Who is voting for Obama?

[bethanygm]

I am. I like his theme of "everything is connected and we need to act like it is"..
I like that he is into change. I really believe that what we need is someone young, with fresh ideas, to help clean up the mess our country is in.

I think we are doomed as a nation if we don't change the way we do things.

[Ligda]

I am, but I didn't vote for him in the primaries.

I do however believe his ticket is far better than the Republicans, especially after chosing the VP nominee.

[Aderyn]

I am. I voted for him in the primaries, too. This will be my first time to vote in a general election. I'm very excited. :)

[ElstonGunn]

No one is voting for Obama, due to the fact that no one in the United States has the right to vote for president. ...Unless you happen to be one of the 538 people who are apparently the only people qualified to pick their executive. Otherwise, you're just voting for people who say that they're voting for Obama.

[Jakalwarrior]

wish there was an option for "unsatisfied with either of the available candidates"

[Dave C C]

Neither, but unless he does something stupid he has already won the election.

[Tocsin]

wish there was an option for "unsatisfied with either of the available candidates"

A "none of the above/vote of no confidence/start over with a new slate to choose from" voting option would be one of the biggest improvements conceivable for American Democracy.

In the current state of politics it seems unlikely that anyone would ever get elected, but the fact that U.S. voters never have a decent opportunity to clear out the woodshed just means that there is a lot of professional political dreck that needs to be removed.

[Moriarty]

I'm not voting this time. The state I'm registered in is a forgone conclusion anyway. No contest.

Anyone who is capable of getting himself elected president should on no account be allowed to do the job.

[Sliderule]

Anyone who is capable of getting himself elected president should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Moriarty, I don't normally say this, in fact I don't think I ever have, I think you're real swell.

And so that I do contribute to this post to some degree besides my blatant hero worship I will say that I do not plan on voting.

I live in Illinois what is the point? Not to mention I don't ever want to serve jury duty.

[PRBori]

Hmm... I'm leaning towards Obama and Biden. I'm not to please with McCains VP running mate... she drives me nuts...

Nevertheless, this will be the first time in 17 years that I would vote and I guess I'm looking forward to it... I guess I want to know what the fuss is all about....

[Moriarty]

I can't take credit for the quote. I don't remember who it belongs to, tho.

[metamagnet]

I "sealed the deal" with Obama during the VP debate. I couldn't believe what Palin was saying about powers allotted to the VP. And then Biden was like, "what the hell, the VP has cleary defined roles written in the constitution." And I was like "ok, whelp, I hate you Biden, but Barack is OK and I agree with you for once, so, fine you got my vote."

[Evalind]

I'm still weighing third party candidates. I'm voting for my state's Independence party candidate for senate, not sure about president yet though.

[Monte314]

I can't figure out who Sen. Obama is.

[Jakalwarrior]

I can't figure out who Sen. Obama is.

Just the next guy we are all going to come to hate.

[Moriarty]

I can't figure out who Sen. Obama is.

"Working as intended."

[Lights]

I can't figure out who Sen. Obama is.

A good place to start...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Iscariot]

If the world would be voting on this, Obama would completely crush McCain. Unfortunately, the world isn't allowed to choose the person that will determine a great part of their future, Americans are. Again unfortunately, America is largely inhabited by rednecks and conservatives who will go with anyone that says: ''lower taxes *cough*for the rich only*cough*'' and: ''Iran is a threat to our nations safety''. I hope Obama wins, not because he's that great but because McCain and especially Palin suck, hard.

[CaptainA]

For Obama/Biden. Best of a bad lot. McCain is showing, in my opinion, senility and his running mate is too damn scary. Truth is I may not actually vote in any case.

[Synamon]

I'm not voting this time. The state I'm registered in is a forgone conclusion anyway. No contest.

Anyone who is capable of getting himself elected president should on no account be allowed to do the job.

I can't take credit for the quote. I don't remember who it belongs to, tho.

Douglas Adams. There are some other great political quotes here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Elsien]

I do not plan to vote. if anyone has read my other posts you can see I am not fond of our system, and I refuse to play into the nonsensical method of voting.

Obama, has a unique position where he says we need change!
Obama represents change:
He is African American
He is younger than most elected presidents (assuming he gets elected)
And I strongly believe his theme "We are all connected, we need to act like it" is an easy tailor to people who may think differently than the majority. And I strongly think that this 'change' and 'act like we are connected' are a play on words that literally mean: North American Union. One step closer to World Government.

