodshed still feels unnecessary. These people had as much right to live as every other civilian, they had as much right to continue living in their proud country, and to have them die amidst it being torn asunder and a civil war erupt is sorrowful.

[Toasty]

The price of America's freedom from British rule was much steeper than 100,000 lives. I'd consider them lucky if anything.

I'm not saying 100,000 deaths is a good thing, but even if those 100,000 people never get to see a truely prosperous Iraq, millions of others will. Given time, hundreds of millions will.

The price for their freedom, while gruesome, could have been much worse. And while many were content under Saddam's rule, I know that there were those who would willingly die if it meant their family could live in a democracy, or even those who would rather die than live under Saddam's rule.

Right now, with a democracy in effect, the sky's the limit for the Iraqis. It all depends on how they handle things. The relatively low ceiling that was there under Saddam's rule is gone now.

[Split Infinity]

The amount of text in this thread is contributing to global warming, I swear...

[Ironsight]

Split Infinity, on Sep 21 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

The amount of text in this thread is contributing to global warming, I swear...

You mean it's contributing to nothing?

[Toasty]

My thoughts exactly.

[Split Infinity]

I guess the increasingly violent weather and melting icecaps are just a phase, then.

[Toasty]

Global warming has been proven to reduce the occurence of hurricanes.

Oh wait, we just had ginormous one recently didn't we? Gustav, was it?

[Split Infinity]

Proven by who? Higher temperatures create warmer seas, which causes air to rise and become humid, creating cyclonic conditions. Didn't you study geography?

[Toasty]

Air heats up faster than water does, Split.

To create a hurricane, you need cool air over warm waters. Not warm air over warm waters. Without the temperature difference, there's no tension for which to create a hurricane.

Didn't you study science?

[Split Infinity]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 22 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

Air heats up faster than water does, Split.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Prove me wrong though.

[Saturos S.]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 22 2008, 03:13 AM, said:

And now that Saddam is gone, the world is safer, and the Iraqi people have a chance to become even more prosperous than they were under Saddam Hussein's rule. Things may be crap now, but it's a win-win situation.

And anyone who rules a country with their interests put before the citiczens', deserves to be de-throned. Though action should only be taken if they pose a threat to the United States or her allies.

And tell me GL, what is more fair and ideal? Disregarding the hardships required to achieve either one, which type of government would be better? A dictatorship, or a democracy?

If I lived in Iraq, I'd be glad Saddam was kicked out and killed. Even if the times were absolutely horrible right afterwards, a chance at a fair democracy where I might truely be able to prosper without the leader stealing my money and killing my neighbors would be well worth it.
I just think that the Iraqi's who are against the war don't think that a democracy will ever be able to work, solely because of the insurgents. What I think, is that they belive that the times wont get any better, and that all they can do is keep things from getting worse by kicking out the troops. But that's just speculation.

Though really, as long as the troops acomplish what needs to be done (getting Iraq in a position where they can protect themselves), things will get better once they leave. Though I can garuntee you that the withdrawl of the troops will be blamed for Iraq's eminent prosperity. Not the fact that the troops liberated them and gave them a chance at a fair democracy.

Though of course, you'd have to question how great democracy is really. Sometimes I think there should be an IQ test to see if the people are smart enough to vote.

Split Infinity, on Sep 22 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Prove me wrong though.

I'm pretty sure that it take more energy to warm up a liter of water one degree, then it does to warm up water one degree.

And Toasty, let's have a look at the pool caps together and compare them with the pool caps 30 years ago. Same goes for sea level, vegitation spread etc.

[Laharl]

Ashley Tisdale, on Sep 22 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

Air heats up faster than water does, Split.

To create a hurricane, you need cool air over warm waters. Not warm air over warm waters. Without the temperature difference, there's no tension for which to create a hurricane.

Didn't you study science?

Toasty is correct.


there's a first time for everything XP

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 21 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

I'm going to go on record and say this is exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt - widely considered to be one of the greatest Presidents in American history - did during the USA's Great Depression in the late 20's and 30's. Such programs include the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority, dealt with hydroelectric energy, dams, navigation), Social Security, FERA (Federal Emergency Relief Administration) and CWA (Civil Works Administration) creating $400 million in new public service projects, etc.

I am not denying that these programs helped, but not nearly as much as entering WWII did. Entering the war created more jobs and got America to spend money and get the economy rolling again. I am not saying war is a good thing either.

Quote

With your logic, every nation in the world should disarm. That includes the USA.
And further, on what basis do you assume that the USA would NOT abuse nuclear weapons? Clearly you've forgotten about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

That has got to be the most ridiculous statement I ever heard. Let's see, our options here were to invade Japan and have millions of Japanese and Americans killed and basically cover ALL of Japan in blood, or we could cover only two cities in blood and end the war. What should we choose....I wonder.

Laharl, on Sep 22 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

Toasty is correct.
there's a first time for everything XP

I just had to acknowledge that you said that, and say how weird it was to see that in one of your posts.

[Saturos S.]

Gio, on Sep 22 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

I am not denying that these programs helped, but not nearly as much as entering WWII did. Entering the war created more jobs and got America to spend money and get the economy rolling again. I am not saying war is a good thing either.

Those are kind of the things that Hitler did as well. But I guess we all agree he did more bad than he did good.

Thought I just associate a president with a war villian, since republicans seem to like that.

The rest is quite agreeable.

[Gio]

Jews weren't trying to kill the germans

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Sep 22 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

I am not denying that these programs helped, but not nearly as much as entering WWII did. Entering the war created more jobs and got America to spend money and get the economy rolling again. I am not saying war is a good thing either.

That is exactly and entirely true. The thing to keep in mind though, is that WWII created the new industries and the modern infrastructure for the new workforce. Military equipment, planes, tanks, etc. had to be assembled, and so new factories were created to accommodate the new demands. Women were employed into the workforce in greater numbers than before. All in all, the USA saw a boost afterwards, both from FDR's New Deal programs (which got the nation out of the Depression) and WWII, which generated the new industries.

However, that's all been done. Compared with WWII, there is not an explosion of work or jobs or factories created. Think about it, have you heard about new industries being created as a result of the Iraq War, new factories being built to accommodate weapons and supplies?

The difference in 2008 is that the economic infrastructure is already in place, whereas for WWII that infrastructure was actually created and established.

Don't know if that makes sense.

Quote

That has got to be the most ridiculous statement I ever heard. Let's see, our options here were to invade Japan and have millions of Japanese and Americans killed and basically cover ALL of Japan in blood, or we could cover only two cities in blood and end the war. What should we choose....I wonder.

All signs were pointing to Japan surrendering. They would have certainly done so with time, having lost their supporting allies in the war. The atomic bombs were cruel, inhumane, and entirely unnecessary.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 22 2008, 07:01 PM, said:

That is exactly and entirely true. The thing to keep in mind though, is that WWII created the new industries and the modern infrastructure for the new workforce. Military equipment, planes, tanks, etc. had to be assembled, and so new factories were created to accommodate the new demands. Women were employed into the workforce in greater numbers than before. All in all, the USA saw a boost afterwards, both from FDR's New Deal programs (which got the nation out of the Depression) and WWII, which generated the new industries.

However, that's all been done. Compared with WWII, there is not an explosion of work or jobs or factories created. Think about it, have you heard about new industries being created as a result of the Iraq War, new factories being built to accommodate weapons and supplies?

The difference in 2008 is that the economic infrastructure is already in place, whereas for WWII that infrastructure was actually created and established.

I understand that. I am just a big history dude and couldn't help but point it out.

