[Toasty]

Like what? It's not like I want to carpet bomb Iraq or something.

Golden Legacy, on Sep 28 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

70% of the American people think like Toasty's policies and beliefs.

People who think like me are ****ed.

Fixed.

[Eugine]

I don't really want to live in the south. I am actually for banning guns, and I'm a skeptic of religion, although I identify myself as Christian.
And neither do I want them to accept me. I am just tired of liberals considering themselves as superiors.

I am just tired of people, who do not know why people have those beliefs consider them to be backwards.
And trust me, your one sided views on conservatives is annoying. Isn't Gio a conservative? Would you consider him to be 'backwards'?

EDIT: And yes, like Gio said, Toasty views are the extreme of conservatism.

[Golden Legacy]

You've clearly missed out on what the conservatives have successfully done here in the States, which is to make out liberalism as a threat. There are just as many conservatives who think less of liberals as vice-versa.

And once more, it's not a manner of being "backwards". I dislike a lot of the hardcore "American culture", but I don't ever fault people for following it. I fault people when they want to impose those values on the rest of the nation. And the fact that 60% of the nation identifies as Evangelical Christians doesn't help either.

Are you asking me if I honestly think of people as backwards? A small, unbiased part of me will admit that I find liberals in general to at least be more forward-thinking and progressive. One only needs to look at the DNC vs. the RNC in terms of sexual orientations, races, ethnicities, etc. to explain. One only needs to look at the fact that Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery (the Republican party back then was liberal, the Democrats were conservative).


For the record, I too was raised religiously. I am actually a firm believer in God.


Again, I don't fault the people. I fault the notion that those people have that their values deserve to be imposed on others, when so much of it is based on religion - what they identify as "religious values", that only THEY have and only THEY can fully appreciate.

[Eugine]

And, that is not conservatism. Where do conservatives want to impose their beliefs on others? Conservatism is actually the opposite - less government intervention and strict constitutionalists.

[Gio]

Eugine, on Sep 28 2008, 09:58 PM, said:

And, that is not conservatism. Where do conservatives want to impose their beliefs on others? Conservatism is actually the opposite - less government intervention and strict constitutionalists.

*looks around and waves*

[Golden Legacy]

It's the religious side of it that bothers me that would have a prominent influence.
To bring it back home, let's say it's the difference between McCain and Palin.

McCain would be what you're referring to as 'conservative'.
Palin is what ACTUALLY is the decisive majority of those 'conservatives', or at least Republicans.

[Someone Else]

Eugine, on Sep 28 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

And, that is not conservatism. Where do conservatives want to impose their beliefs on others? Conservatism is actually the opposite - less government intervention and strict constitutionalists.

You need to live here to get a good opinion.

[Eugine]

And can you give me an example of where Palin imposed her views on others?

EDIT: And WD, conservatism is an ideology not distinct to America alone. There are actually conservatives throughout the world, with the same principles. My party of choice locally is conservative ^_~

[Golden Legacy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/19/...in4460985.shtml
http://www.nytimes.c...ion/26fri4.html

For one. Now, to be entirely fair, there are people who've tried to debunk this. The point is, she's so religiously extreme, imagine if McCain appointed members of the Supreme Court like Palin (which is expected to happen during the next presidency).


EDIT: Here is FactCheck.org's take.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_...ictims_pay.html

[Toasty]

GL, I really fail to see how she is religiously extreme. I doubt that the sole reason for her firing that guy was because he didn't give her his full support. Very rarely will a government official come right out and say why they fired someone because sometimes, it just isn't needed.

More likely, the guy was doing things to hinder Palin as a Mayor.

But I personally wouldn't want to make a rape victim pay for the thing themselves. It wouldn't make sense to get rid of them if it only saved 5 to 14k a year.

Eugine, on Sep 28 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

And can you give me an example of where Palin imposed her views on others?

EDIT: And WD, conservatism is an ideology not distinct to America alone. There are actually conservatives throughout the world, with the same principles. My party of choice locally is conservative ^_~

What I think WD meant is that to get a good opinion of Conservatives here in the US, you have to live here.

Generally speaking, a conservative in the US would have the same ideals as a Conservative where you live, but a Conservative in America might not think exactly the same as you do.

I think that's the point he was trying to get across.

[Golden Legacy]

^ The irony is what Americans see as liberal is actually "right" by world standards, especially in Europe and Latin America.

The Democrats are "right", the Republicans are "far right".
Obama is perhaps the first candidate who is ever truly "left" for American standards, but on the whole that makes him center compared with other places in the world.

[Eugine]

Well, we don't know if Sarah supported it. Guess we'll have to wait until she addresses the issue.

Anyway, I don't have anything else to say =)

[Golden Legacy]

Amen. I'm going to bed. May the ensuing Thursday debate between Sarah "Barracuda" and Joey "the Shark" be with you.

[Eugine]

haha. I think Biden will destroy her to be honest. Hopefully I am wrong.

And Toasty, yeah, you are right. Conservatives worldwide will have different values... They all have the same aim though: To preserve the status quo.

A conservative in one man land, may be a liberal in another?

EDIT: And gnite GL. We may have different political beliefs, but just remember... You and Gio are probably the only reasons why I still visit GSSF =)
Oh, http://www.nytimes.c.../29kristol.html
good article.

[Gio]

Wind Dude, on Sep 28 2008, 10:01 PM, said:

You need to live here to get a good opinion.

I live here and most of the conservatives I know think alot like me. I am slowly becoming more constitutionalist. Granted there are a lot of libertarians here who claim to be conservative.

Eugine, on Sep 28 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

haha. I think Biden will destroy her to be honest. Hopefully I am wrong.

And Toasty, yeah, you are right. Conservatives worldwide will have different values... They all have the same aim though: To preserve the status quo.

A conservative in one man land, may be a liberal in another?

EDIT: And gnite GL. We may have different political beliefs, but just remember... You and Gio are probably the only reasons why I still visit GSSF =)
Oh, http://www.nytimes.c.../29kristol.html
good article.

Thanks Eugine. That's pretty cool.: )

[Toasty]

I'm a pretty constitutionalist kind of person myself.

[Golden Legacy]

Then the Republicans missed out, they should have nominated this guy. Absolutely brilliant platform and ideology, I wouldn't mind voting for him to be honest.

[Toasty]

He's got some really good viewpoints, and is willing to say things that need to be said, that most other politicians wouldn't say, but there's some things I disagree with him on.

[Golden Legacy]

He sounds like a truer conservative than Palin, McCain, Romney, Thomson, all combined.


EDIT: LOL.

http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/palin-facebook-2.jpg

[Eugine]

.eugine, on Jan 14 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

Um, anyway I really hope Mitt Romney wins (I really love Ron Paul though but he wouldn't win). I think he has the best answers.

My first post in this topic =)

Ron Paul will never make it anywhere because his convictions are too clear. Unlike Obama and McCain, he will never pander to get votes, regardless of it being political suicide. You will never get a flip flop from him, while McCain has many and Obama has too many to count.

And, the Facebook satire is funny =)
McCain cannot use a computer because of his war injuries though, so part of it is actually incorrect.

[Golden Legacy]

First post in this topic.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 27 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

Obama won the South Carolina primary as of yesterday, a good sign and the momentum he needs heading into Super Tuesday.
Personally, I'm getting tired of the same old political rhetoric. I'm siding with Obama/Democrat here purely out of a desire to see something new (though I am very supportive of his economic and education platform too).

Wow was that long ago.
Seriously, go back through some of the first few pages, it'll hit you with the nostalgia.

Skidzorz, on Jan 27 2008, 10:20 PM, said:

Vote Obama, vote Obama, vote Obama.

Wind Dude, on Jan 28 2008, 12:35 AM, said:

^ I second that. Vote Obama for me, GL!

edit... wait, are you a registered Republican, GL?

lol.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 30 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

Then the Republicans missed out, they should have nominated this guy. Absolutely brilliant platform and ideology, I wouldn't mind voting for him to be honest.

Some people were turned off by Ron Paul in the beginning at the primaries he came off to some people as crazy sounding. Now I agree with a whole lot of things he says but he didn't get nominated so it doesn't really matter anymore.

[Eugine]

It's like Obama has a cult following or something.

Obama kids sings for their dear leader

Creepy if you ask me. Like some Obama cult...

[Golden Legacy]

Once more, you show a remarkable distaste for discussing the issues and instead throwing out senseless @#$%. Really Eugine, what's gotten into you?

[Eugine]

Well, I found this on the internet, so I decided to post it here... It just reminds me of Nazy Germany too much =(
It's like those people think Obama is the second coming of Jesus or something... That Obama will wave a magic wand, and make America perfect.

Plus, like I said, if you want to discuss the issues, we can discuss it. What exactly do you want us to discuss?

[Golden Legacy]

As opposed to the lovely Ms. Sarah Palin receiving protection against witchcraft?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TkViRp6W5oE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj-on3kfWuE...feature=related

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmat...nts_sarah_palin

Behind the Christian right's enthusiasm for Palin's conservative credentials is a visceral sense that that she has come from them, not to them. Some right-wing evangelicals even believe she has messianic potential. As former Christian Broadcasting Network vice president Jim Bramlett wrote, "Sarah is that standard God has raised up to stop the flood. She has the anointing."

The Christian right's analysis is accurate to a certain degree. While Palin may not be The One, she is certainly one of them. Her social policy views, from her rejection of scientific evidence on global warming to her opposition to publicly funding emergency contraception for rape victims, are explicitly influenced by the sectarian theology she has subscribed to since she was a teenager.

---

So seriously, stop spewing out the nonsense. In fact, I'd say there is every reason for people to be excited about Obama, after eight years of the disaster and filth known as the Bush administration, it's about time this nation was taken in a better direction.

And if it happens to be liberal, well then, conservatives should just suck it up. They brought Bush into power - twice - they continue to support the Iraq War and the "war on terror".

The sheer irony of it all is only after such a despicable and awful leader could a liberal, black man like Obama ever have a chance at being elected in a nation like the USA. His message of 'Change' resonates at an ideal time when people want to take back their country, he represents a paradigm shift especially after the failure of Bush.

[Eugine]

Well GL, the non-religious just can't understand the religious. What happened with Sarah in that video is normal to many pentecostal churches, and nothing is weird about the practice.

I am just appauled anyone would put so much faith in a politician, and this is why the video disturbs me. Reminds me of North Korea, China and Nazi Germany. I'm sorry, people elect government officials to serve them, not the other way around.

But anyway, let us discuss the issues. I like discussing the issues.

[Gio]

So what do you guys think of the bailout bill....or should I say "rescue plan" failing in the house?
Personally I don't like the idea of taxpayers money being spent for this. I think that there is no way that there isn't another alternative.

[Ironsight]

Eugine, on Sep 30 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

It's like Obama has a cult following or something.

Obama kids sings for their dear leader

Creepy if you ask me. Like some Obama cult...

That's exaclty what my dad said.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Sep 30 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

Well GL, the non-religious just can't understand the religious. What happened with Sarah in that video is normal to many pentecostal churches, and nothing is weird about the practice.

In case you don't know, I'm religious. I have both Christian (Catholic) and Muslim blood, and I consider myself both.

Quote

I am just appauled anyone would put so much faith in a politician, and this is why the video disturbs me. Reminds me of North Korea, China and Nazi Germany. I'm sorry, people elect government officials to serve them, not the other way around.

So let me get this straight.
Barack Obama has lead the strongest grass-roots organization in history. He has energized people, young voters like myself, who never thought they would care about politics or the elections. The force behind his campaign is almost incomprehensibly strong, people who volunteer and contribute their time and registration rates the likes of which has never been seen before.

I've seen it on my college campus. Most people my age wouldn't care about the elections coming up. But I see it everywhere. People are discussing the issues and the politics, even in dorms and in the classrooms. College students here keep up with the news and discuss it in everyday conversation, many are volunteering and knocking on doors and making phone calls and creating fundraisers. People are genuinely intrigued and excited by this election - on both ends - but moreso for Obama, especially for first-time voters like mself.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, I see it everyday and quite frankly, this is likely to be the election of a generation. I know that I, personally, am never going to be as excited about another campaign in my lifetime. This is my first time voting, and it'll also be the one I'll cast with the most I'll ever put into it. After this election, I'll be a voter but won't be as involved in another campaign.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 1 2008, 09:09 AM, said:

In case you don't know, I'm religious. I have both Christian (Catholic) and Muslim blood, and I consider myself both.

I really don't think he was talking about blood, but w/e.