However I am not too fond of McCain either. Simple campaign strategy to bring on a hot woman to be VP, I mean literally.... WTF has she ever said that made sense or was so grand on the level of helping America.

[Snowdragon]

After reading this NYT article (www . nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09web-healy.html?hp) I got the impression that Obama may have an INTJ personality.

What do y'all think? If Obama's not INTJ, what is he?

ENFP. I know he's an NF, during one of his debates, he uses analogies to get his point across.

[PHS Philip]

If I could, I'd vote for Obama. He's not terrible, not great. McCain/Palin, on the other hand, scares the crap out of me.

PS: Lol at the "omg foreigners they smell funny wurld government ahhh" post a few above me. God forbid we get rid of the single most destructive system we've ever come up with (nations).

[meanlittlechimp]

WTF has she ever said that made sense or was so grand on the level of helping America.

How about these?

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" --Sarah Palin, interview with CNBC's "Kudlow & Co", July 2008
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric to cite specific examples of how John McCain has pushed for more regulation in his 26 years in the Senate, CBS interview, Sept. 24, 2008
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Considering they've been extremely careful to not let her talk to the press (I think it's a 50 to 1 ratio in the number of interviews Biden has done compared to Palin); it's amazing how many idiotic things she's said in such a limited amount of time. Incredibly, she might be the first person to run for national office to actually be dumber than Bush Jr.

[Elsien]

Condering they've been extremely careful to not let her talk to the press (I think it's a 50 to 1 ratio in the number of interviews Biden has done compared to Palin); it's amazing how many idiotic things she's said in such a limited amount of time. Incredibly, she might be the first person to run for national office to actually be less articulate than Bush Jr.


Unfortunately this view can be taken two ways:
One: The view I have, Palin is just a campaign strategy.
Two: The owners of the different media companies are in cahoots with trying to get Obama into power.

Now this is pure speculation here but: Don't news journalists have to get approval before going to certain events and their questions pre-screened by an authoritative figure? If that is so then the 'Authoritative figure" has his do's and don'ts from his authority etc etc all the way up to the top. Now what if the corporate leaders are privy to something that Obama being in power is going to reap them more profit? It could be anything, who knows what literally goes on with Large corporation leaders and mass media leaders??

Perhaps that is why Palin has been interviewed so little or on such trivial things and been ridiculed for such things as 'not being able to cite certain things on the spot'

Either way that is just something to think about.

[thr4im]

I have been working on the campaign here in North Carolina since February. Be happy to discuss any issues...

That is to say I have been working WITH the campaign, not FOR the campaign.

[Infinel]

I really cant say I feel confident in Obama or Mccain being president, but I'm slightly leaning towards Mccain.
Obama strikes me as untrustworthy, like he wont follow through with half of the promises he's made if he wins the election. His campaign is based on change, which voters are just blindly eating up like free candy. Change is good when it improves something, but change just for change's sake is a waste of time and money. His voting history is also spotty, like he just lets himself get swept along with the majority without ever adding his own opinions. Then, during the the whole economic crisis thing, he was more interested in going to the presidential debate than going to Washington to find a solution to the problem.
Mccain sees out of touch with the needs and wants of the common American. He wants to help the economy by helping the rich get richer? That doesn't seem like the best solution to me.
Guess I could always go with Nader. Doesn't he run every election? :p

[True Rune]

I'd probably vote for Obama, but hearing that speech at the convention annoyed me. Plus I don't really want to vote pro-choice. Overall, for this being the first election I can vote in, I don't really want to vote at all.

[faedra]

Not in the US, but just out of interest, what about third-party candidates? I know they don't have much of a chance now, but as it doesn't appear to me that anyone here's particularly enthusiastic about either of the two big guns, how do you think it'll end up if we were to decide?

[Futuremouse]

I can't take credit for the quote. I don't remember who it belongs to, tho.

mark twain? EDIT: sorry, Douglas Adams, apparently. weird i didn't know that, i'm periodically obsessed with his writing.

i live in one of the only left leaning cities in the republic of texas, which will go staunchly obama (except for the precincts in the more affluent suburbs), but the rest of the state and all the electoral votes will go to mccain.

i'll vote obama, for lack of a better candidate. i do think (note i didn't say 'believe') he will be a charismatic and inspiring 'leader', while Biden and his appointees with be the actual administrators and responsible for crafting any legislation.

i 'believe' that i would be poorly advised to cast my vote for some old-ass man who married into millions, and is severely misinformed as to what social and economic policies would benefit someone of my means, which are vastly average.