Quote

Don't know if that makes sense.
All signs were pointing to Japan surrendering. They would have certainly done so with time, having lost their supporting allies in the war. The atomic bombs were cruel, inhumane, and entirely unnecessary.

The Japanese emperor was pretty much considered a god to the Japs and since he was pretty much under the influence of Japanese military leaders I don't think that surrender would have came as easily as it did with the atomic bombs. Granted that you could argue that they would have crumbled eventually without the oil we were trading to them, but I see the atomic bombs as an attempt to keep any more of our soldiers from passing, and also without the atom bombs we might not have had as great as an influence on the reconstruction of Japan as we did and it quite possibly might not have been built into the great nation it is today.

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Sep 22 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

I understand that. I am just a big history dude and couldn't help but point it out.
The Japanese emperor was pretty much considered a god to the Japs and since he was pretty much under the influence of Japanese military leaders I don't think that surrender would have came as easily as it did with the atomic bombs. Granted that you could argue that they would have crumbled eventually without the oil we were trading to them, but I see the atomic bombs as an attempt to keep any more of our soldiers passing, and also without the atom bombs we might not have had as great as an influence on the construction of Japan as we did and it quite possibly might not have been built into the great nation it is today.

That part is what I think was the large intent by the US. To "show the world" what a superpower it could be, more of a display of might and strength. The military leaders of Japan were well on their way to realizing their war effort was over, and with trade being cut off it would have been simply inevitable.

Not to mention, all the lingering radiation that still remains, birth defects and cancers still plague the people to this day.

Now forgive me, my modern history escapes me at this moment, how did the USA rebuild Japan and to what degree?

[Gio]

General Douglas MacArthur was given control over the country and they pretty much built it from the ground up into a democracy. I would have to look it up for details, but that it pretty much how it went. I believe we also used Japan as a strategic military post during the Korean war.

[Toasty]

Saturos Striker, on Sep 22 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

And Toasty, let's have a look at the pool caps together and compare them with the pool caps 30 years ago. Same goes for sea level, vegitation spread etc.

Show me where there are absolute, noticable, drastic changes in weather and temperature throughout the world that don't correspond with either the wobble theory, or the sun's activity patterns.

Al Gore started the whole "Global Warming" craze to get himself some publicity. He even got a Nobel Peace prize. I'd also like to add that he consumes far more energy and resources than the average American, few (if any) of which are supplied through "green" means.

And I'd also like to point out how much of a disaster the Kyoto treaty is (and I don't mean because there weren't enough countries joining), and how little of an impact it has had on "Gobal Warming".

As for the icecaps, though I'm obviously going to sound like a nuthead for saying this, many scientists believe that the ice shelfs are cracking because they're growing too much. I.E., they're too heavy to be supported.

Though that was proposed a few months ago, and by this time, I would have imagined that the ice shelves whould have stopped breaking. Could be wrong though.

Laharl, on Sep 22 2008, 07:47 AM, said:

Toasty is correct.


there's a first time for everything XP

Just thought I'd point out how much of a "HOLY ****" moment that was there.

Split, water is much more dense than air. The denser a substance is, the longer it takes for energy to penetrate and spread throughout it. I believe it's called thermodynamics.

[Legolastom]

Didn’t America drop the Atom bombs to quickly cause Japan to surrender so that Stalin wouldn’t take over Japan when they did surrender?

[Toasty]

I've never heard of that one, but either way, the atom bombs were actually beneficial to the war. The fall of the Japanese may have been iminent, but we still would have lost far more soldiers and civilians on both sides had the fighting continued.

[Saturos S.]

So for some reason I still don't know, I was watching fox news. Turns out Palin's email account was hacked. So of course you spend 10 minutes whining about how bad these people are. Then they spend 10 minutes bishing about some about some obama fiasco #203.

But more interesting, Palin's inbox. http://wikileaks.org...ahoo_inbox_2008
They're should be more, but this is all I could find. All and all, it's just being blown up again. Sure it's privacy abuse, but nothing... bad leaked because of it. I'm just hoping that this doesn't add up to the sympathy vote Palin's getting at the moment. Since she's getting a lot of those, plus the oil industry is fist deep up her butt because of her oil plans in Alaska.

[Eugine]

The email where she started with "Arghhh!" makes me love her even more =)
You can see she is really bipartisan! Come on, I really home McCain wins!

Too bad the economic downturn basically squashes McCain chances of winning unless he pwns Obama in the debates (and I hope Sarah pwns Biden!), or that Obama really screws up. I can't wait for his relationship with Bill Ayers to become mainstream... Fox is starting to cover it!

[Golden Legacy]

I'm still at a loss why you're supporting the war-mongerer Eugine.

EDIT: what the hell, McCain wants to delay the Friday debate?

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 24 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

I'm still at a loss why you're supporting the war-mongerer Eugine.

EDIT: what the hell, McCain wants to delay the Friday debate?

War mongering>>>>>letting yourself be destroyed.

[Eugine]

Wait, what exactly is different with Obama and McCain's foreign policy GL?
Only difference: Obama wants to end the Iraq war 'responsibly'.

[Golden Legacy]

Super Crazy Conservative White B, on Sep 24 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

War mongering>>>>>letting yourself be destroyed.

So basically:
slaughtering innocent lives for your own agenda.

Eugine, on Sep 24 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

Wait, what exactly is different with Obama and McCain's foreign policy GL?
Only difference: Obama wants to end the Iraq war 'responsibly'.

Obama wouldn't go into a war unless there was a definitive reason for it. McCain would pull a Bush.


EDIT: So McCain is actually serious it looks like, he wants to delay the debate against Obama this Friday.

[Eugine]

Wait, that's what you think. What exactly do they differ on except the one I mentioned?
Oh wait, they differ one more thing:
Obama doesn't want Russia removed from the G8, while McCain does. Big difference in foreign policy!

[Golden Legacy]

You're missing the point here. If you're referring to Afghanistan, that's a definitive reason, it's the actual front on the "war on terror" (which I personally believe is a grand facade by the Bush administration to keep the people locked in fear, but that's my own personal belief).

Obama and McCain don't differ there, and while I would prefer we end the conflict in Afghanistan too, it definitely was the more JUSTIFIED conflict of the two.

However, McCain would go into a flat-out war with little or falsified justification. Obama was against the Iraq War from the beginning.

And yes Eugine, that too.

[Eugine]

So you're telling me that the guy who was tortured for 5 years, and understand the realities of war far more than anyone who ran, or is running for President simply wants to 'go into a flat-out war with little or falsified justification'? I'm sorry, but that is a false image Obama wants to protray McCain as.
The guy after being tortured by the Vietnamese forgave them during the Clinton years (I think) and tried to restore relationships between them, yet he is a warmonger.

I'm sorry but wanting to defend your country against people who wants to destroy it is not warmongering... It is smart.

But honestly, Obama and McCain agrees so much on Foreign policy. The only difference is that Obama copied McCains positions.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 24 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

So basically:
slaughtering innocent lives for your own agenda.

More like "If someone says they've got a gun pointed at me, I'm gonna have gatling gun pointed at them."

McCain doesn't want to go to war for the sake of war. Nor will he start something with little or falsified information.

Even if the inforamtion Bush based the invasion on were falsified, when all's said and done, it was a good move. The people may be living in poor conditions right now, but you need to quit treating it as if it won't get better. The price they payed for the potential they've been given is pretty slim from almost any viewpoint.

And GL, terrorism IS a real problem. There ARE people who want to kill us. 9/11 showed us that. The "war on terror" is not being used to lock people in fear. It's being used to protect everyone from terrorist attacks.