[Legolastom]

He said he considers himself both.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 1 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

In case you don't know, I'm religious. I have both Christian (Catholic) and Muslim blood, and I consider myself both.
So let me get this straight.
Barack Obama has lead the strongest grass-roots organization in history. He has energized people, young voters like myself, who never thought they would care about politics or the elections. The force behind his campaign is almost incomprehensibly strong, people who volunteer and contribute their time and registration rates the likes of which has never been seen before.

I've seen it on my college campus. Most people my age wouldn't care about the elections coming up. But I see it everywhere. People are discussing the issues and the politics, even in dorms and in the classrooms. College students here keep up with the news and discuss it in everyday conversation, many are volunteering and knocking on doors and making phone calls and creating fundraisers. People are genuinely intrigued and excited by this election - on both ends - but moreso for Obama, especially for first-time voters like mself.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, I see it everyday and quite frankly, this is likely to be the election of a generation. I know that I, personally, am never going to be as excited about another campaign in my lifetime. This is my first time voting, and it'll also be the one I'll cast with the most I'll ever put into it. After this election, I'll be a voter but won't be as involved in another campaign.

People your age have always been near the center of politics, its nothing new.

[Golden Legacy]

Older students, parents - and even college professors - would indicate otherwise.

[Gio]

Miley Cyrus, on Oct 1 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

People your age have always been near the center of politics, its nothing new.

GL is right younger people have been more important of a group in this election than in any other.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 1 2008, 10:09 AM, said:

In case you don't know, I'm religious. I have both Christian (Catholic) and Muslim blood, and I consider myself both.
So let me get this straight.
Barack Obama has lead the strongest grass-roots organization in history. He has energized people, young voters like myself, who never thought they would care about politics or the elections. The force behind his campaign is almost incomprehensibly strong, people who volunteer and contribute their time and registration rates the likes of which has never been seen before.

I've seen it on my college campus. Most people my age wouldn't care about the elections coming up. But I see it everywhere. People are discussing the issues and the politics, even in dorms and in the classrooms. College students here keep up with the news and discuss it in everyday conversation, many are volunteering and knocking on doors and making phone calls and creating fundraisers. People are genuinely intrigued and excited by this election - on both ends - but moreso for Obama, especially for first-time voters like mself.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, I see it everyday and quite frankly, this is likely to be the election of a generation. I know that I, personally, am never going to be as excited about another campaign in my lifetime. This is my first time voting, and it'll also be the one I'll cast with the most I'll ever put into it. After this election, I'll be a voter but won't be as involved in another campaign.

Well, this doesn't matter because like you said, when they go behind the curtains, they will never vote for a black man. They're gonna work their arse of for Obama, but vote for McCain in the end. :!:

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, that statement was completely uncalled for. Really. For twisting words around, completely ignoring reality, mocking the efforts and sincerity that people have put into these campaigns, and making perhaps the most blunt statement of this topic.

[Gio]

It seem to me as if he is just poking fun at you, and quite honestly....it was pretty funny.

[Golden Legacy]

Now that I reread it I can see how it might have been funny. Eugine, care to clarify how you intended it?

[Eugine]

It was a joke lol... I just found it ironic that a few pages back you were saying that the Bradley Effect will cost Obama the election, and now you think Obama has the strongest grassroots organisation ever. You are basically saying that you do not believe in the people you are praising and that their work will be a sham.

Anyway, I still think Obama will win this election, by a landslide it seems like now, unless something dramatic happens (like Palin delivers an excellent debate performance, but I am worried she will not.)
Gio, Obama is up by 5 points in some polls in Florida now btw. I hope you are right.

Anyway, must I confirm my love for Sarah even more after less than stellar interviews. I am really shocked about the media double standard btw. When Bill Clinton ran for office in 1992, he had no clue about foreign policy except for trade, yet that was not an issue. Now people expect Sarah, a governor to be an expert in foreign policy. Can't please them all. I hope she proves everyone wrong today. Ah well with the recent revelation that the moderator of today's debate is an Obama supporter, I am even less confident Sarah will be given a fair shake in today's debate (I am appauled as to how liberals control every major media network except Fox. How do conservatives win elections in USA for crying out loud when the 'mainstream media' is against them?).

And must I say, her accomplishments far outshines Obama's, and if anyone wants to debate this, I will, because I am appauled that people can say she is not experienced then look Obama in the eye then say he is experienced enough to be President.

Finally, I predict Sarah Palin will be the female Ronald Reagan, and the American counterpart of Margaret Thatcher even if Obama wins this election.

[Split Infinity]

Wow, some people need to lighten up...

[Eugine]

Why should anyone lighten up? This election is the most important election America has faced in modern years, and ultimately the world because both are offering totally different directions on how to govern America, which will affect the entire world.

Plus, regardless of ideology, I think this election has finally made the world involved in the political process (but hey, people like GL think it is a referendum on how Obama brought people into the process, but I differ). I honestly think this is good for worldwide democracy. You should read articles on how Iranians are amazed by the political process in America and I think there is now an underground movement in Iran for free and fair election there. The world (ie everyone outside the USA) will be pissed if Obama loses though. Iran's President will be most dissapointed if Obama loses since he will not be offered a visit to the White House without preconditions! =)

Trust me, I think this election will be excellent for democracy.

[Split Infinity]

I wasn't talking about the election. e_e

[Eugine]

Well, this is an election topic. What are you talking about then?

[Split Infinity]

...no comment. xP

I'm really not interested in the election at all to be honest.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 1 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

In case you don't know, I'm religious. I have both Christian (Catholic) and Muslim blood, and I consider myself both.


So let me get this straight.
Barack Obama has lead the strongest grass-roots organization in history. He has energized people, young voters like myself, who never thought they would care about politics or the elections. The force behind his campaign is almost incomprehensibly strong, people who volunteer and contribute their time and registration rates the likes of which has never been seen before.

I've seen it on my college campus. Most people my age wouldn't care about the elections coming up. But I see it everywhere. People are discussing the issues and the politics, even in dorms and in the classrooms. College students here keep up with the news and discuss it in everyday conversation, many are volunteering and knocking on doors and making phone calls and creating fundraisers. People are genuinely intrigued and excited by this election - on both ends - but moreso for Obama, especially for first-time voters like mself.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, I see it everyday and quite frankly, this is likely to be the election of a generation. I know that I, personally, am never going to be as excited about another campaign in my lifetime. This is my first time voting, and it'll also be the one I'll cast with the most I'll ever put into it. After this election, I'll be a voter but won't be as involved in another campaign.

Please don't tell me you just started getting into politics this election season.

It's nice to see that there's more young people interested, but it doesn't do any good if they only look at the surface of the policies. They need to disect them and have a full understanding of what the policies will do, and what the repurcussions might be.

On the surface, making it easier for people to get loans to buy a house is great. It gives more people the chance to own their own home. But because of that we're now seriously ****ed. We'll be lucky to get by this thing without any repurcussions (short or long term).

I'll bet you that most of these new voters (especially the ones rooting for Obama), would have thought that making loans easier to obtain was a great idea. However, it's obvious now that it wasn't.

[Gio]

Sorry Toasty I got to defend GL here. Whether or not it is his first election it seems to me that he has dissected the issues, and he is pretty knowledgeable on the subjects, the only reason his opinions differ from yours is because your beliefs are pretty much completely different from his.

@Eugine-I am starting to get worried about Florida to. There was even an Obama rally in my own town...wtf.

Also what is up with this early voting crap in Ohio.

[Golden Legacy]

Thank you Gio, I appreciate that.

And even I am surprised at the recent Obama shift and momentum. I mean, look at this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma..._mccain/?map=10

Florida, Ohio, even Virginia and North Carolina? The latter two states haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964 I believe, and no one has ever lead in them, especially just a month outside the election.

If I was the McCain campaign right now, I would have to start coalescing resources - decide on either Michigan or Pennsylvania, not both. Forget about Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico and start defending Ohio - no Republican has ever won the election without Ohio, and even Florida it's clear that resting on its history isn't going to be enough.

All in all, I'm both impressed by the Obama campaign that they are making such conservative states competitive, happy by it, but also seriously just taken aback that such a dramatic shift happened so soon.

[Saturos S.]

The problem with McCain is, he has a 30% of dying during his 4-year period. Sarah Palin would then become president. The next election race would then be between Palin and Clinton (well, most likely if Obama loses).

I've got nothing against emancipation, but that's a tad too much.

[Drizzy Drake]

Somebody could take out Clinton for the spot though. Who says she'll want to do it in 4 years? Bill could die or something.

Also, how is that too much? We have two men doing it every year, why not too women. If they truely are EQUAL, then why should we feel it unfair if two females are running?

Oh, and I know this is kinda off-topic, but I find it funny that Cheney knew how much he was hated, and didn't run because he knew he'd lose.

[Golden Legacy]

Vanessa Hudgens, on Oct 2 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

Oh, and I know this is kinda off-topic, but I find it funny that Cheney knew how much he was hated, and didn't run because he knew he'd lose.

"It's firm, final, fixed, irrevocable, I don't know how else I can say it. If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve." - Cheney

I absolutely abhor the man, he and Rumsfeld, what awful sinister people...

[Eugine]

Honestly, McCain is the only person out of the four candidates I think will make a great President in this election cycle. I think Sarah will do a better job than Obama and Biden as President though, since I think she is on the right side of the issues.

I am greatly disturbed by Obama's economic policy and worse foreign policy proposals. I hope if elected, he will be smart enough to not raise taxes and increase government spending during an economic downturn. Combined with the cost of this bailout, I am appauled he will still continue with his massive government increase. Doesn't he know USA is broke?
Foreign policy wise, McCain and Obama has similar world views - Protect America, (one which McCain helped shaped btw. After all, before he thought Iran posed no threat to the USA, now it is a serious threat! As far as I am concerned, this is far more dangerous than Sarah's entire missteps during the Katie interview) but when analysing the situation, Obama policies are just... naive.
While doing some reading yesterday, I found the weakest foreign policy proposal ever - He believes he can get Europe to contribute more to the war on terror and handling Russia. First of all, not only is Europe divided, but Europe cannot do anything to help this issue since most of Europe is under the grip of Russia becuase of energy issues. He believes Germany will suddenly send their forces to Afghanistan because he has his way with words. His narcissistic attitude is unbearable. And also, Europe has a terrible military, so I doubt they could contribute anything significant if they want to. Plus, may I ask Europeans here, do you want your troops contributing to the war on terror? I am sure Europeans do not want to help. But ah well, with his messiah speeches, he can do anything I guess. Oh, and the willing countries are already helping out - UK and Spain.

I honestly fear an Obama Presidency. I am just being honest. If he wins, I will of course give him a clean slate, then judge him by his actions as President. Same goes to McCain.

[Golden Legacy]

Considering McCain voted for the bailout too, your point here is moot.

Regardless of who the next president will be, they're going to have to deal with the mess of the Bush administration. Tackling a $10 trillion debt is going to be unfeasible on many levels.

On foreign policy, Obama trumps McCain easily and simply.

Barack Obama was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. McCain supported it.
That alone makes me more comfortable having Obama as commander-in-chief. Obama would never go into war unnecessarily, would never justify conflict with false intelligence, would never mercilessly support the slaughter of innocent civilians just for oil.

McCain, in his continued defense of Bush's judgments and proposals, would.

And if you deny this, just remember that George Bush ran as a president who would have a "moderate foreign policy". Now you're falling for it again, it sounds like.

The "war on terror" is something that the Bush regime constructed, now it's up to the next president to follow through the mess left behind. Everything that the Bush legacy will have - the economy, foreign policy, domestic issues - is in shambles, and for you to lay blame just because you aren't willing to recognize this is naive.


Once more, I feel safer with Barack Obama as president, not another ruthless war tyrant and his religious fanatic of a partner.

[Eugine]

I didn't say voting for the bailout was bad. I actually disagree with the bailout btw, but I think inaction was not the answer of course. Why do American taxpayers have to pay for corrupt politicians and CEOs missteps? I think the government should have loaned the businesses the money rather than let taxpayers pay, but w/e both candidates support the bailout, so we can't have a debate on who has better judgement here.
I did say though, even after the bailout, Obama still wants to add 1 trillion in new government spending, and increase the size of government. I just think this is dumb.

Regarding the Iraq war, I was looking for an article where Obama in 2004/2005 said he doesn't have major disagreements with President Bush on the handling of the Iraq war (but can't find it). So to say he has superior judgement over Iraq is overblown by the media. This is Bill Clinton addressing the issue
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=K1Ytbr-7VaE
Too bad I cannot find the actual quotes.

And I have already said, I think Bush did a poor job as President. I just think McCain will do a better job at cleaning up the mess. Plus, Obama policies are terrible.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 2 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

I did say though, even after the bailout, Obama still wants to add 1 trillion in new government spending, and increase the size of government. I just think this is dumb.