[Evalind]

Not in the US, but just out of interest, what about third-party candidates?

I'm leaning toward Bob Barr, but am not 100% committed yet. And, like I said earlier, I'm voting for a third party candidate for my state's senate race. :)

[PHS Philip]

Not in the US, but just out of interest, what about third-party candidates? I know they don't have much of a chance now, but as it doesn't appear to me that anyone here's particularly enthusiastic about either of the two big guns, how do you think it'll end up if we were to decide?

The third parties tend to be fringe for a reason, I think.

[Americano]

The third parties tend to be fringe for a reason, I think.

Duverger's Law (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[PHS Philip]

Duverger's Law (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I'm not saying that that's the only reason, I'm just saying I've noticed the tendency. The American libertarians are pretty fanatical (and tell half the world's libertarians that they aren't libertarians), and the green party are a little...odd as well. Those are the two I can think of off the top of my head, but you see my point? The 3rd party has fringe ideas, and then (especially in the case of the "libertarians") blames the media for turning everyone against them.

Ugh, I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts tonight. Hopefully you understood what I meant there.

[Sir Paul]

Obama supporter here... not that I can support...

[Skatt]

I'm voting for Obama; he reminds me of Kennedy. I honestly believe that he is genuine in his speeches. I don't think he will be able to keep a lot of his promises, but I don't doubt that he will try his best to do what's right for the people. I believe that Obama is an ENTP. There is no way that he is a J or an F. He maintains his composure far better than any F type could in a debate against the impractical ramblings of McCain. He also considers issues from many different angles and is very particular about what angles he feels are most adequate. He often stutters slightly when speaking because he is obviously working through his words before he comes out, this is rarely a trait of an F type. He is also a strong optimist. Seems more petulant or perhaps apathetic about minor setbacks and attacks major ones with enthusiasm. He does seem to be oblivious to how untrustworthy most people are when it comes to his diplomacy stance, but that could prove beneficial since generally leading by example is the most effective way to gain the trust of others. It is possible that Obama is an I, but whether he is an I or an E doesn't really matter that much. There is pretty much no chance of his being a S or F though.
McCain on the other-hand is probably a ESFJ. This is also a good type for the office, but in the current situation, one that leads with feeling is likely to be more brash and hard-headed. I think McCain intentions are pure, but his ideas are warped by feeling and misguided vengeance. He seems to be slightly paranoid and tends to react based on notions rather than taking the time to evaluate the situation and consider enough angles to come up with a plan that can actually predict an outcome.
I like both candidates about the same, for the most part they have almost the exact same stand on all of the main issues, though they each have their own words to explain it. I like the way that Obama makes his decisions much more than McCain though.

[Caucus]

I'm not American so realistically my opinions don't count, but I've been keeping an eye on the US elections, debates etc.
Of the two choices, Obama would do a much better job as president. I wouldn't say he is the ultimate ideal president as he has his faults, though how many good politicians are out there these days?
McCain lost the little appeal he had after he chose Palin as his running mate. He talks a heap about judgment, yet what kind of judgment does it take to chose a self-professed moose-hunting, soccer-mum who lacks the experience and intelligence for the postion of VP?
At the end of the day, it's all just politics and two people - both puppets. It's the people behind them that ultimately make the decisions.

[Motor Jax]

yes, the electoral college

the greatest minds the US has to offer, and we as a democracy, have to beg them to put another president in office

i won't vote McCain... he's a Bush guy

Obama, heh why not... i won't vote republican anyways...

with inflation, suffering economy, (continued) war in iraq... oh, and gas prices... didn't the Clinton administration leave us with a surplus of finances? and then some?

leave to Bush to f#$k that up... now we owe more to the rest of the world than we did before he even got into office...

if the nominee is a Bush guy, i won't vote him (or her)...

[Evalind]

didn't the Clinton administration leave us with a surplus of finances? and then some?
I think it was a budget surplus... not a pay down of national debt... which basically means they said something like "let's plan to spend 1 trillion dollars" and then they only spent 99 billion. That's a 1 billion dollar surplus! :rolleyes: Whoopdeedoo.

[Jeff]

Obama is supposedly an INTJ. ∴ He has my vote.

[dragonsscout]

Obama is supposedly an INTJ. ∴ He has my vote.

Obama seems more of an ENFP on a mission to me... perhaps an ENFJ. I'd say he's definitely an EN though.

I am voting for Obama, mostly because I like his stances better than McCain's new stances and Palin :scared: She scares me so much! McCain's choice of her for VP sealed my vote for Obama.