[Eugine]

Honestly, looking back, everyone will recognise invading Iraq was a bad decision. That doesn't mean you have to cut and run like Obama is saying though. The majority of terrorists came to Iraq after the US invaded Iraq, hence why it is stupid to leave immediately.

[Golden Legacy]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_KjsEs46C70
Vietnam Veteran, fellow prisoner with McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C54k0n0NsIg...n_n_111656.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlJMCUK2cmU...feature=related

And an entire website dedicated against McCain from fellow Vietnam veterans.
http://www.vietnamve...johnmccain.com/

The notion that McCain suffered alone, that somehow he achieved what no other had done, is a myth. There were with McCain tens, if not hundreds, of fellow veterans who went through the same crisis (held for 5 years, but after the second year, the Vietnamese decided on making them hostages, so they started treating them well).

Quote

I'm sorry but wanting to defend your country against people who wants to destroy it is not warmongering... It is smart.

You don't "defend your country" with the massacre of innocent civilians. I'm sorry, but unlike other people - Americans perhaps - I place equality in the life of ALL innocent lives.

All Iraq accomplished was enraging the people, who in large numbers think that while Saddam may have been bad, what the USA has done is an abomination. The USA has caused outrage and genuine hatred.

Besides the slaughter of lives even, every other nation and people can see through the deception and realize that the USA's stated goals for the Iraq War were just a veil to cover up the lives they've killed. It's about time you opened your eyes to it.

EDIT: I was responding to Eugine's post before this one, but it still stands.

Quote

The majority of terrorists came to Iraq after the US invaded Iraq, hence why it is stupid to leave immediately.

There you go. The terrorists appeared as a RESULT OF the USA invading.
What a nice job America.

[Eugine]

Everyone knows McCain has a temperment.
And no one said McCain suffered alone. He is the only one who ran for President in 2008 who suffered though.

Anyway, I also place equality in the life of ALL innocent lives, hence why I think it is necessary for the US to follow McCain's foreign policy. Iran wants to completely destroy Israel, and North Korea the world if possible. Russia will do anything now to destroy the US and its allies, so will Venezuela, and now, they're convincing little Cuba to join their cause. I'm sorry, but the world is far too dangerous to let Obama become President, he will be too soft. He will meet with all of them without preconditions.
Plus, the guy wants to invade Pakistan lmao. How naive.

I'm sorry GL, but you can be a terrorist sympatizer, but I'm not. I think they should all be killed. Look at Libya. After they rooted out terrorism, look at how prosperious the country is becoming...

[Golden Legacy]

The only terrorist sympathizers here are you and Toasty.

[Eugine]

lol, really? I hate all terrorists actually.

[Golden Legacy]

You seem to adore Bush.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Sep 24 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

Everyone knows McCain has a temperment.
And no one said McCain suffered alone. He is the only one who ran for President in 2008 who suffered though.

Anyway, I also place equality in the life of ALL innocent lives, hence why I think it is necessary for the US to follow McCain's foreign policy. Iran wants to completely destroy Israel, and North Korea the world if possible. Russia will do anything now to destroy the US and its allies, so will Venezuela, and now, they're convincing little Cuba to join their cause. I'm sorry, but the world is far too dangerous to let Obama become President, he will be too soft. He will meet with all of them without preconditions.
Plus, the guy wants to invade Pakistan lmao. How naive.

I'm sorry GL, but you can be a terrorist sympatizer, but I'm not. I think they should all be killed. Look at Libya. After they rooted out terrorism, look at how prosperious the country is becoming...

So let's attack half the world because they might have terrorists and after we screw them over they'll become prosperous and we can all drink tea together while picking daisies. Whoo!

... No seriously, stop accusing every single country of wanting to attack you.

[Toasty]

He isn't. All of those countries he mentioned (well, I don't know much about Venezuela's opinion of us, so maybe) would gladly destroy us if given the chance. And no GL, it's not because of Bush or his foreign policies. It doesn't matter who's President of the U.S., those guys will only be happy if either A) America is destroyed, or B) If they become the world superpower (and thus replacing America).

It'd be pretty stupid to invade half the world just to get rid of all the terrorists. The major ones (the ones which are located in the middle east for the most part) are the ones we should hunt. That's why we invaded Iraq.

Golden Legacy, on Sep 24 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

The only terrorist sympathizers here are you and Toasty.

Golden Legacy, on Sep 24 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

You seem to adore Bush.

Wow. Talk about a screwed up opinion. <_<

WE DID NOT MASSACRE INNOCENT CIVILIANS. The vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were killed by insurgents who were attacking us. Most of which included roadside bombings. We DID NOT run in there and start shooting the Iraqi citizcens. For christs' sake GL, open your eyes to the facts.

[Eugine]

Anywho, more importantly, I think McCain chances of winning the election is over =(
Ah well, I'm not following politics again, cuz I'll be pissed even more if McCain loses.

I'm forcing myself to accept a President Obama, so that by November 4th I would be ok with the idea.

Under President Obama, if Obama goes ahead with his plans...
Free college education for everyone!
Everyone will receive the healthcare the President receives!
Higher taxes, less capital, less jobs! Time for businesses to move to Ireland!
Don't worry, eventhough 40% of Americans do not pay taxes, they'll get tax "cuts". President Robin Hood to the rescue!

God, this is so funny. Obama failed at practically EVERYTHING he did in his working life, yet people think he's qualified to be President cuz he had an Ivy League education. Sad he's up 9 points in some polls =(

[Golden Legacy]

Super Crazy Conservative White B, on Sep 24 2008, 09:41 PM, said:

He isn't. All of those countries he mentioned (well, I don't know much about Venezuela's opinion of us, so maybe) would gladly destroy us if given the chance. And no GL, it's not because of Bush or his foreign policies. It doesn't matter who's President of the U.S., those guys will only be happy if either A) America is destroyed, or :D If they become the world superpower (and thus replacing America).

Russia is doing the latter no doubt, Putin is exerting the nation's influence and doing his best to bring back the status as former world superpower. There's nothing wrong with that either, it sounds like the USA is just afraid of having a challenger once again.

And many nations want the USA to fall too. That's just how it is. What, is the US going to go everywhere in the world wiping out nations that don't like us?

Quote

WE DID NOT MASSACRE INNOCENT CIVILIANS. The vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were killed by insurgents who were attacking us. Most of which included roadside bombings. We DID NOT run in there and start shooting the Iraqi citizcens. For christs' sake GL, open your eyes to the facts.

Mm. No one is saying civilians haven't died as a result of the civil war, which the USA brought about. Just that actions take place that our media would never show, and the stubborn refusal by many that this is all the stakes of "democracy" and "freedom" upon which the lives of thousands slain lie.

All seemed pretty damn ok before the US invaded.


EDIT: To Eugine's post

Eugine, on Sep 24 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

Anywho, more importantly, I think McCain chances of winning the election is over =(
Ah well, I'm not following politics again, cuz I'll be pissed even more if McCain loses.

You have to admit, McCain trying to postpone the debate with Obama was pretty @#$%ing stupid.

But don't underestimate hidden racism in the USA. =/ I still predict a McCain victory, Democrats tend to be leading at this point in the election. Throw in a bit of Bradley Effect when people go to the voting booth alone behind the curtain and see a choice as literally, black and white, and I can guarantee you it'll be President McCain.

Quote

I'm forcing myself to accept a President Obama, so that by November 4th I would be ok with the idea.