You've conveniently overlooked how McCain will cause the deficit to increase moreso.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...125962320080611
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../1027/OPINION01

And federal spending is fine if you invest in jobs and put people to work. That's how FDR helped the nation out the Great Depression of the '30s, by creating tons of social work and programs that produced millions of new jobs and helped stimulate the economy once more.

Quote

Regarding the Iraq war, I was looking for an article where Obama in 2004/2005 said he doesn't have major disagreements with President Bush on the handling of the Iraq war (but can't find it). So to say he has superior judgement over Iraq is overblown by the media. This is Bill Clinton addressing the issue
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=K1Ytbr-7VaE

Note the date of the video.
January 8th, 2008.
It was still Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama.

Quote

And I have already said, I think Bush did a poor job as President. I just think Obama will do a better job at cleaning up the mess.

Which is how I see it. Also, just think about it logically - whose platform is closer to Bush's? Whose policies (which used to be bipartisan) have now shifted back right-winged to the Republicans?

When I used to live and visit my dad down near Atlanta, Georgia (about an hour away), I would see people who voted for Bush once, voted for Bush twice. They said they were proud to do so back then.

Every person I talk to now honestly regrets voting Republican twice. McCain now echoes a lot of Bush's policies when he was running for president himself. Which is why these people - hardcore conservatives - are now considering voting Democrat for the first time in their lives after a failed Republican administration that has not evoked even the slightest mantra of their beliefs.

[Gio]

Eugine, on Oct 2 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

I didn't say voting for the bailout was bad. I actually disagree with the bailout btw, but I think inaction was not the answer of course. Why do American taxpayers have to pay for corrupt politicians and CEOs missteps? I think the government should have loaned the businesses the money rather than let taxpayers pay, but w/e both candidates support the bailout, so we can't have a debate on who has better judgement here.
I did say though, even after the bailout, Obama still wants to add 1 trillion in new government spending, and increase the size of government. I just think this is dumb.

Regarding the Iraq war, I was looking for an article where Obama in 2004/2005 said he doesn't have major disagreements with President Bush on the handling of the Iraq war (but can't find it). So to say he has superior judgement over Iraq is overblown by the media. This is Bill Clinton addressing the issue
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=K1Ytbr-7VaE
Too bad I cannot find the actual quotes.

And I have already said, I think Bush did a poor job as President. I just think McCain will do a better job at cleaning up the mess. Plus, Obama policies are terrible.

And just to top off what you said about the bailout. We just don't need our economy to get used to these government bailouts. And as the past has shown whenever we think we need something we convince ourselves that we will fail without it. I think that if we become convinced that we can't function without these bailouts that we will become dependent on them, and the vicious cycle will continue.

Anyway I asked earlier, but I don't think anyone said anything. What do you guys think of voting early in Ohio?

[Golden Legacy]

Oh, for the record, I am against the bailout (mostly so at least). I think with stricter provisions indicating that taxpayers will get their money back if the market provides for it in a few years is better, but still not ideal.

Also, regarding early voting, it's typically the really partisan folks who vote early. People in this election who are hardcore for McCain or Obama and wouldn't shift for anything. I don't see why not actually, especially if it lessens the chaos on Election Day.

Although understandably, the early voting no doubt favors Obama because the financial crisis is still very much in the news, the same way that early voting favored Bush in 2004 because the Iraq War was still at the forefront of voters' concerns (and once John Kerry's own Vietnam veteran record was tarnished, thanks to the GOP attacks).

[Eugine]

I honestly do not know American history, so I can't comment on FDR, but that article doesn't paint the whole picture. Even the article says that.
"and that's before spending proposals are considered."
"Burman said the analysis deliberately left out spending proposals to focus on the tax side of the equation. He added that Obama's plans for universal health insurance could add significantly to the national debt, while failure to achieve spending cuts and continued Iraq war spending at high levels under McCain could also raise deficits."
Plus, McCain promises to cut government spending, and has identified programs he will cut such as the overlaps in defense spending, while Obama cannot name a single program he will cut. Plus, USA is winning the Iraq war, so in about a year or two, the cost of the Iraq war will be significantly decreased.
The second article shows how reaganomics works, and McCain and especially Sarah believes in it. He presided over a huge economic expansion while deficits soared.... McCain wants to balance the budget though =)

The date doesn't change the fact that Obama's entire platform is a lie promoted by the media imo =)

And people regret voting for Bush? They should I guess. I hope they do not regret voting for Obama! =)

EDIT: Gio, I think the early voting will benefit Obama since people are reminded of Bush now. I think there is going to be huge voter fraud also btw.

[Golden Legacy]

What are you talking about? Does the Iraq War not count as 'government spending'? Obama wants to end that, which has already cost the USA $1.5 trillion.

As for "Reaganomics" - giving money to the rich and having it 'trickle down' - does. not. work.

You posted it yourself. Reagan oversaw the largest expansion of the federal deficit at the time while the wealth inequality gap increased.

It works in theory - I applaud McCain and Palin for believing in theory - but practically it does not work.


Here is the classic example of the difference between liberal and conservative economics.

Conservatism: give money to the few, the rich, have them dictate the economy and stimulate it to their extent, from the top down.

Liberalism: give money to the middle class, the many, the workers, the poor, have them stimulate the economy from the ground up.

[Eugine]

The Iraq war does count as government spending. My point is, with the recent success of the surge, America is winning the war, and soon the Iraqis will be able to defend their country by themselves. I also think the Iraqis will pay back the USA some of the war cost.

And trickle down do infact work. As much as Obama wants to protray trickle down as the problem, it is not... It was the increased government spending and the weakening of the dollar that caused the decrease in wages of American workers.

And why do you put so much faith in government? Regarding USA ALONE - They ruined education with the Department of Education, failed to acheive energy independence with the Department of Energy, has terrible border security with the Department of Homeland Security, and I can go on and on and on... I'm sorry, but the private sector is by far better than any government agency. You should really check out Ireland. Pure example on how McCain economic proposals work. If you can find a socialist system that works in the world, link me.

And lol, your view on conservatism/liberalism economic policy is terrible.
Conservatism: Do not take taxes from anyone, and let the government earn money through revenues. I do admit, Bush tax codes is unfair... McCain plans to make it fairer by decreasing tax burdens on everyone.
Liberalism: Take money from the rich, give it to the poor and hope they suddenly become better spenders, while food prices and everything skyrocket because of increased tax burdens on companies. Terrible philosophy imo. I'll like to see the middle class and government get money when their employers lay them off, decreasing productivity.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 2 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

The Iraq war does count as government spending. My point is, with the recent success of the surge, America is winning the war, and soon the Iraqis will be able to defend their country by themselves. I also think the Iraqis will pay back the USA some of the war cost.

Being opposed to the war from the start trumps the 'surge'. You and every other Bush/McCain supporter like to think the Iraq War began in 2007, when it actually began in 2003.

Also, if the 'surge' worked, then why is the Bush administration barely removing troops from Iraq? There are still 140,000 troops that will be in Iraq even after Bush leaves office.

Further, why has it taken both Bush and McCain 5 years to realize that Afghanistan needs support, when Obama has been calling for reinforcements there since the beginning?

Quote

And why do you put so much faith in government? Regarding USA ALONE - They ruined education with the Department of Education, failed to acheive energy independence with the Department of Energy, has terrible border security with the Department of Homeland Security, and I can go on and on and on... I'm sorry, but the private sector is by far better than any government agency. You should really check out Ireland. Pure example on how McCain economic proposals work. If you can find a socialist system that works in the world, link me.

This is ANOTHER tactic you throw out constantly. Stop using baseless claims here.

I am basing it on history. FDR created the WPA, Social Security, many workers and labor organizations that created millions of new jobs for Americans. I support Barack Obama's plan to invest in alternative energy which will create 5 million new jobs, in the same vein as FDR.

Quote

Conservatism: Do not take taxes from anyone, and let the government earn money through revenues. I do admit, Bush tax codes is unfair... McCain plans to make it fairer by decreasing tax burdens on everyone.
Liberalism: Take money from the rich, give it to the poor and hope they suddenly become better spenders, while food prices and everything skyrocket because of increased tax burdens on companies. Terrible philosophy imo. I'll like to see the middle class and government get money when their employers lay them off, decreasing productivity.

Conservatism: what kind of nonsense did you post? Taxes have existed for centuries, somehow you're making out "fiscal conservatism" to remove them completely?

And further, McCain supports Bush's tax cuts.

Conservative beliefs concentrate the money in the wealthy and the rich, who have it in turn in investments, not liquid capital. When the money ends up in that elite 1%, it stays there, immobile, tailoring to their large corporative bonuses and stocks, not market fluidity.

As for liberalism, you have exaggerated greatly. It favors lowering tax rates on the middle class and the poor - which make up 95% of the population, and having them spend more and invest back in the economy, while giving them a chance at better standards of living.

Fiscal conservatism favors the 1% elite rich, immediately, while the middle class and the poor fight for the remaining wealth that's been siphoned away from them.

Fiscal liberalism favors the population's majority, the middle class and the poor, giving them more opportunity to improve their lives, maintain decent health benefits, increase their standards of living.


Which would you instinctively favor more, a teacher or a CEO executive? A Wall Street tycoon who makes millions of dollars in bonuses alone, or a doctor, lawyer, professor, steel worker who have more direct and humane professions?

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Oct 2 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

And lol, your view on conservatism/liberalism economic policy is terrible.
Conservatism: Do not take taxes from anyone, and let the government earn money through revenues. I do admit, Bush tax codes is unfair... McCain plans to make it fairer by decreasing tax burdens on everyone.
Liberalism: Take money from the rich, give it to the poor and hope they suddenly become better spenders, while food prices and everything skyrocket because of increased tax burdens on companies. Terrible philosophy imo. I'll like to see the middle class and government get money when their employers lay them off, decreasing productivity.

Your's is even worse.

Economic liberals today stress the importance of a free market and free trade, and seek to limit governement intervention in both the domestic economy and foreign trade. Modern liberal movements often agree in principle with the idea of free trade, but maintain some skepticism, seeing unrestricted trade as leading to the growth of multi-national corporations and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few.

Quote

Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, free market or economic liberalism, social conservatism, and religious conservatism, as well as support for a strong military, small goverment and states' rights.

Basically the terms are so mixed up you can't really label them black and white like you both did.

[Eugine]

Wow, are you part of the Obama campaign GL? I see those same talking points everywhere!

First of all, if the Iraq war didn't have troubling times, no one would be been against the war now. The fact is, Bush mismanaged the war. McCain, after visiting Iraq in 2004, called for a new strategy - more troops in Iraq, that is the surge. If this tactic was enacted then, rather than last year, because of McCain's good judgement, Iraq would not have been this huge mess.
Fact is, General Petraeus said the surge success is fragile, and removing troops from Iraq will be devastating to the progress they made. Rather than living up to political ideologies, Bush is finally taking advise from commanders in Iraq, who knows the situation better than everyone. McCain will remove troops when the generals say it is good to, not when he thinks it is good to. It seems to be Obama is playing politics with the troops lives.

Secondly, do you think McCain doesn't know Afghanistan needs more troops? He called for it. He simply do not want to pull out of Iraq soon like Obama says, because he does not want Iraq to meet the same faith as Afghanistan - ie, a resurgence of terrorists.

Regarding, energy, McCain favours everything Obama favours plus offshore drilling and nuclear energy. So to act like Obama's energy plan is superior is wrong. Plus, with Sarah Palin, who has the most knowledge on energy out of the four candidates will help in acheiving energy independence quicker.

And yes, strict conservatives do not want any taxes at all. They believe in earning money through revenues such as the VAT. They believe the people can use their money better than the government, and I agree.
And, should I address the rest of your post? Lots of misconceptions there.

EDIT: SS, Economic liberalism is associated with conservatism. I suggest doing your homework next time.
From Wikipedia alone:
"Today, economic liberalism is associated with capitalism, neoliberalism and some schools of conservatism, particularly liberal conservatism. For these reasons it has sometimes been referred to, especially in Britain and North America, as economic conservatism, while "economic liberalism" has been applied since the early 20th century to the economic theories and policies of progressive liberal thinkers and parties."

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 2 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

Being opposed to the war from the start trumps the 'surge'. You and every other Bush/McCain supporter like to think the Iraq War began in 2007, when it actually began in 2003.

Also, if the 'surge' worked, then why is the Bush administration barely removing troops from Iraq? There are still 140,000 troops that will be in Iraq even after Bush leaves office.

Further, why has it taken both Bush and McCain 5 years to realize that Afghanistan needs support, when Obama has been calling for reinforcements there since the beginning?
This is ANOTHER tactic you throw out constantly. Stop using baseless claims here.