[gadjitfreek]

Obama gets my vote. I used to respect McCain. No longer.

You can't tell me you can be an INTJ and be able to listen to Palin for more than five seconds without your brains bleeding. She so badly needs to go on The Daily Show.

[schwartzie]

It is disturbing that the republican party, while holding the white house, cannot make our poor ravaged government and economy look adequate, even on the eve of the presidential election.

I think the US is at a turning point; I hope it can be turned for the better.

Obama.

[TheLastMohican]

You can't tell me you can be an INTJ and be able to listen to Palin for more than five seconds without your brains bleeding. She so badly needs to go on The Daily Show.

I can tell you that I could tolerate listening to her school Biden.

[PHS Philip]

I can tell you that I could tolerate listening to her school Biden.

School? Hardly. It's not hard to win a debate if no one calls you out when you ignore the questions and run off a memorized, prepped set of responses instead. Biden left her alone because the Republicans would have loved to portray Palin as being "ganged up on by the Old Boys Club" or some such nonsense. They would have played the victim/gender card exactly the way they mocked Hillary for doing, only more so.

[TheLastMohican]

School? Hardly. It's not hard to win a debate if no one calls you out when you ignore the questions and run off a memorized, prepped set of responses instead. Biden left her alone because the Republicans would have loved to portray Palin as being "ganged up on by the Old Boys Club" or some such nonsense. They would have played the victim/gender card exactly the way they mocked Hillary for doing, only more so.

I admit that I replied to an extreme comment with an exaggeration in the reverse. True, her replies were canned and pasteurized. It's neither here nor there what the Republicans would have said; if Biden was capable to demolishing Palin, he should have done it, and I think he probably was not capable. He went off topic just as much as she did, and made about the same number of gaffes. He at least should have avoided saying anything stupid, and in that he failed, indicating that he was not just damming up his talents for a lenient image.

[PHS Philip]

I admit that I replied to an extreme comment with an exaggeration in the reverse. True, her replies were canned and pasteurized. It's neither here nor there what the Republicans would have said; if Biden was capable to demolishing Palin, he should have done it, and I think he probably was not capable. He went off topic just as much as she did, and made about the same number of gaffes. He at least should have avoided saying anything stupid, and in that he failed, indicating that he was not just damming up his talents for a lenient image.

Biden's issue is that he rambles, talks too much, and yes, gaffs. However, his gaffs tend to be of the "oops, I misspoke," variety, whereas Palin's seem to be pretty indicative of her knowledge. She's not stupid, but she's ignorant in the extreme (and that's not even touching on her politics). I didn't like some of the interviews with her because clearly she was nervous, so she was misspeaking. That doesn't indicate ignorance and stupidity. Her other statements, however, do show ignorance.

Then of course there are her political stances, her ethical violations, and her ignoring separation of church and state. But those aren't relevant to the point here really, so I'll leave those for another thread.

[TheLastMohican]

Biden's issue is that he rambles, talks too much, and yes, gaffs. However, his gaffs tend to be of the "oops, I misspoke," variety, whereas Palin's seem to be pretty indicative of her knowledge.

They both lie, plain and simple. Biden lied more during the debate, because he was backed into a corner more often, and making up facts was the easiest way out. He also showed ignorance regarding the role of the vice president, while Palin actually knew what she was talking about. Biden's big mouth is alternately a political curse and a blessing, while Palin is more consistent, and lacking brilliant moments.

[PHS Philip]

They both lie, plain and simple. Biden lied more during the debate, because he was backed into a corner more often, and making up facts was the easiest way out. He also showed ignorance regarding the role of the vice president, while Palin actually knew what she was talking about. Biden's big mouth is alternately a political curse and a blessing, while Palin is more consistent, and lacking brilliant moments.

Um, Palin wants to expand the VP's role. That's already been done far beyond what is reasonable by Darth Cheney. I find it difficult to believe that Palin, who recently said that she didn't know what the VP even does, is now well versed in not only the function now, but the history of the office and the reasons for its powers and restrictions.

As I said, Biden could get backed into a corner because he didn't 100% ignore the questions asked. He bent them, but he didn't go so far as to flat out say he didn't feel like answering them.

[TheLastMohican]

Um, Palin wants to expand the VP's role. That's already been done far beyond what is reasonable by Darth Cheney. I find it difficult to believe that Palin, who recently said that she didn't know what the VP even does, is now well versed in not only the function now, but the history of the office and the reasons for its powers and restrictions.