Under President Obama, if Obama goes ahead with his plans...
Free college education for everyone!
Everyone will receive the healthcare the President receives!
Higher taxes, less capital, less jobs! Time for businesses to move to Ireland!
Don't worry, eventhough 40% of Americans do not pay taxes, they'll get tax "cuts". President Robin Hood to the rescue!

God, this is so funny. Obama failed at practically EVERYTHING he did in his working life, yet people think he's qualified to be President cuz he had an Ivy League education. Sad he's up 9 points in some polls =(

College education will be free for those who provide service. i.e. Military veterans, Peace Corps., community service, etc. not unlike JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Nothing wrong with a universal healthcare system (which you can OPT OUT OF, and keep your private healthcare insurance, it'll be mandated only for children)

LOWER TAXES ON 95% OF AMERICANS. STOP SPREADING LIES.
Only the few rich will have higher taxes. Obama will CUT TAXES FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS, that make up 95%+ of the population. And they are lower taxes than McCain's.

And I'll GLADLY take the Ivy League Harvard graduate with magnacum laude honors distinction and president of the Harvard Law Review as opposed to the Navy student who graduated 894th out of 897 in his class.

[Eugine]

How can you get tax cuts when you don't pay taxes? Obama is going to take money from the rich, then mail it to the poor. Income redistribution. Socialism. Obama should stop spreading lies.

And I'll gladly take the senator who has a proven and tested track record as a senator anyday, rather than someone who voted against a bill to ban live birth abortions. I'll even take Palin over Obama =)

[Golden Legacy]

You're going to have to enlighten me and tell me what percentage of the population "doesn't pay taxes" and in what income bracket they are.

And what Bush has done is reward wealthy CEOs and Wall Street suits at the expense of the middle-class. Fiscal conservatism. Encouraging wealth disparity. Bush and McCain should admit to being out of touch with the average lifestyle.

Yes, 26 years in the Senate, and John McCain only realized in the last 3 that the economy needed regulating. Wonderful track record.

I'd take Biden over both McCain and Palin, easily. However, given a choice between McCain and Palin, I'd take the former, I'd rather not have the fundamentalist Christian.

[Eugine]

http://www.taxfounda.../show/1410.html
43.4 million do not pay taxes. That's about 41% of the population. I hope Obama can explain to me how they will receive tax "cuts", if they do not pay taxes.
EDIT: 41% of the TAXABLE population.

I honestly do not believe people those people need tax 'cuts', but rather I think it'll be more effective if America acheives energy independence (and therefore making energy cheaper for all), decrease taxes so that businesses will have more capital to employ the unemployed and most importantly improve the education system (and of course some other issues). I think that will do much more than sending them some check.

Quote

College education will be free for those who provide service. i.e. Military veterans, Peace Corps., community service, etc. not unlike JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

I like this idea =). ++ For Obama.

And GL, honestly, universal health care would be great, I am actually for it... I just think the government cannot afford it (and neither can it afford a war, but I think the war is a necessity)

I don't know why Toasty says Bush is a good conservative. I think Bush is (was?) a terrible President to be honest (he honestly seems like a cool guy though). He spends like a liberal, and his social policies are way too conservative. You know, usually the smart people are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal... Bush legacy was the other way.

[Golden Legacy]

Hmm, I will admit, I honestly was not aware of there being that sizeable a portion of the population that didn't pay taxes.

I look at analyses like these:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...0611_220050.htm
that don't mention it. Maybe it's supposed to be lower taxes for 95% of taxpaying citizens? Perhaps that's an assumption that people take for granted?

Quote

I honestly do not believe people those people need tax 'cuts', but rather I think it'll be more effective if America acheives energy independence (and therefore making energy cheaper for all), decrease taxes so that businesses will have more capital to employ the unemployed and most importantly improve the education system (and of course some other issues). I think that will do much more than sending them some check.

Well, there are such things as "stimulus checks" that have been sent, I believe, twice under the Bush administration. I doubt that they work at any rate.

But one of the things I like about Barack Obama's plan is investing $150 billion/10 years in green, alternative energy technology that will create new jobs. Creating solar, wind, hydroelectric infrastructure, hybrid vehicles, etc. will generate 5 million new jobs annually.

I honestly think it's a fantastic plan, gets America closer to energy independence and creates millions of new jobs and opportunities. This is exactly what FDR would have done, just in a different age.

Quote

I like this idea =). ++ For Obama.

I knew you would. I love the idea too.

Quote

And GL, honestly, universal health care would be great, I am actually for it... I just think the government cannot afford it (and neither can it afford a war, but I think the war is a necessity)

Hmm, good that you cleared up this point. I've always subscribed to the notion that healthcare is a purely fundamental right to humanity. Something so basic and essential that it's almost laughable that the USA is the only industrialized nation int he world that doesn't offer it. Affordability is another issue entirely, and with both wars weighing down, it's hard to accomplish much for the next president.

That's largely why I want to see the wars end. Not because of my dislike for them (well, that's a lie, not only because of my hatred for them), but also because the domestic issues at home have become so poorly attended to these past 8 years.

Quote

I don't know why Toasty says Bush is a good conservative. I think Bush is (was?) a terrible President to be honest (he honestly seems like a cool guy though). He spends like a liberal, and his social policies are way too conservative. You know, usually the smart people are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal... Bush legacy was the other way.

I'll give you one thing, is that Bush sticks to his guns. However stubborn he is, he surely believes what he does is right and what's best for his people. Whether it actually is true is what can be debated (seems like you, me, and 75% of the American people are in agreement in disproving of Bush), but the guy's steady. I'll give you that much.

Also, just thought I'd throw this neat find:


http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP29_economy_chart1.jpg

[Eugine]

Ah well. I just cannot defend George Bush.
He was good at one thing: The terrorists did not attack USA since 9.11 under his Presidency (there were MANY failed attempts, people just doesn't know)

That said, I still think Obama's policies will be bad for America. I honestly hope if Obama wins he proves all his doubters wrong, but I honestly do not think people should take the risk. Plus, combined with Obama's associations, I am just wondering how a guy who surrounds himself with anti-American friends can become the President of USA. I hope he doesn't share their view points.

[Gio]

Just thought I would throw this little fun fact out there. I would like to see the debate and I don't want it to be postponed but I can see why McCain would want to. Also i think it was dumb of Obama when today he said that the debates should go on so that the Americans can see what him and McCain would do for the economy, but he failed to mention that it was a debate on foreign policy.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 24 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

Russia is doing the latter no doubt, Putin is exerting the nation's influence and doing his best to bring back the status as former world superpower. There's nothing wrong with that either, it sounds like the USA is just afraid of having a challenger once again.

And many nations want the USA to fall too. That's just how it is. What, is the US going to go everywhere in the world wiping out nations that don't like us?


Mm. No one is saying civilians haven't died as a result of the civil war, which the USA brought about. Just that actions take place that our media would never show, and the stubborn refusal by many that this is all the stakes of "democracy" and "freedom" upon which the lives of thousands slain lie.

All seemed pretty damn ok before the US invaded.


EDIT: To Eugine's post


You have to admit, McCain trying to postpone the debate with Obama was pretty @#$%ing stupid.

But don't underestimate hidden racism in the USA. =/ I still predict a McCain victory, Democrats tend to be leading at this point in the election. Throw in a bit of Bradley Effect when people go to the voting booth alone behind the curtain and see a choice as literally, black and white, and I can guarantee you it'll be President McCain.