I am basing it on history. FDR created the WPA, Social Security, many workers and labor organizations that created millions of new jobs for Americans. I support Barack Obama's plan to invest in alternative energy which will create 5 million new jobs, in the same vein as FDR.
Conservatism: what kind of nonsense did you post? Taxes have existed for centuries, somehow you're making out "fiscal conservatism" to remove them completely?

And further, McCain supports Bush's tax cuts.

Conservative beliefs concentrate the money in the wealthy and the rich, who have it in turn in investments, not liquid capital. When the money ends up in that elite 1%, it stays there, immobile, tailoring to their large corporative bonuses and stocks, not market fluidity.

As for liberalism, you have exaggerated greatly. It favors lowering tax rates on the middle class and the poor - which make up 95% of the population, and having them spend more and invest back in the economy, while giving them a chance at better standards of living.

Fiscal conservatism favors the 1% elite rich, immediately, while the middle class and the poor fight for the remaining wealth that's been siphoned away from them.

Fiscal liberalism favors the population's majority, the middle class and the poor, giving them more opportunity to improve their lives, maintain decent health benefits, increase their standards of living.
Which would you instinctively favor more, a teacher or a CEO executive? A Wall Street tycoon who makes millions of dollars in bonuses alone, or a doctor, lawyer, professor, steel worker who have more direct and humane professions?

Sorry but just saying that conservatives believe in giving money to the wealthy is absurd. You are spinning this to no end. Conservatives believe that you make money through success and they don't believe in taking people's success from them and giving it to the poor, and lets face it the majority of the poor don't strive for success they just take the government handouts and complain when they don't get enough. Seriously this is socialism stop pushing for it in a capitalistic society.

[Eugine]

You know Gio, while I read GL post regarding the tax codes I had to roll my eyes. His entire tax policy is just Obama talking points, which obviously GL believes, although it is completely false.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxand...whopaysmost.htm
Read the statistics, which is the truth. Or you can believe Obama's garbage of talking points. And I never knew fiscal conservatism and fiscal liberalism were policy proposals and campaign talking points.

Like I said before, American middle class families are hurting not because of the tax policies, but because of the weak dollar. The government is just spending too much, creating too much money out of thin air. I am almost 100% sure McCain has a policy which involves strengthening the dollar, and that starts by decreasing government spending. That will decrease the prices of so many commodies, which includes oil and foreign products Americans import.

[Golden Legacy]

I don't have time to respond now, but Eugine we all know how much you want to be in Sarah Palin's bed.

Stop with the arrogant tone and thinking you're more intelligent by responding back with McCain's talking points.

[Drizzy Drake]

merked

[Gio]

Eugine, on Oct 2 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

You know Gio, while I read GL post regarding the tax codes I had to roll my eyes. His entire tax policy is just Obama talking points, which obviously GL believes, although it is completely false.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxand...whopaysmost.htm
Read the statistics, which is the truth. Or you can believe Obama's garbage of talking points. And I never knew fiscal conservatism and fiscal liberalism were policy proposals and campaign talking points.

Like I said before, American middle class families are hurting not because of the tax policies, but because of the weak dollar. The government is just spending too much, creating too much money out of thin air. I am almost 100% sure McCain has a policy which involves strengthening the dollar, and that starts by decreasing government spending. That will decrease the prices of so many commodies, which includes oil and foreign products Americans import.

Eugine is right, if you want I will respond at later date as to why I think so, but I have to get to my government class. Remember VP debate is tonight.

[Eugine]

Of course I love Sarah.

But anyway GL, I do not want to sound arrogant... My post was less of a referendum on you, but on the campaign in general.
1) I am fustrated that Obama is winning the election.
2) I am tired of Obama just going on campaign stumps, spewing misinformation and people believing it. Blaming everything on reaganomics, when it is far from that. Plus, democrats are to blame for this F&F mess.
3) I am fustrated that McCain has yet to get a coherent message which weakens Obama and his message, and not exposing Obama for his misinformation.
4) I am worried that Sarah will not do good on the debate tonight, and everyone will consider her "retarded", and clearly ignore the wonderful record she has in Alaska.

[Ironsight]

Watching the debate right now. Sarah Palin's kinda hot...

[Eugine]

Wow, she's pwning in the debate. I love her :!:
EDIT: She pwnt Biden lol. PWNT.

[Ironsight]

Yeah, she's kicking ass.

[Golden Legacy]

Right, because clearly the McCain supporters are not going to be biased.
I'll give her credit, she came out stronger than I expected. Still, relatively even debate, I'll give Biden the edge on healthcare, energy, and Afghanistan, Palin came out stronger on Iraq, supporting McCain's "maverick" reputation, and being wittier.

[Ironsight]

Lol "Bosniac's"

[Golden Legacy]

You're not very well-informed are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks

[Eugine]

I GIVE PALIN ON EVERYTHING!!!!! OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE HER!!!!!!!!!!

[Golden Legacy]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 2 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

I don't have time to respond now, but Eugine we all know how much you want to be in Sarah Palin's bed.

Eugine, on Oct 2 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

I GIVE PALIN ON EVERYTHING!!!!! OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE HER!!!!!!!!!!

And there we go folks.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 2 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

And there we go folks.

Typical.

[Eugine]

I just do. I honestly think she is the next Ronald Reagan!

[Gio]

The way I see it is that if Palin had tied Biden it would have been seen as a win for Palin just as everyone said the same about Obama in the Presidential debate, but she didn't tie she far exceeded expectations. Needless to say, Eugine should be pleased.

[Golden Legacy]

No doubt. I guess lowering expectations for her was a wise move by the McCain campaign, and that four day debate boot camp definitely helped.

Ironically, there seems to be a similarity between the debates. McCain and Palin both generated a lot of energy - the latter, almost nauseatingly so with her winks and tone - while Obama and Biden kept a straight composure when answering and were calm, collected, and direct.

Interesting trend here. Towards the end Biden did show some genuine compassion when talking about his family, he went emotional when talking about his wife dying and seeing his sons injured and nearly dead in the hospital.

[Eugine]

Well, the media will obviously think she lost.

[Golden Legacy]

Oh quit it with your media bias ****. You complain about the race card being used, I complain about you using the media bias card.

[Eugine]

Trust me, they'll be spining her into negative oblivion 2moro.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 2 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

Ironically, there seems to be a similarity between the debates. McCain and Palin both generated a lot of energy - the latter, almost nauseatingly so with her winks and tone - while Obama and Biden kept a straight composure when answering and were calm, collected, and direct.

Don't forget boring, and full of bull****.

-1900-

[Eugine]

Lol, Palin made Biden angry. JAJAJAJA

[Golden Legacy]

The only bull**** was the condescending tones of both McCain and Palin, and her constant winking.

[Eugine]

lol, Obama/Biden = CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE. Yet in every statement, BUSH BUSH BUSH!

[Golden Legacy]

And McCain/Palin = MAVERICKS MAVERICKS MAVERICKS REFORM, but come to the defense of Cheney and the Iraq War.

You would also do well to at least show a bit of decency, I concede the points that both McCain and Palin did well on. All I'm hearing from you is "SARAH PALIN FAP FAP FAP".

[Toasty]

And all I'm hearing from you is INSULT INSULT INSULT.

Anyway, Calm, collected and direct?

......not really. Sounded to me that Biden was a little quick to defend himself when he didn't really need to. Like when the lady asking the questinos stated that Biden and Obama were.....I can't remember, but he interuppted her for a second to clarify something he didn't need to.

Not trying to nitpick, but calling both of them calm collected and direct is entirely a matter of opinion. Though I'll agree that Biden answered some things more directly than Palin. She seemed a little inexperienced at debating. Especially when it came to the subject of War on Terror and the Iraq war.

Gio, on Oct 2 2008, 07:40 AM, said:

Sorry Toasty I got to defend GL here. Whether or not it is his first election it seems to me that he has dissected the issues, and he is pretty knowledgeable on the subjects, the only reason his opinions differ from yours is because your beliefs are pretty much completely different from his.

@Eugine-I am starting to get worried about Florida to. There was even an Obama rally in my own town...wtf.

Also what is up with this early voting crap in Ohio.

I didn't necessarily mean GL didn't disect the issues, just young voters in general. At the end of the last school year, I was in a math class that had a few seniors. One of them who was old enough to vote, said she was going to vote for Obama because McCain was old.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 2 2008, 10:05 PM, said:

No doubt. I guess lowering expectations for her was a wise move by the McCain campaign, and that four day debate boot camp definitely helped.

Ironically, there seems to be a similarity between the debates. McCain and Palin both generated a lot of energy - the latter, almost nauseatingly so with her winks and tone - while Obama and Biden kept a straight composure when answering and were calm, collected, and direct.

Interesting trend here. Towards the end Biden did show some genuine compassion when talking about his family, he went emotional when talking about his wife dying and seeing his sons injured and nearly dead in the hospital.

Obama campaign did the same thing for him. So there should be no crying foul there.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Oct 2 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

I didn't necessarily mean GL didn't disect the issues, just young voters in general. At the end of the last school year, I was in a math class that had a few seniors. One of them who was old enough to vote, said she was going to vote for Obama because McCain was old.

And I've heard people who are voting for McCain because he is white. No difference.

Gio, on Oct 2 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

Obama campaign did the same thing for him. So there should be no crying foul there.

Well of course, it's a common tactic on both sides. Biden met expectations, Palin exceeded hers.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 2 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

The only bull**** was the condescending tones of both McCain and Palin, and her constant winking.

You must not have heard the part where he said he wanted to re-negotiate people's principal of mortage. How are you supposed to do that? Is that even legal?

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 2 2008, 10:16 PM, said:

And McCain/Palin = MAVERICKS MAVERICKS MAVERICKS REFORM, but come to the defense of Cheney and the Iraq War.

You would also do well to at least show a bit of decency, I concede the points that both McCain and Palin did well on. All I'm hearing from you is "SARAH PALIN FAP FAP FAP".

I concede that Biden sounded sincere and personal during the end there, but he also dorked up once by saying Health insurance when he meant to say health care(or did he). But the again Palin did completely dork up the question about whether or not the VP has a legislative role as well as and executive role.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 2 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

And I've heard people who are voting for McCain because he is white. No difference.

The difference is that these new voters aren't actually taking things seriously enough. There's more new voters that aren't actually dissecting the policies than there are people who are casting their votes based on race.

[Ironsight]

Gio, on Oct 2 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

But the again Palin did completely dork up the question about whether or not the VP has a legislative role as well as and executive role.

Yeah, she fell into one of those "gotcha" questions.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Oct 2 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

The difference is that these new voters aren't actually taking things seriously enough. There's more new voters that aren't actually dissecting the policies than there are people who are casting their votes based on race.

Are you a college student? No.
Do you live on a college campus? No.
Don't you make assumptions here.

[Eugine]

CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE! BUSH BUSH BUSH! lol!

Ladies and gentlemen, I should really apologize to Sarah Palin, the next Ronald Reagan! I doubted her, and I was wrong for doing so!
Obama may win this election, but she will shine. SHE WILL SHINE.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 2 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

Are you a college student? No.
Do you live on a college campus? No.
Don't you make assumptions here.

Do I know people who are old enough to vote? Yes.

Are they younger than 25? Yes.

Do they care enough about politics? No.

College campuses aren't the only place to find young voters.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, now you're bordering on freaky.
I don't deny that Palin is a rising star for the Republicans. We will see her in a presidential election in the future, no doubt.

Remember that there are still two debates coming up between Obama and McCain, and if the first debate is any indication - and the recent momentum shift - the McCain campaign has a lot of ground to make up.

Palin's performance didn't hurt, nor did Biden's performance help much - it was ultimately still relatively even, with no decisive points or campaign changing statements made.

[Eugine]

I know I am bodering freaky lol. I just love her. Oh well, I should lay off the kool aid. I am becoming like those brainwashed Obama supporters :!:

[Golden Legacy]

I believe that phrase was coined by the racist bigot known as Rush Limbaugh?

Toasty, on Oct 2 2008, 11:29 PM, said:

Do I know people who are old enough to vote? Yes.
Are they younger than 25? Yes.
Do they care enough about politics? No.
College campuses aren't the only place to find young voters.

So now you want to say that young voters don't know the issues. That's a general stereotype. You don't live on a college campus, yes, it's an environment where the "young voters" dominate, and you can be well aware of that mentality when you are exposed to it constantly.

Don't imply that you somehow know "better" than young voters. It's a fact that they're getting involved in this election at greater rates than ever before, and they're discussing the issues too. Don't deride their involvement, it's an insult to them and everyone.

And the fact that young people are naturally liberal is probably where it hurts you most. As the old phrase goes:

If you are young and you are not liberal, you do not have a heart.
If you are old and you are not conservative, you do not have a brain.