She might not retain the input from her crash course a week from now, but she remembered it long enough for the debate. At least at that moment, she did know more about it than Biden, be it rote memorization or actual understanding.

As I said, Biden could get backed into a corner because he didn't 100% ignore the questions asked. He bent them, but he didn't go so far as to flat out say he didn't feel like answering them.

Agreed. But in politics, that means it's his wrong. None of this is deep or logical, because it doesn't have to be. All that really matters for the majority of the viewers is that the candidate looks good, sounds strong, and doesn't say "um" too often. Biden's mistake was letting himself be outdone in evasiveness, and his salvation was subsequently outdoing Palin in dishonesty.

[Skatt]

Everything I checked on the responses showed that Biden was telling the truth on everything he said. Not saying that I'm 100%, but I couldn't find any factual evidence that showed contrary and found plenty in his favor. His description of the role of vice president was correct also, it was a bit rushed because he is obviously passionate about not modifying the role any further.
Palin didn't have to lie, she didn't answer any questions. I know that's a bit of an exaggeration, but she really only answered the ones pertaining to what she agreed with and how she felt about McCain and the opposing candidates. She's not ready to be in office. I'd probably like her if they brought her back in 4-8 years with a different presidential candidate though.

You don't say um when you are talking about something you are knowledgeable about? I do, most people who speak with their brains do. It's a verbal delay used to sort information before it leaves the mouth. I'm not saying it's a good thing all the time (looking at Bush), but it shouldn't hold as much weight as what is actually said.
IMO Biden owned in the debate. He was more real, he still had way more facts to spit than Palin even with her echoing her crash course in the fundamentals of politics. There was nothing strong about Palin's side of the debate. It was weak and lacked substance.
It is unfortunate that so many people are just going to look at speech patterns and clarity that are entirely removed from any of the debate topics.
I really wish that candidates were required to pass extensive tests in order to even qualify to run for any office. The standards for government jobs in the US are way too low.

[faedra]

Everything I checked on the responses showed that Biden was telling the truth on everything he said. Not saying that I'm 100%, but I couldn't find any factual evidence that showed contrary and found plenty in his favor.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You don't say um when you are talking about something you are knowledgeable about? I do, most people who speak with their brains do. It's a verbal delay used to sort information before it leaves the mouth. I'm not saying it's a good thing all the time (looking at Bush), but it shouldn't hold as much weight as what is actually said.
IMO Biden owned in the debate. He was more real, he still had way more facts to spit than Palin even with her echoing her crash course in the fundamentals of politics. There was nothing strong about Palin's side of the debate. It was weak and lacked substance.

Biden might have won in the information area, which is all that matters to us, but in terms of people and style, Palin was far funnier, more folksy and connected better. Not to mention that expectations for her were so low that she won simply by not making any serious gaffes.

[Reon]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Biden might have won in the information area, which is all that matters to us, but in terms of people and style, Palin was far funnier, more folksy and connected better. Not to mention that expectations for her were so low that she won simply by not making any serious gaffes.

Uh....Is that really 'important' for a vice president? I mean......seriously?

Edit: The funny and 'folksy' part

[TheLastMohican]

Uh....Is that really 'important' for a vice president? I mean......seriously?


Sadly, yes. At least it is crucial for the election phase.

[Lagawrd]

Obama is smart, yes. But, intelligence is not the only key in running a country such as this one. One must have some sort of experience.

This is what I have in my head:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


We already know how good or bad Mccain is. What is the worst he can be? Bush status? Now, obama, even though he can be better than mccain, his negative attributes are unknown and can stretch farther than mccain's, we still do not know how bad he can be in general when he becomes president. The only pragmatic choice I can see here is Mccain.

Besides, I do not trust half of what I hear from them during debates and speeches.

[agentem]

I've been an INTJ for a long time, but I'm new to the forum.
This thread has me wondering how many INTJ's are libertarians.
I've found the political philosophy that allows for the greatest freedom in choice and thought, and I'm thinking that being an INTJ has something to do with it.

Any other libertarian INTJ's out there?

[PHS Philip]

I really don't understand the experience argument for McCain. He's changed so many of his positions since declaring candidacy that I seriously doubt that he has any experience executing any of these new positions. I mean, he's gone in the course of a week from going on about being anti regulation to bragging about how much more pro regulation than Obama he is. If his positions are remotely close to what is needed, well, doesn't that imply that he's done everything wrong up to now?