College education will be free for those who provide service. i.e. Military veterans, Peace Corps., community service, etc. not unlike JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Nothing wrong with a universal healthcare system (which you can OPT OUT OF, and keep your private healthcare insurance, it'll be mandated only for children)

LOWER TAXES ON 95% OF AMERICANS. STOP SPREADING LIES.
Only the few rich will have higher taxes. Obama will CUT TAXES FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS, that make up 95%+ of the population. And they are lower taxes than McCain's.

And I'll GLADLY take the Ivy League Harvard graduate with magnacum laude honors distinction and president of the Harvard Law Review as opposed to the Navy student who graduated 894th out of 897 in his class.

You have to be out of your ****ing mind to think that Russia competing for the title of "world superpower" is a good idea. Competition is good, but all this would do is give us the threat of a communist superpower, while simultaneously forcing the US to spend money it doesn't have on bolstering the military (something I believe both you and Obama are against, might I add), and in turn hurting our economy even more.

Being the world superpower is entirely different from running a buisness. Even if America may get into other countries' buisness from time to time, it's better than having Russia tell everyone what they can and cannot do.


And no, it isn't. But it is going to go around wiping out nations that threaten our safety (and the safety of our allies) if need be. Case in point: Saddam posed a threat. We took him out.

The main reason why so many people hate how America "liberated" Iraq, is because they only bother looking at the here and now. They don't even think to take a step back and consider where a democracy might lead the Iraqi people. I'm well aware that many Iraqi's hate us for it, and I'm also well aware that many people in general think it was a poor decision to invade. But just because things suck now, doesn't mean they always will.

If US soldiers were going around slaughtering innocent civilians, I can absolutely garuntee that some news outlet somewhere would have a story on it. Don't deny that Iraq isn't getting a democracy, or that they aren't getting freedom either. They're getting both. And might I point out that the cost of freedom for many other countries in the past was the death of people numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Sometimes even reaching a few million.

Racism is around, but it's not as bad as so many people make it out to be. It will be a factor in the elections, but it will not be a deciding factor. If anything, an "unfair" result in McCain's favor will be the product of other factors along with racism.

Fair enough, though I'll point out that we already have a few things like that. If you choose to serve in the military, you can actually get paid while you're going to college for free. It's what my cousin did, and it's what at least one of my friends is considering doing.

Universal healthcare is horrible and stupid. Though the option to opt out of it makes it at least bareable. However, it should be optional for absolutely everyone. INCLUDING children. If I can afford healthcare for my whole family, I'll be downright pissed if my children have to be stuck with universal healthcares piss poor service and piles of legal tape and restrictions. I would personally rather be without any kind of healthcare, than be stuck with Universal healthcare.

Fine and dandy, except a lot of America's money is heald by those top 5%, who are also more willing to let go of it if given lower taxes. The more money they put back into the economy, the better. Also, even minor wealth distribution is a bad idea. Especially if the bottom 5% are even making money off of taxes.


I've had some pretty horrible grades in the past. Even finishing some classes in the bottom few. Despite that, I continue to have higher test scores than my peers.

Basically, your grades in school show more about your work ethic than your intelligence.




Also, in an ideal world, the government would be rich enough to pay for private healthcare for everyone (Universal Healthcare's service is so poor it's not even laughable), there would be no wars and no terrorists, gasoline would burn perfectly and completely in cars, oil would never be in short supply, the process for obtaining and refining oil would have little to no impact on the environment or it;s natural inhabitants, and above all else, the government would do exactly what the people told it to do, and be at the mercy of the citiczens. Not the other way around.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. That's why we have a strong military to protect our interests and well being, why we live in a capitalistic society so that it's at least possible to obtain private healthcare (price wise), why we have scientists studying about how to build cleaner burning engines and fuels, as well as figuring out how to obtain viable alternative sources for energy, and above all else, why we live in a Democracy.

Though unfortunately, our democracy has begun to look less and less like it should.

[Golden Legacy]

@ Gio: The debate topics aren't set in stone, they are fluid. The debate was intended to be on foreign policy and national security, but the economy is now going to take precedence at the debate, at least partially. Besides, economic security is surely indicative of protecting the interests of the people, no?

Super Crazy Conservative White B, on Sep 25 2008, 01:42 AM, said:

You have to be out of your ****ing mind to think that Russia competing for the title of "world superpower" is a good idea. Competition is good, but all this would do is give us the threat of a communist superpower, while simultaneously forcing the US to spend money it doesn't have on bolstering the military (something I believe both you and Obama are against, might I add), and in turn hurting our economy even more.

Again, you're speaking out from your American bias. Why is it that the United States dictates who is allowed to rise up?

Quote

Being the world superpower is entirely different from running a buisness. Even if America may get into other countries' buisness from time to time, it's better than having Russia tell everyone what they can and cannot do.

So let me get this straight.
If it's the United States getting involved in international affairs and conflicts, it's just doing some "business".
If it's Russia rising up, they're hell-bent on taking over every country.


On the issue of Iraq, we've belabored it long enough. You think the USA has done (mostly) a good job in introducing "democracy", I say it's a lie and the pretense of the Iraq War was for the oil as well as the USA wanting to exert its influence everywhere - so they took down Saddam to put into power a puppet regime that they can control.

Quote

Racism is around, but it's not as bad as so many people make it out to be. It will be a factor in the elections, but it will not be a deciding factor. If anything, an "unfair" result in McCain's favor will be the product of other factors along with racism.

Once more, considering a generic Democrat vs. a generic Republican would be a crushing victory of at least 20 points in most polls, I find it hard to believe that racism isn't playing a factor here. People overwhelmingly want Democratic ideals, they know that the direction Bush has taken the country the past 8 years is pitiful, even though the USA is largely a right-winged population (unfortunately), the consensus is moving away from Bush as far as possible.

Yet, throw in the first African-American, and what should be a continually strong victory is a close election. Though, Obama has pulled in a reasonably strong lead the past week, narrow but solid, in the wake of the economic crisis.

Just shows you how Americans turn to Democrats after every financial crisis.

Quote

Fair enough, though I'll point out that we already have a few things like that. If you choose to serve in the military, you can actually get paid while you're going to college for free. It's what my cousin did, and it's what at least one of my friends is considering doing.

And I believe John McCain voted against that bill.

Quote

Universal healthcare is horrible and stupid. Though the option to opt out of it makes it at least bareable. However, it should be optional for absolutely everyone. INCLUDING children. If I can afford healthcare for my whole family, I'll be downright pissed if my children have to be stuck with universal healthcares piss poor service and piles of legal tape and restrictions. I would personally rather be without any kind of healthcare, than be stuck with Universal healthcare.

I'll let the Europeans and Australians handle this one.

Quote

Fine and dandy, except a lot of America's money is heald by those top 5%, who are also more willing to let go of it if given lower taxes. The more money they put back into the economy, the better. Also, even minor wealth distribution is a bad idea. Especially if the bottom 5% are even making money off of taxes.

What bothers me about McCain is that he is lowering taxes on the rich more than the middle class and the poor. As in giving the wealthy a proportionally far easier time, while comparatively the majority of the population don't receive as much.

Also, "trickle down" may work in theory, but Reagon's and both Bush's policies only drastically increased the federal deficit and widened wealth disparity further. It, practically, does not work.

Quote

I've had some pretty horrible grades in the past. Even finishing some classes in the bottom few. Despite that, I continue to have higher test scores than my peers.

Basically, your grades in school show more about your work ethic than your intelligence.

No one said that grades were necessarily indicative of intelligence.
What I'm saying is, if you're basing your choice on presidency based solely on education, then Barack Obama being an A-student from Harvard University with magnacum laude honors fairly trumps John McCain's ranking of 894 out of 897 in his class.