At any rate, it seems that the immediate polls show undecided voters relate more to Biden, but we'll see how the numbers end up tomorrow.

In the meanwhile, adieu and night.

[Toasty]

Oh snap. XD

Seriously though Eugine, you're starting to sound a bit creepy to even this hardcore conservative.

[EDIT] I was responding to Eugine's post.

And of course GL. Rush is just so obviously a racist bigot. Which just so happens to also to be what all the liberals want everyone to think.

[Gio]

Now GL i am not trying to discredit young voters here.....well maybe some, but if you go to the local high school here ,and many in Georgia to, that kids in High school that can vote generally don't know the issues and they vote for the guy they think is the "coolest" now for the college kids I know, they either don't talk about politics or they know a couple of reasons why they are going to vote for a certain candidate.

[Eugine]

Gio, on Oct 2 2008, 11:47 PM, said:

Now GL i am not trying to discredit young voters here.....well maybe some, but if you go to the local high school here ,and many in Georgia to, that kids in High school that can vote generally don't know the issues and they vote for the guy they think is the "coolest" now for the college kids I know, they either don't talk about politics or they know a couple of reasons why they are going to vote for a certain candidate.

True lol. No offense to youthful Obama supporters, like GL, who knows the issues (unfortunately, I think he believes in the wrong philosophy, but he knows the issues)... but there are some who just doesn't know the issue. I was talking to my cousin in NY... Granted he is African American, but he said he was voting for Obama, just for voting for Obama sake >>

[Golden Legacy]

Granted, I might be speaking from a northern, liberal, college perspective, which is the lens I have (and one I quite frankly prefer). There is no denying that many young voters are going for Obama because he's new and represents a fresh face. At least, that's the initial pull. I strongly believe that, compared with past elections, there is a resurgence of interest among the youth, that they can play as large a role even though they've often been counted out. It's exactly how JFK was, and moreso.

When you introduce voters to the process, they also become affiliated with the politics behind it. Not all to be sure, but I'd say the vast majority. Keeping up with the news cycles, even watching the debates, and if campaigning is any indication, people on all levels - but especially the youth - are getting involved, knocking on doors, meeting people on the street to register, creating fundraisers, even going to other states to campaign.

It really has to be witnessed in action to understand it.


That said, on the issue of race, blacks have gone for the liberal side of politics consistently in contemporary times. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all got 92+%, high 80s, of the African American votes. The difference here is that there is a genuine excitement about Obama and the election, and one can't honestly fault them for it.


To shift the topic, BIG news from the election.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...cain-mich_N.htm

John McCain has given up the fight in Michigan, one of the most hotly contested battleground states. As I predicted, his campaign simply can't outmatch Obama's, so they've had to cut their losses and consolidate their resources to focus on other states.

[Gio]

In my opinion it was a wise move especially since dems are trying to steal the election in ohio with this early voting.

[Golden Legacy]

What utter hypocrisy. Everyone with half a brain knows the 2000 election was stolen from Al Gore. The Republicans have been the ones to consistently conduct voter fraud, I can't believe you would be so ignorant.


edit: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/104...election_stolen
http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/sep/16/re...ing-vote-fraud/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...roject_recounts

[Gio]

Yeah because every time there was a recount in Florida the amount of votes for Al Gore went up. I guess that isn't suspicious at all.

[Toasty]

Same happened when Gregoire was voted as the governor of Washingto. She just kept asking for a re-count until she got what she wanted. She's a democrat, by the way.

And GL, most college students and highschool seniors are more interested in partying and hanging out with their friends than following politics. A lot of them either vote because they can, or jsut don't bother.

There are some who are generally interested, but GL, were you ever really interested in politics before this election season?

[Golden Legacy]

It happens on all levels, but once again, you are being so closed minded if you think that the Republicans haven't conducted voter fraud on higher levels, including the presidency. I'm telling you, everyone realizes that the 2000 presidential election was stolen, everyone realizes the slander and lies that was used to take down John Kerry in 2004.

It's a Republican hallmark and tactic, perfected by Karl Rove.

Quote

There are some who are generally interested, but GL, were you ever really interested in politics before this election season?

Politics or issues? I didn't care about politicians at all, but I was well aware of the issues. Case in point, the facade known as the Iraq War and using terror to fight the 'war on terror'. Education and 'No Child Left Behind'. Poverty (as I had witness countless times), healthcare and college affordability. Alternative energy and green technology and (seeing the intolerant bigots as the issue expoded in 2004), gay and lesbian rights.

Once more, I hardly cared about the politicians (didn't take long for the world to figure out Bush and his neo-con cronies are war-mongerers), but I was fairly content with Bill Clinton, it was a good, peaceful, content time. The vast consensus is that life has gone down incredibly under Bush, and that much everyone was aware of, even before taking a genuine interest in the elections.

[Eugine]

I love Karl Rove. Democrats envy him because he knows how to win an election.

Regarding your issues... To this election specifically...

Issues? What makes Obama superior to McCain on the issues GL? I know it is hard to believe a republican, after the failure of the last 8 years by a republican has better ideas, but McCain do.

Iraq War: I think you should get over this. The next President has to focus on the future of Iraq, not the past, and McCain clearly has a better strategy. If Obama wins, and retreats from Iraq, I hope Iraq do not meet the same fate of Afghanistan. Plus, why do you believe a politician has better judgement than commanders on the ground, who believe retreating will be terrible? And, like I said before, as Bill Clinton said - Obama judgement is far overblown. Media created lie.

War on terror: It is real. You can argue the cause and how to fix it... but it is real.

Education: McCain's education program (conservatives in general - ie, less government intervention) is far superior. You do not need government and teacher unions running schools, like Obama wants, you want the parents and knowledgeable teachers. Plus, money is not the solution to better education, it is competition, choices and the return of values. When you let schools answer to teacher unions, they put the teachers best interest first and not the student. Plus, with competition (eg entrance exams), the good schools will get the good students, and the schools which perform poorly, will simply have to close and lose funding. I can go on and on with education, but honestly, choices and ultimately competition (values are debatable, but I strongly suggest honour codes) are the key to education improvement, not the addition of money.
Look at American colleges, why do you think they are great? It is because of competition.
Anyway, I can go on and on with education, but I think Obama has it wrong.

Poverty: The biggest cause of povery is inflation. Raising taxes on the rich will make poor people even poorer due to inflation. Trust me.

Healthcare: Do you think the government can afford Obama's healthcare plan?

College affordability: How about decreasing taxes on businesses, rather than increasing it to create jobs so that people can work to pay for college rather than just giving them grants? How about improving secondary education so that people will want to go to college to make it, rather than waiting for your thousand dollar check from President Obama?

Energy independece: The only person who has fought for energy independence in USA on any ticket, and has done something about it is Sarah Palin.

Gay and lesbian rights: Obama and McCain has the same stances on this issue.

EDIT:
Regarding your last paragraph. I love Bill Clinton, and trust me, Obama is no Bill Clinton. Actually, Bill hates Obama lol (rightfully)

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 4 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

I love Karl Rove. Democrats envy him because he knows how to win an election.

There you go, you love your slander, lies, and hate.

Quote

Iraq War: I think you should get over this. The next President has to focus on the future of Iraq, not the past, and McCain clearly has a better strategy. If Obama wins, and retreats from Iraq, I hope Iraq do not meet the same faith of Afghanistan. Plus, why do you believe a politician has better judgement the commanders on the ground, who believe retreating will be terrible? And, like I said before, as Bill Clinton said - Obama judgement is far overblown. Media created lie.

Okay, first of all, it's not just Iraq. George Bush created the pretense for going into Iraq. That's been said and done, and even Republicans have come to realize that it's one of the biggest blunders in history.

Barack Obama would not go to war, ever, unnecessarily. John McCain has sung songs about bombing Iran, about staying in Iraq for 100 years, and even reimposing the military draft. It's in his blood, war is his creed, and McCain has an awful temperament. Having him next to the red button in dealing with world leaders and nuclear weapons would be akin to starting the next world war. There's a reason why McCain's own fellow Vietnam POWs are strongly against his being president.

And Barack Obama had the same judgment of those military commanders who have said that Afghanistan needed reinforcements. John McCain said something to the effect, "Afghanistan will fix itself". Now even the Bush administration is acknowledging this.

Also, say what you want, but going to war with Russia would be nothing more than foolish. I don't know how you're a blinded American patriot and zealot, but if you think that Russia is going to go down easy, then you seem to enjoy senseless blood and slaughter.

Quote

War on terror: It is real. You can argue the cause and how to fix it... but it is real.

Half of the "war on terror" could be resolved if the USA stopped interfering in other nation's interests.

Iran, 1953, democracy.
The USA overthrows the government and establishes the totalitarian regime that today the USA is trying to take down.

Iraq-Iran crisis, 1980s.
The USA gives support to Saddam Hussein, puts him into power, gives him the weapons he needs. Years later the USA decides that it's time to take him down.

Israel, since 1948
The USA's relentless biased support for Israel, buying them off and providing them with military and weapons to commit slaughters and oppression is the primary reason for terrorist organizations in the middle east.

The USA gives more money to Israel than all the aid given to Latin America and Africa.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=yyVy5XHjuGI

Quote

Education: McCain's education program (conservatives in general - ie, less government intervention) is far superior. You do not need government and teacher unions running schools, like Obama wants, you want the parents and knowledgeable teachers. Plus, money is not the solution to better education, it is competition, choices and the return of values. When you let schools answer to teacher unions, they put the teachers best interest first and not the student. Plus, with competition (eg entrance exams), the good schools will get the good students, and the schools which perform poorly, will simply have to close and lose funding. I can go on and on with education, but honestly, choices and ultimately competition (values are debatable, but I strongly suggest honour codes) are the key to education improvement, not the addition of money.
Look at American colleges, why do you think they are great? It is because of competition.
Anyway, I can go on and on with education, but I think Obama has it wrong.

Do you not understand the value of an education?
An education is NOT about filling in bubbles on standardized examinations. An education is NOT about preparing children the entire year to choose from 4 multiple choice questions, to prepare the entire year to take one 2-hour exam.

It's about the holistic education that takes place from having quality teaching, supporting teachers and giving them the pay they deserve and the resources they need. [also, teacher wages will correlate with the quality of their teaching, and receive support if they do well]

"Competition" on the basis of standardized examinations, using that as an assessment of a child's learning, only seeks to create curricula that circumvent the need for creativity and focuses the entirety of the classroom sessions on preparing for single exams. I'm sorry Eugine, but that's now how I judge education.

Quote

Poverty: The biggest cause of povery is inflation. Raising taxes on the rich will make poor people even poorer due to inflation. Trust me.

Poverty emerges from a number of factors. Rising standards of living, inflation, unemployment, minimum wage not being enough.

John McCain voted against increasing the minimum wage 19 times. How do you expect people to cope with increasing demands of lifestyles if he voted against something so fundamentally important?

On the contrary:

Raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an Hour by 2011: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that people who work full time should not live in poverty. Even though the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour by 2009, the minimum wage's real purchasing power will still be below what it was in 1968. As president, Obama will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing - things so many people take for granted.

Quote

Healthcare: Specifically to the USA, do you think the government can afford healthcare?

Eugine, quit with the 'government' intervention.
There will be a universal healthcare system as an option in addition to private insurers. If someone has private insurance now, their premium rates will be lowered. If someone doesn't, they can opt in EITHER a private insurer OR the universal system, it's not obligatory.

You know, I find it remarkable that Republicans care so much about guns but can't bring themselves to acknowledge that accessible healthcare is a fundamental right in humanity.

Quote

College affordability: How about decreasing taxes on businesses, rather than increasing it to create jobs so that people can work to pay for college rather than just giving them grants? How about improving secondary education so that people will want to go to college to make it, rather than waiting for your thousand dollar check from President Obama?

How about support College Outreach programs for the low-income families and high-achieving students? How about encouraging students to do community service, work at hospitals and homeless shelters, as credits to their tuition? How about investing in afterschool programs and opportunities for students on the secondary and elementary level?

Education investment and spending shouldn't be lowered, the system needs to be reformed, provide more opportunity and encourage more student involvement.

Quote

Energy independece: The only person who has fought for energy independence in USA, and has done something about it is Sarah Palin.

"drill baby drill".
brilliant and comprehensive plan all right.

Quote

Gay and lesbian rights: Obama and McCain has the same stances on this issue.

Perhaps the one area I disagree with on Obama. Let's face it though, half of religious fundamentalist America probably think AIDs is the "gay disease", so I doubt running on a platform on gay marriage would get anyone elected.

This is exactly how John Kerry was sunk in Ohio in 2004, btw. The Republicans turned to these wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage, instead of more prominent issues like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's how Kerry lost the election when he was leading.