[tp6626]

Obama is smart, yes. But, intelligence is not the only key in running a country such as this one. One must have some sort of experience.

This is what I have in my head:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


We already know how good or bad Mccain is. What is the worst he can be? Bush status? Now, obama, even though he can be better than mccain, his negative attributes are unknown and can stretch farther than mccain's, we still do not know how bad he can be in general when he becomes president. The only pragmatic choice I can see here is Mccain.

Besides, I do not trust half of what I hear from them during debates and speeches.

How can you ever expect change with this kind of attitude?

How do you actually know how how good or bad McCain actually is? You only assume he can't be worse than Bush. Who's to say he can't be?

What have you seen of Obama to make you suspicious that he could 'fall back' further than McCain, or Bush for that matter?

Your statement just seems to be riddled with bad reasoning and unsubstantiated assumptions. Actually, many of the posts in here appear this way. Is politics something which is ingrained, and skews peoples thought processes, in much the way religion can sometimes? It appears that way to me...





tp6626 added to this post, 2 minutes and 36 seconds later...

Oh, and you do realise that if (when) Obama gets in, the first time he does something radical, he'll be assassinated?

There are a lot of crazy people in America (never mind islamic states!).

[Lagawrd]

How can you ever expect change with this kind of attitude?

Explain. Both presidents are there for change.

How do you actually know how how good or bad McCain actually is? You only assume he can't be worse than Bush. Who's to say he can't be?

Worse than bush? It is possible, but lets stick to what is probable.

What have you seen of Obama to make you suspicious that he could 'fall back' further than McCain, or Bush for that matter?

What makes you so sure that he would not? Have you seen anything from him worth analyzing? I am keeping an open mind by saying he expresses better judgements than mccain, but since we know so little about his ways, he can also fall way behind mccain when it comes time for his presidency.

Your statement just seems to be riddled with bad reasoning and unsubstantiated assumptions. Actually, many of the posts in here appear this way. Is politics something which is ingrained, and skews peoples thought processes, in much the way religion can sometimes? It appears that way to me...

Politics is extremely vague to the point where acquiring information about real things becomes stocking up on people's superficial opinions interwined with the handicapped promises of would-be presidents.

The whole point of my post is that we can never know. Of course you can critisize my idea and break it down and ask all the 'what if's you can, which is the point, but can you really say anything more precise?

If yes, perhaps you can shed some light, that way there won't be a debate and things would start becoming clear.

[bethanygm]

Not in the US, but just out of interest, what about third-party candidates? I know they don't have much of a chance now, but as it doesn't appear to me that anyone here's particularly enthusiastic about either of the two big guns, how do you think it'll end up if we were to decide?

It's really bad if too many people decicde to vote for 3rd party... I am really hoping to get the republicans out of the white house.. If enough "independent voters" decide to go for a third party, that takes votes away from the two main candidates.. The third party never wins.. I wish they could.. But as of right now- it doesn't work that way.
Certainly anone voting for one of the 3rd party liberals- like Ralph Nadar- would cast their vote for Obama before Mccain. Obama needs every vote he can get. I want to give the democrats a chance. I think the Republicans have had enough time to screw up our country and the way the rest of the world views us.





bethanygm added to this post, 3 minutes and 30 seconds later...

mark twain? EDIT: sorry, Douglas Adams, apparently. weird i didn't know that, i'm periodically obsessed with his writing.

i live in one of the only left leaning cities in the republic of texas, which will go staunchly obama (except for the precincts in the more affluent suburbs), but the rest of the state and all the electoral votes will go to mccain.

i'll vote obama, for lack of a better candidate. i do think (note i didn't say 'believe') he will be a charismatic and inspiring 'leader', while Biden and his appointees with be the actual administrators and responsible for crafting any legislation.

i 'believe' that i would be poorly advised to cast my vote for some old-ass man who married into millions, and is severely misinformed as to what social and economic policies would benefit someone of my means, which are vastly average.

I read somewhere that Texas is one of those "rigged" states. The lines in all the districts have been redrawn so many times so that in each district (or most of them) Republicans can win out.
It should be illegal.
I wish we had a true popular vote to put a president in office.

[Futuremouse]

I can tell you that I could tolerate listening to her school Biden.

wow.

kids today, with your baggy pants and your rock n' roll music.

palin is near the most unqualified candidate to be with one failed beat of an old-ass cancer patient's heart of being the president of the most powerful military and economy in history.

that doesn't disconcert you in the least? i mean, party loyalty and the cozy security of your parent's house notwithstanding?