Quote

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. That's why we have a strong military to protect our interests and well being, why we live in a capitalistic society so that it's at least possible to obtain private healthcare (price wise), why we have scientists studying about how to build cleaner burning engines and fuels, as well as figuring out how to obtain viable alternative sources for energy, and above all else, why we live in a Democracy.

Whether a nation should have the right to build a strong military is not what we're arguing here, it's how it's used that's the problem.

Alternative energy, I'm with you there, and:

Quote

Though unfortunately, our democracy has begun to look less and less like it should.

You've only just realized? =/

[Eugine]

It's back to a tie in the Gallup daily =)
http://gallup.com/Home.aspx

Obama needs to be ahead by a good margin (a Barack supporter said 6 points minimum) before the election because if the primaries are any indication of the future, the 'undecideds' never vote for Obama.

[Golden Legacy]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma...bama_vs_mccain/

Obama is the blue my friend.

[Eugine]

lol... I've already said I believe Obama will win. Everything is in his favour...
I just said in the daily tracking poll, it is a tie again which means the race is still up for grabs.

I hope there is an October surprise for Barack lmao.

[Golden Legacy]

Knowing the Republican strategy, I'm sure there will be.
And once again, I want to go on record saying that I expect Barack Obama to lose, John McCain to win.

Which is idiocy. One wonders why the entire world would choose Obama:
http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/7606100.stm

and yet Americans are still split.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Sep 25 2008, 05:20 AM, said:

Ah well. I just cannot defend George Bush.
He was good at one thing: The terrorists did not attack USA since 9.11 under his Presidency (there were MANY failed attempts, people just doesn't know)

So how the hell do you know it?

Super Crazy Conservative White B, on Sep 25 2008, 07:42 AM, said:

You have to be out of your ****ing mind to think that Russia competing for the title of "world superpower" is a good idea. Competition is good, but all this would do is give us the threat of a communist superpower, while simultaneously forcing the US to spend money it doesn't have on bolstering the military (something I believe both you and Obama are against, might I add), and in turn hurting our economy even more.

Universal healthcare is horrible and stupid. Though the option to opt out of it makes it at least bareable. However, it should be optional for absolutely everyone. INCLUDING children. If I can afford healthcare for my whole family, I'll be downright pissed if my children have to be stuck with universal healthcares piss poor service and piles of legal tape and restrictions. I would personally rather be without any kind of healthcare, than be stuck with Universal healthcare.

First off, stop putting communism on one line with dictatorship. That it turned out to be the same thing as dictatorship is true, but they are not the same thing. Russia isn't communistic anymore, and although there are still some notes of communism that exist within their governing system they will and can never go back to how it was. Or how it is in North Korea these days. The reason the USA and Russia hate each other is because in essence they're so the same. Both large economic heavy weights who rely on military strength. Though it would be better for Europe if USA keeps the superpower position so the trade triad doesn't shift.

As for healthcare, as you point out it's most beneficial for the poor people. My family is pretty rich so they can easily afford health insurance for all of us. But it makes the social stabilty much bigger, knowing you can't end up on the street if things suddenly turn for the worse. It's one of the reasons why our economy reacts more slowly then yours, both ways. The recessions come later, the rise comes a bit later as well.

[Eugine]

I mean the general public doesn't know.

And Russia isn't an economic heavy weight who relies on military strength. The only people Russia can bully are its neighbours who are pretty much defenseless.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Sep 25 2008, 08:35 PM, said:

And Russia isn't an economic heavy weight who relies on military strength. The only people Russia can bully are its neighbours who are pretty much defenseless.

They can bully most of the world if they wanted to. Plus, Europe is addicted on Russia's gas. Russia's a pretty big export market and everything. Banking wise, they're horrible though.

But I guess the USA is sucking at banking as well these days.

[edit] And the USA doesn't exactly attack military strong countries either. You can hardly call Iraq an epic war.

[Eugine]

Well, isn't Europe Russia's neighbour? Ukraine, Georgia etc...
And I'm sorry, but the US won every war it part took in, and is on track to win in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And might I say, the war in Iraq is actually more difficult than previous wars since the terrorists do not represent a country but an idea. So yeah, I'll say it is an epic war =)

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Sep 25 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

Well, isn't Europe Russia's neighbour? Ukraine, Georgia etc...
And I'm sorry, but the US won every war it part took in, and is on track to win in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And might I say, the war in Iraq is actually more difficult than previous wars since the terrorists do not represent a country but an idea. So yeah, I'll say it is an epic war =)

Being the relatively young country the USA is, it isn't really an incredibly big achievement. Plus, half of the country lost in the civil war. [/smartass]

You can hardly call the Iraq war a war on the terrorists. Maybe a few Al Qaeda people, but those are mostly in Afghanistan. NATO's supporting there.

And by that first sentance, are you suggesting that Russia's bullying Europe?

[Eugine]

Of course it is. Europe cannot do anything to Russia because Russia will cut of its gas supply to Europe. Europe is far too dependent on Russia =)

[Gio]

Eugine, on Sep 25 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

Of course it is. Europe cannot do anything to Russia because Russia will cut of its gas supply to Europe. Europe is far too dependent on Russia =)

which is why America should be applauded for attempting to become energy independent.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 25 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

Again, you're speaking out from your American bias. Why is it that the United States dictates who is allowed to rise up?

Because Russia is far more tyrannous than America. No matter how much you might hate America for it's foreign policies, Russia would be ten times worse if it were the world Superpower.

Quote

So let me get this straight.
If it's the United States getting involved in international affairs and conflicts, it's just doing some "business".
If it's Russia rising up, they're hell-bent on taking over every country.

On the issue of Iraq, we've belabored it long enough. You think the USA has done (mostly) a good job in introducing "democracy", I say it's a lie and the pretense of the Iraq War was for the oil as well as the USA wanting to exert its influence everywhere - so they took down Saddam to put into power a puppet regime that they can control.

Pretty much, because even though Russia calims that it has a Republic, it is still largely communist at it's core. And no, Stalin is not a good person.

The US is not a perfect little angel. We've done some pretty bad stuff. No doubt about it. I'm not denying that America has done some evil things. HOWEVER, it's still much safer and wiser to have America as the workd superpower, than Russia.

Even though we've invaded Iraq, how many countries in total have we invaded "unprovoked"? The answer is zero. Our reasons may not be considered the best by all, but they're still good enough. Obviously, the idea behind the Iraq war is not entirely selfless. It wasn't only to liberate Iraq and give them a Democracy, it was also to get back at the terrorists and prevent another 9/11

And for the last time, prove to me that we went into the middle east to get oil. From the way I see it, if that were true, we would have actually gotten at least some. From my understanding, all the war's done is make prices go up, not down.

Quote

Once more, considering a generic Democrat vs. a generic Republican would be a crushing victory of at least 20 points in most polls, I find it hard to believe that racism isn't playing a factor here. People overwhelmingly want Democratic ideals, they know that the direction Bush has taken the country the past 8 years is pitiful, even though the USA is largely a right-winged population (unfortunately), the consensus is moving away from Bush as far as possible.

Yet, throw in the first African-American, and what should be a continually strong victory is a close election. Though, Obama has pulled in a reasonably strong lead the past week, narrow but solid, in the wake of the economic crisis.

Just shows you how Americans turn to Democrats after every financial crisis.

Being right-winged isn't a bad thing. We put our well being above that of strangers and wild assumptions *coughglobalwarmingcough* so that we may actually survive. Trying to prevent "global warming" by creating "green energy" and enacting outrageous standards for emissions. They only serve to harm our economy. Corn ethanol and California come to mind. I'm all for alternative energy as long as the reasons for developing it are energy independance, and not to be "green". For me, if it's "green", it's just an added bonus that's kinda nice. Plus, less smog.