[Eugine]

Well, you know what GL... I don't really care about America's past. I am only here to say why I believe John McCain will be a better President than Barack Obama. If you want you can go on and on about generalities, but so be it... I'm here to defend America's future only. It just amazes me how you, Barack Obama and other democrats can call for change but always point to the past, as evident in thursday debate...

[Golden Legacy]

Because John McCain is that past Eugine. And if people can't see that, and see how fundamentally improved a Barack Obama administration would be, then you are simply oblivious.

[Eugine]

Barack Obama administration is the past: Jimmy Carter.

[Golden Legacy]

I'm thinking more of JFK.

[Eugine]

JFK is conservative by today's standard. I'm sure it is Jimmy Carter.

[Golden Legacy]

Umm, no.
JFK supported the civil rights movement and immigration as key hallmarks of his career. That was extraordinarily liberal.

You know Eugine, you are honestly the only non-American I've ever come to know who thinks along with Republican philosophy.

[Eugine]

True. Everyone supports Obama here.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" - JFK. No liberal will say that today.
I'm sorry, but he is conservative by today's standard.

[Golden Legacy]

You're looking at it from "today".
Hmm. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the slaves was considered a radical idea? Did you know that was perhaps the most blatantly left-winged liberal thing you could do back then?

JFK was seen as ushering in modern liberalism, as first set by FDR. Similarly, modern conservatism was set by Reagan.

You, like Toasty, just find it too hard to accept that someone outside the Republican party might have done good for the USA.

[Eugine]

Modern day liberals are socialists. Income redistribution, government control, and lack of free speech hidden in "correctness".
I'm sorry, but the democratic party is not what it once was.

JFK will be crying in his grave if he saw what his party has become.

And for ANYONE who believes in socialism, you should experience it yourself. It is terrible. Trust me, my country was socialist before I was born, and people have nothing good to say about it. Socialism is terrible.

Perfect example here - Arnold Schwarzenegger:
In an interview on October 29, 2002, with MSNBC's Chris Matthews at Chapman University, Schwarzenegger explained why he is a Republican:

"Well, I think because a lot of people don't know why I'm a Republican, I came first of all from a socialistic country which is Austria and when I came over here in 1968 with the presidential elections coming up in November, I came over in October, I heard a lot of the press conferences from both of the candidates Humphrey and Nixon, and Humphrey was talking about more government is the solution, protectionism, and everything he said about government involvement sounded to me more like Social Democratic Party of Austrian socialism."
Schwarzenegger continues:

"Then when I heard Nixon talk about it, he said open up the borders, the consumers should be represented there ultimately and strengthen the military and get the government off our backs. I said to myself, what is this guy's party affiliation? I didn't know anything at that point. So I asked my friend, what is Nixon? He's a Republican. And I said, I am a Republican. That's how I became a Republican."

You know what, Obama should win, and let him acheive his agenda (he will not because Americans will protest only to make him conservative to an extent), you will see what everyone who came from a socialist country is talking about.

[Golden Legacy]

That's because the only person who isn't too liberal for you cons is Mussolini.

[Eugine]

I love some democrats.
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kussinich to an extent are examples.

Strict conservatives like Toasty will not like them because they believed in some conservative principles, not all. Obama has NONE.

Bill Clinton:
"We will meet these challenges, not through big government. The era of big government is over, but we can't go back to a time when our citizens were just left to fend for themselves."
http://edition.cnn.c.../clinton_radio/

Obama is the most liberal person ever. Extremely socialistic.

[Golden Legacy]

That seems ironic since President Bush has ushered in the era of biggest government in USA history.

If Obama is a socialist, then McCain/Bush are fascists.
Reagan would be disgusted with how the Republicans are today.

[Eugine]

Of course he would. Do you see what happens when you increase government? You get outcomes like Bush.

Reagan will be crying in his grave if he saw Bush, and how he destroyed his party principles, except to an extent his foreign policy.

[Golden Legacy]

Bush's foreign policy is precisely what makes him fascist. =/
That, and the systematic removal of people's rights and the shredding of the constitution. The Republican party today is practically nationalistic in its ideals.

[Eugine]

Bush has a strong foreign policy, which is conservative. Unfortunately badly mismanaged until recently. Rice is doing a good job now.

Al Gore called for tax cuts, Kerry called for a stronger military. All conservative principles.

Barack Obama? Higher taxes, a weaker military. I just don't know why people want socialism.

[Golden Legacy]

Bill Clinton also raised taxes, for the record, almost in the exact same fashion as Barack Obama's. The progressive tax system clearly worked, because Clinton's economy is fondly remembered, and Obama is largely pursuing the same essence of it.

Honestly Eugine, the whole "socialism" thing is just another programmed sound byte that the conservatives are saying against Obama. He's liberal, especially for the typically right-wing America, but there's a reason why people turn to the Democrats in times of economic crisis, which are usually caused by Republicans.

And also, are you daft? Barack Obama wants to end the war in Iraq and just focus on Afghanistan more.

That's not "cutting the military", that's shifting priorities. Personally, I would prefer if the USA would just stop getting involved in other nations that we have no business in, but I assure you Obama wants to keep the military very much intact and to finish the "job" in Afghanistan and the war on terror - ideals that, once again, I personally don't find true, but Obama has taken perhaps the toughest military stance of any Democrat in recent years.

This is as opposed to McCain, who has long sounded his support for the military draft and would be itching for every conflict possible.

[Eugine]

Wait, so America does not have a progressive system today? It does... The top 5% pays more than half of the taxes.
Bill raised taxes on the middle class btw, because I'm sure he recognised raising it on the rich will be devastating on the poor.

And during the primary, Obama was a big critic of the Clinton administration, and now he wants to act like he loved the Clinton years. He hates the Clintons!
I hope he says during a debate "I'm going to return the government to the Clinton years" then McCain should reply "I know President Clinton, I've worked with President Clinton, and Senator Obama, you are no Bill Clinton!" [taken right from the Dan Quayle debate!] Obama is no Bill Clinton and neither will his administration.

Obama wants to decrease defense spending, and increase the influence of the UN on USA. Socialism there.

And no, Obama is anti-military, but he cannot be anti-military because he will lose. At first he said he was going to withdraw the troops before the end of 2009, now he wants to "responsibly" withdraw them. lol.

[Golden Legacy]

Since you clearly want to disregard fact:

http://www.barackoba...issues/defense/

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

Quote

Obama wants to decrease government spending, and increase the influence of the UN on USA. Socialism there.

First you complain about too much government spending, now you claim that decreasing it is bad too? Quit with the hypocrisy.

EDIT: so you meant 'defense spending'. Once more, look at the link above and show me where the military will be reduced.


Secondly, Bill Clinton tried to create a universal healthcare system, if you'll remember. He clearly thought it was within the USA's capability to do so, and the fact that America is the only developed Western nation in the world to not offer it is laughable.


And once more Eugine, if given a choice between a socialist and a blood thirsty fascist/nationalist, I would gladly take the former. Gladly.


~~5000~~

[Eugine]

GL, after Obama won the nomination he went to the center to win the election. He revamped his site, cleaned up the extremely liberal mission, tried to be a centrist... And somehow it is working.
Hillary lost the nomination because she was centrist and not liberal.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=M0du8wMLzEY
In his own words. He is against everything he said now lol. Sigh.

[Golden Legacy]

And McCain positioned himself as a centrist during the nomination, and has now shifted back to Bush and even more to a fundamentalist right-wing stance by choosing Palin.

Further, if we're going to throw out videos:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

In his own hypocritical words.

[Eugine]

Those are not changes in political positions, but, you can ask whether or not he passes the honest test using that video.
Secondly, the economic quote was in 2005... He had enough time to increase his knowledge.

Finally, he said he will make the tax cuts permanent because he recognised you cannot raise taxes during an economic downturn.

Obama on the other hand... Damn...

[Golden Legacy]

Here you go again Eugine. Can't accept the reality that the mighty veteran is as much a liar as the current president who you seem to admire.

Further, you claim that McCain wants to lower taxes, yet he wants to tax health benefits amounting to 3.6 trillion dollars on the working class. Income tax may not increase, but he'll counter it by raising the cost of every other aspect of living.


All right, now since this has gotten really heated, let's relax and laugh a bit:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/images/palinflow.gif


lol.

[Gio]

Eugine, on Oct 4 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

Barack Obama administration is the past: Jimmy Carter.

Indeed it is

Golden Legacy, on Oct 4 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

I'm thinking more of JFK.

I am thinking JFK wouldn't have been remembered like he is today if he hadn't of got shot. He was actually a rather horrible president

Golden Legacy, on Oct 4 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

That seems ironic since President Bush has ushered in the era of biggest government in USA history.

If Obama is a socialist, then McCain/Bush are fascists.
Reagan would be disgusted with how the Republicans are today.

And FDR would be turning in his grave if he heard about Obama

anyway i am done with this topic for a while. It causes dissent and discord throughout the forum. I personally think it should be locked.

[Golden Legacy]

The same holds true for McCain.
He's another Bush with the same "moderate" label that Dubya himself ran on.
JFK was a hell of a lot better than the past 3 Republican presidents that came before him save for Ike. Had it not been for Vietnam intervening, LBJ's legacy of social and domestic civil reform were easily among the most constructive and successful in the USA's history.

Obama's plans mirror a lot of FDR's, who revived the economy after another Republican (Herbert Hoover), also not unlike Bush. As the cycle shows, Republican screws up economy, Democrat fixes economy, that's how it's been largely in the modern era.


EDIT: LOL! Sarah Palin will be visiting Omaha, Nebraska tomorrow for a rally.
Nebraska, we're talking the reddest of Republican states.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835...;u_sid=10450797

[Eugine]

I've read up on The Great Depression, and FDR prolonged it by decreasing competition and increasing government spending. Exactly what Obama intends to do.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s...spx?RelNum=5409
Come on.

[Golden Legacy]

Yes, that one study is now going to change the history textbooks. Lovely.


http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/spec...er-hundred.html

FDR invested in creating jobs and social work programs that helped stimulate the economy and put people to work. Further, once again you show a remarkable tendency to just throw out your programmed sound bytes about Obama.

He, and FDR, both favor economic competition. However:

The Second New Deal embraced the theory of a competitive economy and strove for recovery through a three-pronged reform campaign.

One prong, which naturally outraged those businessmen who endorsed competition in principle but hated it in practice, was a campaign against the ''economic royalists'' and the concentration of private economic power. The thesis, Roosevelt said in 1938, ''is not that the system of free private enterprise for profit has failed in this generation, but that it has not yet been tried.'

You can't have a proper laissez-faire economy when the private sector's wealth is concentrated in, as the page describes, the "economic royalists".

[Eugine]

Cannot access the article. And well, that study was done by credible economists. I rather believe them than a historian or a reporter.

EDIT:
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/hinzs...is_the_next_fdr

Oh well GL. You can have your Obama. I hope you don't regret it. And I hope even more, than I am wrong.

[Golden Legacy]

Oh no, if it's economists you're looking for:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/200...servatives.html


And honestly, I hope I'm wrong about McCain. Don't think that I'm happy asserting the nation's current situation, and how I think McCain would continue on it. I honestly do think that McCain could be potentially better than Bush, just not by enough.

And I really think you should give Obama a chance.

Here is a fantastic article:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008...co_talk_editors

If you can, please read this. Hopefully it'll convince you that Obama would be a worthy leader. It's a long read but very well-written.

In the meanwhile, I think it would do us all good if this topic was closed for a while. I'll reopen it after the next debate.

[Golden Legacy]

As promised this topic has been reopened, the 2nd debate has just ended between Obama and McCain, and once again there is no decisive blow, with relatively even performances.

Some thoughts of mine:

1) McCain is more comfortable with the town hall format than Obama.
2) Obama once again stood his ground on foreign policy, McCain relied heavily on his past record to get him through his arguments (that's a pro and con).
3) The moderator made a fundamentally stupid mistake. You don't ask a follow-up question to the guy who just answered. It was silly seeing McCain or Obama have to answer consecutive answers on largely the same topic. You keep alternating the order, and with a new lead question do you switch. At any rate, I found it hilarious how both candidates went over the time limit.
4) Obama once again struck the Iraq issue home, challenging McCain's judgment to support it.
5) McCain came out stronger on taxes than in the 1st debate, and actually mentioned the word 'middle class'.

[Eugine]

Terrible debate. Very boring. Both candidates basically resighted stump speeches, which means a win for Obama since he is clearly more articulate.

Questions were also terrible because they were basically the same questions we heard over and over. Obama explained his health care policy better, while McCain is clearly more concerned about Israel.

Get ready for President Obama. I hope he lives up to his promises and improve the life of Americans.