Futuremouse added to this post, 28 minutes and 52 seconds later...

Um, I completely disagree with TLM, but your post isn't exactly a stellar contribution.

good. i wasn't going for stellar.

bringing up Palin's 'performance' in the debate is not unlike comparing and contrasting pralines vs dicks while debating the quality of Sting's performance in 'Dune'.

the point is, the fact that she didn't have a seizure doesn't impart any sort of further credibility for her wholly laughable appointment as a candidate for VP. the rationed argument everyone was engaged in was derailed by this lapse in logic. i simply followed the trail of wreckage and rubbernecked.

[TheLastMohican]

palin is near the most unqualified candidate to be with one failed beat of an old-ass cancer patient's heart of being the president of the most powerful military and economy in history.

that doesn't disconcert you in the least? i mean, party loyalty and the cozy security of your parent's house notwithstanding?


Of course I find it disconcerting. What does that matter? I still find a 30% chance of a Palin administration less disconcerting than a certain Obama administration. Are you implying that you find any part of this campaign reassuring?

I don't have "party loyalty," by the way. Republican candidates' stances are usually closer to my own, but that is correlation, not causation.

[Futuremouse]

Of course I find it disconcerting. What does that matter? I still find a 30% chance of a Palin administration less disconcerting than a certain Obama administration. Are you implying that you find any part of this campaign reassuring?

I don't have "party loyalty," by the way. Republican candidates' stances are usually closer to my own, but that is correlation, not causation.

what does it matter? she'd be the tiebreaking vote in the senate, even before mccain drops dead. the fact that she would even have that sort of influence is staggering, based on her qualifications and past performance as a legislator.

as a patriot, i am concerned that anything to do with the executive branch of government be decided by some sort of marketing icon.

i'd much prefer the Hamburglar. at least you knew what he was on about.

[PHS Philip]

TLM, why does an Obama presidency worry you?

[TheLastMohican]

what does it matter? she'd be the tiebreaking vote in the senate, even before mccain drops dead. the fact that she would even have that sort of influence is staggering, based on her qualifications and past performance as a legislator.


You seem to have missed my point. I know I would not like all of Palin's votes in the senate, but I'm fairly certain I would agree with her vote more often than Biden's. What matters is which I prefer, not how good I think the better one will be.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 12 minutes and 37 seconds later...

TLM, why does an Obama presidency worry you?

I'm not sure if it's correct to say I'm "worried" by it, because I don't think that I will suffer greatly as a result of his presidency. I do however disagree with many of his policies, and therefore I think our government will be worse off by the end of his term(s) (or rather, worsened more than it would have been under McCain). I don't know if I should delve into said policies here, but his health care plan and his attitudes towards foreign policy regarding hostile nations are both particularly troublesome. (A succinct example of the latter is his praise for the Gulf War as a well-executed operation, apparently including the part about leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the attack on Kuwait.)

[Futuremouse]

You seem to have missed my point. I know I would not like all of Palin's votes in the senate, but I'm fairly certain I would agree with her vote more often than Biden's. What matters is which I prefer, not how good I think the better one will be.

i wish you had made a point for me to miss.

let's back up.

Sadly, yes. At least it is crucial for the election phase.

this, in response to the question that the fact that she was more folksy, which is why she in perception, not reality, 'won' the debate. please. the fact that a troubling percentage find this important doesn't make it true, or rational, or admirable.

What matters is which I prefer, not how good I think the better one will be.

in practice, sure. in principle, you're treading a very dangerous path. the fact that they've stumped up some pathetic archetype means that the republican party, despite every tenant and ideal, loses any and all credibility they might have had.

it's a non-choice at this point. the GOP has negated themselves by forcing me to chose between a democrat and an idiot. regardless of any of my political leanings, attaching such an abject simpleton to their ticket, at the risk of perhaps becoming Commander in Chief, i could not possibly, in good conscience (or with reasoned aforethought), endorse such a scenario.

[PHS Philip]

I'm not sure if it's correct to say I'm "worried" by it, because I don't think that I will suffer greatly as a result of his presidency. I do however disagree with many of his policies, and therefore I think our government will be worse off by the end of his term(s) (or rather, worsened more than it would have been under McCain). I don't know if I should delve into said policies here, but his health care plan and his attitudes towards foreign policy regarding hostile nations are both particularly troublesome. (A succinct example of the latter is his praise for the Gulf War as a well-executed operation, apparently including the part about leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the attack on Kuwait.)