If Obama was white, they would still be fairly close.Not as close as they are now, but it he definately wouldn't be winning by a landslide. Race plays a factor, but it's not hat serious.

Quote

And I believe John McCain voted against that bill.

I guess that's one of the reason's why I'm still not 100% satisfied with him.

Quote

I'll let the Europeans and Australians handle this one.

Universal healthcare is only as good as the government can afford. We're pretty far in the hole here.

Quote

What bothers me about McCain is that he is lowering taxes on the rich more than the middle class and the poor. As in giving the wealthy a proportionally far easier time, while comparatively the majority of the population don't receive as much.

Also, "trickle down" may work in theory, but Reagon's and both Bush's policies only drastically increased the federal deficit and widened wealth disparity further. It, practically, does not work.

The more you lower the taxes on the rich, the more money will be put back into the economy.

Lowering the taxes on the middle/lower class makes life easier for them and gives the economy a slight boost. Lowering taxes for the rich may not make much of a difference in their lifestyle, but it'll help the economy loads.

Though our deficit didn't go away immediately, it started to decrease after Reagan got into office. It continued to do so during Bush Sr.'s Presidency, and it broke into the green durring Clinton. Then when we went to war in Bush Jr.'s Presidency, we started to gain back that deficit.

Quote

No one said that grades were necessarily indicative of intelligence.
What I'm saying is, if you're basing your choice on presidency based solely on education, then Barack Obama being an A-student from Harvard University with magnacum laude honors fairly trumps John McCain's ranking of 894 out of 897 in his class.

My point is, is that even though Obama was an A student, if his test scores were Horrible, and McCain's were fantastic, I'd much rather have McCain. Tests are just as much a part of education as grades are.

Quote

Whether a nation should have the right to build a strong military is not what we're arguing here, it's how it's used that's the problem.

As long as I'm free to start my own buisness and live the way I want, I don't really care how the military is used. At least as long as it doesn't go around mass-murdering people.

Quote

You've only just realized? =/

No, I've realized for quite some time. Just because I only now brought it up doesn't mean I only just realized it.

But I'll remind everyone here that it's not only the Democrats or only the Republicans in the government who are corrupted. It's both sides of the isle.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Sep 25 2008, 09:06 PM, said:

Of course it is. Europe cannot do anything to Russia because Russia will cut of its gas supply to Europe. Europe is far too dependent on Russia =)

It's not that we don't have the fields. The North Sea and large parts of the Bering sea are filled with gas fields. It's just that Russia's gas is cheaper in comparison. Plus, they have bigger fields, so why waste our fields if we get them cheaper elsewhere?

But as for gas, it's not as if we can't do anything back. Like with Georgia, it's more that bullying Russia back would result in a big gas crisis for Italy and France. (Netherlands is relatively independent compared to other EU countries)

Gio, on Sep 26 2008, 05:23 AM, said:

which is why America should be applauded for attempting to become energy independent.

It's more of a reason to find an alternative energy source.

Super Crazy Conservative White B, on Sep 26 2008, 06:50 AM, said:

Because Russia is far more tyrannous than America. No matter how much you might hate America for it's foreign policies, Russia would be ten times worse if it were the world Superpower.Pretty much, because even though Russia calims that it has a Republic, it is still largely communist at it's core. And no, Stalin is not a good person.The US is not a perfect little angel. We've done some pretty bad stuff. No doubt about it. I'm not denying that America has done some evil things. HOWEVER, it's still much safer and wiser to have America as the workd superpower, than Russia.

As true as that is, please don't act like you want America to stay the superpower for the sake of the rest of the world. It's just the best position a country could be in really. You just... want that for your own country/union.

Super Crazy Conservative White B, on Sep 26 2008, 06:50 AM, said:

Even though we've invaded Iraq, how many countries in total have we invaded "unprovoked"? The answer is zero. Our reasons may not be considered the best by all, but they're still good enough. Obviously, the idea behind the Iraq war is not entirely selfless. It wasn't only to liberate Iraq and give them a Democracy, it was also to get back at the terrorists and prevent another 9/11And for the last time, prove to me that we went into the middle east to get oil. From the way I see it, if that were true, we would have actually gotten at least some. From my understanding, all the war's done is make prices go up, not down.

No one is stupid enough to invade countries without a reason these days. Not for the sake of geographical expansion anyway. They'll just ****ty reasons that make no real sense and thus are heavily criticised. Example, Russia vs. Georgia and... 'surprisingly' Iraq vs. America.

And for people who own and export oil privately somewhere else then Iraq. Oil prices rising would be beneficial. Though all that would add up to conspiracy theories and believing that would make me a hypocrite. Since I think the Iraq have WMD's is a bullcrack story as well. All I want is real proof.

[Gio]

Saturos Striker, on Sep 26 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

It's more of a reason to find an alternative energy source.

I agree, but we still are going to need our own oil for a while as a temporary fix because we simply don't have the infastructure right now to support those alternative energies, but I do agree that we need to expand our knowledge in the area of alternative energy, because it is the energy of the future.

[TheEnglishman]

Just a bit of light humour for you guys.

[Eugine]

Funny yeah, but omg, everything is pro-Obama in USA. Annoying.

Anyway, Obama is up 35 in EV for the first time. I hope there is an October surprise that destroys Obama (keke)! And Gio, I thought you said McCain WILL win Florida? McCain is now up only by 1 point!

[Gio]

McCain will win in Florida. Forget the polls they don't matter. :)

[Golden Legacy]

Seriously Eugine, stop it with the "October surprise" thing. It's flat-out annoying when you want the presidency decided on something like that and not the issues.

And McCain will win Florida, but he'll have to fight for it. McCain is limited by public funding, he received $84 million in federal money to spend for the general election, but can't spend or raise anymore. Obama is the first candidate in history to forgo the system, which means he has to raise the money on his own but also gives him an unlimited amount of money to spend theoretically.

The Obama campaign is investing $39 million in Florida, and there's the fact that 1.4 million young voters and African-American voters were registered but didn't vote in 2004.

The state still favors McCain, but he's going to have to fight hard for it.

[Eugine]

Ah well. Let us hope.

I'm surprised Obama is competitive though. I guess spending 40 million in Florida compared to McCain's 10 (I should double check that figure) explains why he is competitive. Why am I surprised?

Obama wants to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions and think Iran isn't a 'serious' threat (naively so), so that should atleast damage his Jewish votes.
He mocks McCain's age (terribly so), so that should damage his senior citizen votes.
Hillary supporters just dislike him (rightfully so), so that should damage his Hillary votes.
YET HE IS COMPETITIVE.

Ah well, let us hope you're right Gio.

[Aquamarine]

What the **** is wrong with you Eugine? You keep acting like you're a proud American citizen or something. Just start using your ****ing eyes and mind, you retard.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 26 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

Ah well. Let us hope.

I'm surprised Obama is competitive though. I guess spending 40 million in Florida compared to McCain's 10 explains why he is competitive. Why am I surprised?

Because he has the capability to and the support to.

Quote

Obama wants to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions and think Iran isn't a 'serious' threat (naively so), so that should atleast damage his Jewish votes.
He mocks McCain's age (terribly so), so that should damage his senior citizen votes.
Hillary supporters just dislike him (rightfully so), so that should damage his Hillary votes.
YET HE IS COMPETITIVE.