[Golden Legacy]

To be entirely honest, I have to give credit to McCain for coming out and having a bit more of a down to earth style than we've seen before.

One of the most telling aspects of the debate - subtle, but gives a meaningful expression - is that while Obama was answering, McCain was standing up and looked genuinly nervous. When McCain was answering, Obama was sitting down at ease and really calm.

It really strikes as the difference between the John F Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon debate of 1960.

But yeah, overall, bit of a letdown. Only the last question was genuinely unusual.

[Eugine]

I learned nothing new from this debate, except McCain's propsal to buy mortgages (how will he pay for this? This is insane. He is really trying to become too liberal to win votes here!), and President Obama's lie that McCain wants to give an extra $700,000 to CEOs... McCain will simply make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and decrease corporate/business and investment taxes. This will help 2/3rd of Americans because about 70% of Americans have money in stocks!

Maybe because I am following this election too closely, but I am just tired of President Obama lies, and the constant pass by the media. I can't wait for 2012. Conservatives must learn that the democrat party are terrible, and you don't get people like McCain who wants to work with them to run for President. He's too nice. They'll just stab you in the back.

I can hold my breath for four years. Maybe we'll get a Ronald Reagan then.

[Someone Else]

Obama's expressions were hilarious when he listened to McCain talk. XD

[Gio]

Ummm in my opinion I can't tell you how many times I thought Obama danced around the questions without ever really answering it. Now the questions themselves were rather boring and I thought that it was moderated rather poorly. Unlike GL though I think that McCain did do well on foreign policy and I think he did a great deal on the economy than anyone probably expected.



You do have to wonder now though if Mitt Romney should have been the Republican nominee. I mean it would be perfect. He is the economic guy who ran in the primaries and if he was the nominee when the economy took a dump then republicans wouldn't be sucking it up as bad.

[Golden Legacy]

I never said that McCain did poorly on foreign policy, just that Obama matched him. Especially on Iraq, but McCain came out stronger on Israel.

I think McCain came out stronger on the economy and domestic issues than we've seen, but Obama still held the advantage here, honestly - especially the answer to the healthcare question. Obama called it a "right". McCain called it a "responsibility"?

I would have understood if McCain had said healthcare is a privilege, but a responsibility?


And yes, ironically Romney would have made the stronger candidate at this point. Any right, good night.

[Eugine]

I always thought Mitt Romney was the better candidate, but you republicans chose McCain. Mitt would have lost also maybe, but it will not be the landslide victory Obama will give McCain.
Everything is against republicans, and well, McCain is just terrible at explaining why his economic policies are better for middle Americans and also terrible at saying why Obama's economic policies are a lie and bad for middle Americans. Mac is dead. Let us hope McCain gets 200EV.

I'm thinking Jindal/Palin/Crist/Romney 12. I am just fustrated with this badly managed campaign of McCain. It'll take some time for me to move on, because I strongly believe McCain will be the better President... But who says the fundamentals of the economy are strong in an economic crisis? Who says you want to turn the page on the economy? God.
McCain I am dissapointed. Go back to the senate. You deserve it.

[Gio]

Health care is not a right. There is no denying that it is the start of socialism and don't try and say it is just a republican talking point because McCain buying the bad mortgages is government control to. Have you ever read the articles about the waiting lists for MRI's in Canada.

http://www.cmaj.ca/c...ull/170/5/776-a

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jan2001...WaitforMRI.html

There are many more similar sites that show the similar stats for it over the years.

There is no denying that this a socialist policy and that is very obvious from results in other countries that is very much a lackluster policy. while we pay more for our health care that we do get better health coverage.

[Eugine]

lol, read these comments about the debate. I'll be lmaoing myself to bed tonight -
http://corner.nationalreview.com/ (this is a conservative website)

The Good News [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I doubt too many people sat through this whole debate.

The silver lining [Mark Steyn]
A reader writes:
If people can survive this debate the economic meltdown should be no problem.

Is It Over Yet? [Michael Graham]
Are they still talking? Pahkeestahn? The Tahl-EE-Bahn? Ukraine-istan?
Has either of these guys said anything we'll remember tomorrow?

And GL, Obama confuses me with his health care plan. He says his health care proposals are not government mandated, but it is a right. So, he's telling me the private market will decide on your rights?

[Blue]

I know this isn't about the political race, but I want to see some opinions about this...
In Arizona theres a bill and I just saw a commercial for both sides of the view.
Prop 102 is a Marriage bill. If it passes, then marriage in Arizona is defined as between man and a woman. If it fails, then marriage could mean for any sex.
Dunno what side is going to win, because I notice AZ is getting more and more liberal.

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Oct 7 2008, 11:37 PM, said:

Health care is not a right. There is no denying that it is the start of socialism and don't try and say it is just a republican talking point because McCain buying the bad mortgages is government control to. Have you ever read the articles about the waiting lists for MRI's in Canada.

http://www.cmaj.ca/c...ull/170/5/776-a

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jan2001...WaitforMRI.html

There are many more similar sites that show the similar stats for it over the years.

There is no denying that this a socialist policy and that is very obvious from results in other countries that is very much a lackluster policy. while we pay more for our health care that we do get better health coverage.

Eugine, on Oct 8 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

And GL, Obama confuses me with his health care plan. He says his health care proposals are not government mandated, but it is a right. So, he's telling me the private market will decide on your rights?

If you would quit with the random spew of "socialism" and actually pay attention to his policies, both of you, you would realize what it is.

Obama believes that healthcare is a right. What he means by that is the notion that healthcare should be accessible to everyone - that does not mean a publicly mandated system. That people should be able to afford healthcare, private or public. That families should receive support if they don't have health insurance so that they can have it, whether (once again) it's a private insurance company or a public government system.

It's a merging of both policies, lowering premiums on people who already have private insurance (which, if you listened to the debate, you would realize you would be allowed to keep your private insurance). Those who don't have it would receive a tax credit and support to buy their own insurance.

It's far from government mandating of a public system. Very far. Personally, I would prefer it to be a universal healthcare system that is publicly funded (that's actual socialism), but what Obama has planned for healthcare is simply to reinforce the private sector so they can purchase their healthcare at more affordable rates, and ultimately for every individual to have the capacity to afford it.

That's why it's 'universal', because it's within reach of everyone.

On that note:

Quote

Health care is not a right.

And guns are?

Blue, on Oct 8 2008, 01:36 AM, said:

I know this isn't about the political race, but I want to see some opinions about this...
In Arizona theres a bill and I just saw a commercial for both sides of the view.
Prop 102 is a Marriage bill. If it passes, then marriage in Arizona is defined as between man and a woman. If it fails, then marriage could mean for any sex.
Dunno what side is going to win, because I notice AZ is getting more and more liberal.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Really. Especially on social attitudes, the world is becoming (already is) liberal, and gay and lesbian marriage should be embraced. It's not going to challenge you as an individual, it's not going to affect you in any manner, and quite frankly to continue to propagate the notion that homosexuality is somehow an affront on the "traditional view of marriage" is just a stagnant and stubborn mindset.

[Eugine]

The free market do not handle rights. Give me one example where the free market handles rights, beside's Obama's propopsed health care plan.

[Golden Legacy]

Nice of you to skip over the entire post.
Obama's plan does mandate coverage of children, for the record. McCain still supports the same system that's leaving out 47 million Americans from having healthcare.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 8 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

If you would quit with the random spew of "socialism" and actually pay attention to his policies, both of you, you would realize what it is.

Obama believes that healthcare is a right. What he means by that is the notion that healthcare should be accessible to everyone - that does not mean a publicly mandated system. That people should be able to afford healthcare, private or public. That families should receive support if they don't have health insurance so that they can have it, whether (once again) it's a private insurance company or a public government system.

It's a merging of both policies, lowering premiums on people who already have private insurance (which, if you listened to the debate, you would realize you would be allowed to keep your private insurance). Those who don't have it would receive a tax credit and support to buy their own insurance.

It's far from government mandating of a public system. Very far. Personally, I would prefer it to be a universal healthcare system that is publicly funded (that's actual socialism), but what Obama has planned for healthcare is simply to reinforce the private sector so they can purchase their healthcare at more affordable rates, and ultimately for every individual to have the capacity to afford it.

I agree that they have the right to purchase this healthcare ,but
it would be their responsibility to pay those rates now wouldn't it.

Quote

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Really. Especially on social attitudes, the world is becoming (already is) liberal, and gay and lesbian marriage should be embraced. It's not going to challenge you as an individual, it's not going to affect you in any manner, and quite frankly to continue to propagate the notion that homosexuality is somehow an affront on the "traditional view of marriage" is just a stagnant and stubborn mindset.

not even going reply because, because we have already witnessed the very heated debates on this

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Oct 8 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

I agree that they have the right to purchase this healthcare ,but
it would be their responsibility to pay those rates now wouldn't it.
not even going reply because, because we have already witnessed the very heated debates on this

But having rates that are beyond their reach is asking too much "responsibility". Once again, 47 million Americans are without health insurance - do you really think it's just because they don't want to take on "responsibility"?

[Eugine]

I read it all GL. I am just saying once again Obama pandering. Atleast McCain's response - responsibility aligns with his health care plan, while Obama's does not. As far as I am concerned, McCain was the socialist in last night's debate with this huge mortgage plan. He's a democrat concealed in republican clothing.

But anyway, Obama's health care responses last night won him the election imo.

[Gio]

Eugine, on Oct 8 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

I read it all GL. I am just saying once again Obama pandering. Atleast McCain's response - responsibility aligns with his health care plan, while Obama's does not. As far as I am concerned, McCain was the socialist in last night's debate with this huge mortgage plan. He's a democrat concealed in republican clothing.
But anyway, Obama's health care responses last night won him the election imo.

at least MUCH more than he lets on.

[Golden Legacy]

Hmm. So is this why hardcore Republicans/conservatives weren't completely sold on McCain? I can see why Romney or even Huckabee would have been favored, and why McCain needed a choice like Palin - an ultra-conservative Christian - to pander to his base.

At any rate, as I've said before, I think McCain is moderate enough where I could accept him as president, certainly far improved over Bush. In fact, if it wasn't for McCain's foreign policy/war aspect, I would be giving him a serious look and be satisfied with either candidate, just with Obama more.


Of course, ironically, Sarah Palin is what really turned me off of McCain, and I think a lot of moderates, independents, and undecided voters were too.

[Legolastom]

Watched the first hour of this last night at 2PM, half of the time it was either Mc Cain accusing Obama of something, Mc Cain saying "My friends" or the speaker telling them to hurry up on the next question (Which they never did). And again half the things both parties accused each other of was either complete bull**** or an attempt to make the other look bad, but I guess that’s the point.

"America is the nation that has done the most good in the history of the world" lolololololololo

[Golden Legacy]

^ That was really overdone, I honestly chuckled, perhaps the most amusing point of the debate.

But yeah, overall it was poorly conducted and certainly the most disappointing one thus far.

[Eugine]

I do not understand why Americans cannot understand the simple fact -
THEIR COUNTRY IS BROKE

You need to fix the crisis yes, but now is not the time for entitlements. Now is the time JFK's statement. It is very important. It is time for Americans to work now to fix their country, not wait on government. It needs to get bad for it to get better in the long run. If you continue to live on this philosophy of "Ask what my country can subsidize for me", your children will have it rough.
Too bad the world is filled with this entitlement mindset.

[Golden Legacy]

Did you not hear Obama asking for Americans to put in their share to help the nation become energy independent and reduce energy consumption? I thought that made the point fairly clear.

[Eugine]

That was him trying to sound conservative. The most liberal senator should not attempt to act conservative.

And why should America reduce energy consumption? I find that stupid. The world is run on energy, and I think making energy cheaper is more important. The world is too fast for people to go one step backwards, especially during this recession. I guess people should try to be more efficient though.

[Golden Legacy]

All right, now you are seriously being... I don't even know what. Reluctant? Insisting on being ignorant? Not willing to acknowledge your opponent?

He made a genuine call to Americans to lower energy consumption, to do whatever they can. Refit their homes with energy-saving appliances, go for greener and more environment friendly technologies, etc.

It's about time Americans put in their share. And yes Eugine, consumption is a huge problem in the US.

3% of the world's oil reserves, 25% of total global consumption
There is something seriously wrong here.

[Eugine]

Maybe, just maybe, the US has the largest economy. Maybe that explains why it uses the most of the world energy... Just maybe...

I said people need to be more efficient. I did not say people need to reduce energy consumption. That's stupid. Plus, the government has no right to tell people how to use their energy. That's telling people how to live.

Ah well. Atleast Obama will reduce the debt of foreign countries, but damn Biden said their administration may have to cut foreign aid assistance >_>

[Golden Legacy]

... You're missing the point. The USA has the largest economy, and the highest energy consumption per person.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_usa_...sage-per-person

And yes, efficient is what I meant.

Biden has been known to be misquoted at times, but I honestly think it's worth donating to countries whose events are JUSTIFIED in their support.

I am all for supporting and sending aid to Darfur, the Palestinians, fighting global inequality and poverty, etc.

By comparison, the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan to an extent, doesn't have that moral justification if any. Not to open that whole issue again, but I would prefer a president who would put solving a genocide and global issues as priority, as opposed to involving themselves in affairs that they have no business in.

[Eugine]

Ah well. The next four years are gonna be rough. I am looking foward to Obama's State of the Union address.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TWigzBClEk8
lol.

[Joek2]

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin is fucking genius. "Just ask a meverick what he would do, and we'll do that!!"

[Golden Legacy]

Don't get me started on McCain's involvement with the Keating 5, Gordon Liddy, and the radical U.S. Council for World Freedom group.

[Eugine]

Whaat? The video I posted was funny >_>
From 1:50

[Golden Legacy]

Oh, I'm posting from a school computer with no sound, I can't hear the video, lol. I'll wait 'till I get home to hear it.

Joek2, on Oct 8 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin is fucking genius. "Just ask a meverick what he would do, and we'll do that!!"

LOL. I saw that, loved it. Brilliant stuff, she's got it down perfectly.

[Eugine]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/417df05e-9555-11...0077b07658.html
This is why America (and anyone who can produce their own energy) needs an all of the above solution to energy independence. OPEC sucks.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 8 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

... You're missing the point. The USA has the largest economy, and the highest energy consumption per person.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_usa_...sage-per-person

And yes, efficient is what I meant.

Biden has been known to be misquoted at times, but I honestly think it's worth donating to countries whose events are JUSTIFIED in their support.

I am all for supporting and sending aid to Darfur, the Palestinians, fighting global inequality and poverty, etc.

By comparison, the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan to an extent, doesn't have that moral justification if any. Not to open that whole issue again, but I would prefer a president who would put solving a genocide and global issues as priority, as opposed to involving themselves in affairs that they have no business in.

Supporting Palestine? Don't you think it's kind of stupid to support an enemy of one of our allies?

I know you think that Palestine is the one being bullied Israel and not the other way around, but the closest thing to being a bully that Israel has done is launching a pre-emptive strike at Palestine was undeniably going to attack Israel in the first place.

Israel is Jewish. Palestine is Muslim. Their bickering has been going on since the birth of Ishmael and his brother if the Bible is to be used as a reliable source.


The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are to protect the United States, her allies, and anyone who would be targeted by real terrorists, from terrorism. Even if Iraq didn't have any terrorists (which they did, those insurgents aren't comprised entirely of Iraqi citiczens who turned against the US after the invasion), having them as an ally, and them having a democracy both help in the irradication of terrorists.

[Golden Legacy]

Radically simple-minded.

Have you ever asked yourself why the Palestinians are absolutely frustrated with Israel/USA? Have you ever wondered why the rise of extremism occurs? Ask yourself, when the USA has given aid and military support to Israel since its creation in 1948, and when the Palestinians were forcibly removed from their land, that's not a source of anger?

You associate Palestine as the 'enemy'. No, extremists are the enemy, the people are the victims here, and they have suffered immensely at the hands of the IDF (Israeli Defense Force).

Further:

Toasty, on Oct 9 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

Israel is Jewish. Palestine is Muslim. Their bickering has been going on since the birth of Ishmael and his brother if the Bible is to be used as a reliable source.

I almost feel sorry for you.

A Palestinian is different from being a Muslim is different from being an Arab. One is a people, another is a faith, and the other is an ethnicity/race. You can be a Palestinian and you can be a Christian - there are even Palestinian Jews.

When people refer to Palestine, they are not talking about religion - they are talking about a people.

As long as the US continues to give unbiased support to Israel while it has an illegal presence in the Occupied Territories, the Palestinians and the Middle East on the whole will never remove their anger and hatred towards them.

[Gio]

Call us ignorant close-mind or w/e you feel like GL. The point is that we as Christians believe in the bible and you need to just learn to accept that. The same way I have learned to accept that you don't believe in it, and learned to accept the fact that you think we are radicals.

The thing is that the bible says that Israel is land of Gods chosen people and that his chosen ppl are the Jews, and us as Christians are inclined to believe that. So accept it.

[Golden Legacy]

I'm well aware that Christians believe in the Bible, having considered myself a Christian at one point. And there is no reason why one can't correlate religion with reality - read what the religious text says, and superimpose it on the current situation.

So the Bible says that Jews are the "chosen people" of the land where Israel lies. Fair enough, for you. That doesn't mean, however, you ignore the rights of the people who are already living there. That doesn't mean you subjugate them to crueler conditions of poverty than many African nations, and remove their humane rights not seen in but the most oppressive of regimes.

And lastly, you can't use the basis of your religion to decide the reality of life for other peoples.

[Legolastom]

That’s the whole point, religion has no place whatsoever I politics.

[Eugine]

Welll, the Jewish group AIPAC ensured it'll always be part of American politics lol. Even President-elect Obama caved to them, so nothing will change for four years.
You will never become POTUS without being on Israel side.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 9 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

I'm well aware that Christians believe in the Bible, having considered myself a Christian at one point. And there is no reason why one can't correlate religion with reality - read what the religious text says, and superimpose it on the current situation.

So the Bible says that Jews are the "chosen people" of the land where Israel lies. Fair enough, for you. That doesn't mean, however, you ignore the rights of the people who are already living there. That doesn't mean you subjugate them to crueler conditions of poverty than many African nations, and remove their humane rights not seen in but the most oppressive of regimes.

And lastly, you can't use the basis of your religion to decide the reality of life for other peoples.

My comment was only directed to the statement you made about us being radicals. Then I realized that it was only directed towards Toasty. lol.
I agree with and my point wasn't that my religion should be superimposed onto someone elses reality. It was that people who aren't religious shouldn't try to superimpose their reality onto mine. It is a topic that causes me to fly off the handle real easy so my comment was a bit out of place.

It bothers me because people always say that the constitution requires separation of church and state, and those words aren't even in it once. The constitution says that the government is not allowed to establish a national religion, but then that sentence is followed by the free exercise clause, that states that everyone has the right to exercise their own religion freely, until it impedes on someone else's rights. That is why people are saying that muslims and other religions should be accounted for by school, but they are constantly saying prayer shouldn't be allowed in school to the Christians.

It is a topic that sets me off real easy.

Legolastom, on Oct 9 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

That’s the whole point, religion has no place whatsoever I politics.

Not true, constitution allows for laws to be made on moral and religious beliefs as long as no national religion is established and as long as the laws are made in a secular setting.

[Golden Legacy]

Legolastom, on Oct 9 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

That’s the whole point, religion has no place whatsoever I politics.

Exactly.

Eugine, on Oct 9 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

Welll, the Jewish group AIPAC ensured it'll always be part of American politics lol. Even President-elect Obama caved to them, so nothing will change for four years.
You can never become POTUS without being on Israel side.

I'm glad someone knows about this. The AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), commonly referred to as the Israel Lobby, dictates much of US politics and foreign policy. This is actually the area where I disagree with Obama the most, but the reality is to be President, you have to demonstrate relentless unconditional support for Israel.

Gio, on Oct 9 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

It bothers me because people always say that the constitution requires separation of church and state, and those words aren't even in it once. The constitution says that the government is not allowed to establish a national religion, but then that sentence is followed by the free exercise clause, that states that everyone has the right to exercise their own religion freely, until it impedes on someone else's rights. That is why people are saying that muslims and other religions should be accounted for by school, but they are constantly saying prayer shouldn't be allowed in school to the Christians.

It is a topic that sets me off real easy.
Not true, constitution allows for laws to be made on moral and religious beliefs as long as no national religion is established and as long as the laws are made in a secular setting.

Admittedly, there is a double standard imposed where often people encourage non-Christian values - "minority" faiths like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. - to be represented fairly. I remember in NYC there was a convention hosted to try and honor all the customs of each faith in the education system - things like offering Halal and Kosher food, having days off for Diwali (Hindu) and Ramadan/Eid (Islam), etc. - but the Christians are considered to "already have their say", that the dominance is already so intent that people don't give a second look at Christian holidays/teachings because it already is so widespread and influential.

Also, the question is, if the Constitution only bans a national faith, on what basis can the government determine "moral and religious" beliefs that are applicable to all?

[Sea of Time]

This is beside the point.

The point?

Sarah Palin is a ****ing idiot.

[Eugine]

She's actually my favourite out of the four. I hope she runs in 2012.

[Ironsight]

Sea of Time, on Oct 9 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

This is beside the point.

The point?

Sarah Palin is a ****ing idiot.

Care to expland? I haven't looked at anything political since the Vice-Presidential debate.

[Eugine]

I'm sure he is talking about an interview Sarah did with Katie Couric. She explained why she messed up the interview - she was nervous. She was trusted into the national level so quickly, and was annoyed by Katie asking her what newspaper she read, when there were obviously more pressing matters. She has been excellent in every interview there after, and clearly understands the world challenges.

But ah well, if people want to judge someone by one interview, then it's their decision to.

Too bad most teens get their news from SNL, and comedy shows. Sad times.

[Nosferatu]

Now, I'm not usually one to post about politics, but this caught my eye.
Somebody seems to have declared Obama a terrorist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/09/m...d_n_133240.html

I <3 Digg.

[Eugine]

He isn't one, but he sure was friends with one, apparently unaware of his past...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=OowxMcVTjTE
Greatly disturbing.

[Legolastom]

This is the politics thread not the bull**** thread.

[Aquamarine]

obma iS teh messiAh he wil s,ave th e wrld gedit k/

no obaMa iz gong t'oo detruct ion deh houl word fck' u

[Saturos S.]

The annoying thing is, that people just say they're republican or democrat. There's nothing else. :D

[Gio]

Saturos Striker, on Oct 10 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

The annoying thing is, that people just say they're republican or democrat. There's nothing else. :D

There a quite a few constitutionalist and libertarians her to, but you don't notice because mostly only dems and reps are actually noticed.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, seriously, let's not post infantile nonsense like that. Leg put it well:

Legolastom, on Oct 10 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

This is the politics thread not the bull**** thread.

Saturos Striker, on Oct 10 2008, 03:12 PM, said:

The annoying thing is, that people just say they're republican or democrat. There's nothing else. :D

Gio, on Oct 10 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

There a quite a few constitutionalist and libertarians her to, but you don't notice because mostly only dems and reps are actually noticed.

This is really one of the saddest parts of the US political system. It's so polarized, only the Republicans and Democrats have any say. I always have a fair amount of envy for other nations, who often have multiple political parties - all across the spectrum - which makes not only for a more dynamic process, but really lets you have all that variety in perspective and issues.

Constiutionalists and Libertarians share many ideals with moderate Republicans, and the Green party would attract some hardcore Democrats, as an example.

[Gio]

Yeah we definitely should have a multiple-party system. I suggest it be just like Italys. /sarcasm

[Golden Legacy]

Always the most radical example?
At the very least, third parties in the USA should get federal funding so they can actually have a chance to compete. It's silly that the 2 party system is so dominant, it restrains choice.

[Eugine]

Wait, so it doesn't disturb you that a church is worshipping Barack Obama?

[Saturos S.]

Gio, on Oct 10 2008, 11:13 PM, said:

Yeah we definitely should have a multiple-party system. I suggest it be just like Italys. /sarcasm

Golden Legacy, on Oct 10 2008, 11:21 PM, said:

Always the most radical example?
At the very least, third parties in the USA should get federal funding so they can actually have a chance to compete. It's silly that the 2 party system is so dominant, it restrains choice.

The multi-party system works pretty well here in Holland. The last two terms have been poor examples, but the 20 before that are good. The polarising parties with just a few points tend to get a lot of support during the term. But when the elections come, everyone tends to vote sensibly. But at least there's something for everyone and with the coalition system, there's more then one voice in the executive power.

[edit] Eugine, I find people who worship god himself just as hilarious/stupid.

[Eugine]

Honestly, I like McCain, and sort of Obama (his associations and record deeply disturbs me though)... but um, out of 300 million people, they were the two best candidates for the Presidency? Oh please!

One is an old man who will probably die before he finishes his first term, muchless he preaches to the choir of values when he cheated on his first wife! The other failed at everything he did, used cocaine and was associated with terrorists/anti-American people!

[Golden Legacy]

I'm not even going to try and respond to that, but I'm just going to say, see the current president we have?

That should be enough convincing.

[Eugine]

True. Anyone will be better than Bush.