First of all, you and every other conservative have to stop treating Israel like it's the 51st state. Why do you think the entire Arab and Middle Eastern world loathe the USA for giving billions to Israel each year and supporting their military? The biased one-sided support of Israel has to change.

Obama has never outright commented on McCain's age, the same way McCain has never spoken of Obama's race.

Hillary and Barack are the same on 95% of the issues.

Seriously Eugine, you're rapidly losing my respect. You used to debate on the issues, making clear and justified claims, now you're just spitting out senseless biased junk. At least try making a point instead of throwing out a claim that you think is right.


EDIT: What Aqua said, yes.

[Eugine]

lol Aqua. I just think the attacks against USA is unjustified, so I'm here to defend it.
Trust me, I am a critic of USA, I just think you guys overblow it. Basically all of you think America is the great evil...

EDIT: GL, the reason why I do not discuss the issues is because EVERYONE knows the issues. If you want to discuss the issues, I could discuss the issues though. After months of discussing the issues, I would atleast hope everyone knows where everyone stands...

EDIT2: And honestly, my views are moderate GL.

[Golden Legacy]

Your relentless support for McCain, your "affection" for Palin, and defense of Bush would say otherwise. Now, to be fair, I do remember you being moderate, even liberal, generally, so I'm not sure if this shift is just with the election.

That said, the first presidential debate just ended.

Incredibly close debate. Obama came out better on the issue of the economy, the bailout, and on domestic issues like healthcare and education. McCain came out stronger on the focus of the debate on Iran, though Obama held his ground well and gave a stronger response to the question on Russia.

All in all, just about tied. McCain showed unusual wit and appealed with emotion more than expected, Obama showed a calmer demeanor and a strong grasp of judgment and intelligence.

[Toasty]

Aquamarine, on Sep 26 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

What the **** is wrong with you Eugine? You keep acting like you're a proud American citizen or something. Just start using your ****ing eyes and mind, you retard.

I could say the same for you, only instead of being a proud American, you're a biased asshole.

[Eugine]

I honestly do not know what to make of this debate. I found McCain to be better (this doesn't mean I believe he won the debate fyi), but Obama held his ground. No major mistakes by both candidates.
I'll see what the polls says because I think Obama somewhat achieved what he intended to do - Act like a credible commander-in-chief, and McCain achieved (but not a knockout) what he intended to do - Show that Obama's positions are dangerous and naive (and honestly his policies are dangerous and naive to be frank).

Obama, during the economic debate seemed more caring and for the middle class, while McCain did a poor job in explaining why Obama's economic plans are dangerous to the economy (even Obama said he may not raise taxes because it is a recipe for economic disaster!). McCain has to prepare extensively for the economic debate because I think Obama will win that debate.

All in all, I believe Obama won the debate (although there was not a clear winner) because the economy is the issue most voters are concerned about, and Obama clearly sounded more like the middle class fighter during the debate.
Foreign policy wise, Obama was weak, and I think terrible although he made no major mistakes (which is exactly what he was supposed to do). His best and only better response to the questions was when he explained how wrong McCain was in his initial statements on the Iraq war, and it seems like the Obama campaign agrees with me. Other than that, he constantly legitimized McCain by saying "John is right". Ok... I'm over analyzing!

And how did Obama give a better response to the Russia question? I found his entire foreign policy responses (except what I mentioned) to be weak. He was simply reciting talking points, while McCain knew what he was talking about and gave real life examples to explain why he held his view points everytime. Some pundits were saying it was a negative for McCain since Americans are focused on change and not experience. I differ though.

Anyway, I am more concerned about the VP debate. I am honestly worried that Palin will make major mistakes.

Oh, let me leave you with this funny Obama quote from the debate...
"I GOT A BRACELET TOO!" lolz, that sounded so childish.

[Legolastom]

Super Crazy Conservative White B, on Sep 27 2008, 05:02 AM, said:

I could say the same for you, only instead of being a proud American, you're a biased asshole.

I would say the same of you, only instead of being just a proud American or a biased asshole, your a proud ignorant biased asshole American.

[Golden Legacy]

Regarding the debate, Obama accomplished what he needed to do, which was to show that he could stand his ground against McCain in the area of foreign policy. While I do think McCain had the stronger edge on Afghanistan and terrorism (Obama won Iraq and Russia, in my opinion), there wasn't a decisive blow from either candidate.

The election's equilibrium is Obama having a narrow but consistent lead - if the debate can even be considered a tie, on the issue where McCain is strongest, that does spell trouble down the line for the debate on the economy and domestic issues.

One thing that I noticed was that Obama would look directly at McCain and look him in the eye while McCain never so much as glanced in Obama's face.

Quote

Oh, let me leave you with this funny Obama quote from the debate...
"I GOT A BRACELET TOO!" lolz, that sounded so childish.

That part was a bit weak, but it's no different than McCain saying "oh look, I have a pen... and it's just as old as me!"

[Gio]

I didn't get to see the debate. :)

[Ironsight]

I found the last 5 minutes of it. Obama was hard to listen to, bouncing back and forth on comments for every subject on each question. Very confusing.
But what do I know, I've never watched one of these before.

[Golden Legacy]

You see what you want to see. The general consensus among the polls is that McCain was the one who tended to deviate, while Obama gave direct and clearer responses.

[Eugine]

Anyway, if the race continues like it is today I have something to say - The race is over. Obama has won. Obama has a 6 point advantage in many polls :)

Now, only skeptical democrats who still believe America is a racist country thus the "bradley effect" and also republicans in denial will think otherwise =)

Funny that when democrats, the supposedly "above race" people looks at Obama they see a black man, who will lose because of his colour while republicans see a young and inexperienced candidate who is just not ready to be President.

[Golden Legacy]

70% of the American people think like Toasty's policies and beliefs.

This nation is ****ed.

[Eugine]

That didn't only sound condescending, but rude to Toasty GL. You may not understand why, but most Americans just believe in what Toasty believe in - Religion and guns, and well, if you don't agree with it, just migrate or something.

That statement is exactly why liberals have a hard time making it to the White House. Everyone of them believe (including Obama) that they are better than the average American (They just do a darn good job at hiding it - Oh, mind you Bill Clinton is a moderate democrat while JFK would be considered conservative in todays standard). Ah well, I really hope America just rejects Obama and his liberal friends philosophy November 4th, unfortunately, I think it is near impossible now because of the poor economy and his fake personality.

[Golden Legacy]

You know what Eugine, you ought to come down and live in the American south. Really. I'm sure all the conservatives would LOVE to have you down there. And they won't give a damn that you're black, they'll see that you're a conservative first and that's all they'll need to accept you.

It is frustrating to be locked in the mindset of the average American, where guns and abortions take precedence, that somehow they have a monopoly on the "moral issues".

America is the only industrialized nation in the world where the religious right plays such a dominant role in politics.

You're completely missing the point. I don't give a damn that Americans are hardcore Christians, that the right-winged morals dominates their beliefs. Yes, I do find it hard to believe how they revel in happiness with guns, are happy telling gays and lesbians that they aren't on par with others, that somehow they want to be "pro-life" and ban abortions yet support war and conflict.

I don't give a damn about their beliefs.

It's when their beliefs are the ones that dictate the beliefs of the nation as a whole that's a problem, and in turn the beliefs of all. It's when they believe that "America" should be spread throughout the world and "God is watching over America", if that's not arrogance then nothing is.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 28 2008, 10:58 AM, said:

70% of the American people think like Toasty's policies and beliefs.

This nation is ****ed.

Sorry but a lot of toasty's ideas are a little bit to extreme for me.