I'll save this for another thread, I guess, except for one quick thing. I think he was saying that the Gulf War was well executed because removing Hussein was never the goal. The goal was to stop the threat to a friendly nation. Hussein wasn't stupid enough to attack them again if the US beat him, so the threat would be ended. We don't have the resources to go around setting up new governments (and anyway, we've tried that and the results were the last two countries we've invaded), so the goal has to be to end threats to our allies and us, not to bring down tyrants.

[Karamazov]

I'll save this for another thread, I guess, except for one quick thing. I think he was saying that the Gulf War was well executed because removing Hussein was never the goal. The goal was to stop the threat to a friendly nation. Hussein wasn't stupid enough to attack them again if the US beat him, so the threat would be ended. We don't have the resources to go around setting up new governments (any anyway, we've tried that and the results were the last two countries we've invaded), so the goal has to be to end threats to our allies and us, not to bring down tyrants.

Including the aforementioned C-SPAN interview with Dick Cheney, illustrating as to why taking down Hussein would be a frivolous enterprise, and a costly one at that. More dead soldiers, as he said, wouldn't be worth it.

And no, I'm not voting for Obama.

[TheLastMohican]

the fact that a troubling percentage find this important doesn't make it true, or rational, or admirable.

That is why I said it "sadly" is important.

regardless of any of my political leanings, attaching such an abject simpleton to their ticket, at the risk of perhaps becoming Commander in Chief, i could not possibly, in good conscience (or with reasoned aforethought), endorse such a scenario.

If Obama was less intelligent than Palin, would you abstain from voting? I'd like to know what you think constitutes an unacceptable ticket.

I'll save this for another thread, I guess, except for one quick thing. I think he was saying that the Gulf War was well executed because removing Hussein was never the goal. The goal was to stop the threat to a friendly nation. Hussein wasn't stupid enough to attack them again if the US beat him, so the threat would be ended. We don't have the resources to go around setting up new governments (and anyway, we've tried that and the results were the last two countries we've invaded), so the goal has to be to end threats to our allies and us, not to bring down tyrants.

My opinion is that Hussein was enough of a nuisance to warrant a bit of effort. But then I don't think we are obligated to go to such lengths to set up new governments either, so as far as I am concerned the politicians have created a false choice for themselves. Infusing leadership with supposed moral imperatives is a frequent downer in such matters.

[Futuremouse]

If Obama was less intelligent than Palin, would you abstain from voting? I'd like to know what you think constitutes an unacceptable ticket.

foul.

you don't get to change the odds after i've placed my bet. and, young man, you don't get to change the scenario once i've made my argument.

i deal in things that are tangible. what if sarah palin is the manchurian candidate? you know, being that close to russia (which is where almost all of her foreign policy credentials come from, you know...proximity).. what if? what if? what if?

the republican ticket is unconscionable, due to the inclusion of palin. i get why they did it, sure, but my understanding of their motivations doesn't make it any more plausible.

or, more importantly, responsible.

[dragonsscout]

My opinion is that Hussein was enough of a nuisance to warrant a bit of effort. But then I don't think we are obligated to go to such lengths to set up new governments either, so as far as I am concerned the politicians have created a false choice for themselves. Infusing leadership with supposed moral imperatives is a frequent downer in such matters.

So you would have supported invasion, but wanted to pull out as soon as Hussein was toppled? I don't think I'm understanding what your saying...:huh:

This thread has me wondering how many INTJ's are libertarians.
I've found the political philosophy that allows for the greatest freedom in choice and thought, and I'm thinking that being an INTJ has something to do with it.

Any other libertarian INTJ's out there?

Yes, quite a few, though I recommend you start a new poll to find out the stats for the forum.

[TheLastMohican]

foul.

you don't get to change the odds after i've placed my bet. and, young man, you don't get to change the scenario once i've made my argument.


What? It's a hypothetical question meant to clarify your reasoning. My current understanding is that you feel it is wrong to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket because you think Palin is an idiot. I want to know if you would consider it wrong to not vote for the McCain-Palin ticket in the event that the Democratic ticket included someone less intelligent than Palin, or if you would then consider it wrong to vote for either.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 10 minutes and 8 seconds later...

So you would have supported invasion, but wanted to pull out as soon as Hussein was toppled? I don't think I'm understanding what your saying...:huh:


It's a complex issue, and a lot depends on what other people of influence are present at the time. In some cases, I could see going to the trouble of setting up a democracy. Most of the time, however, I think it would be better to aid a cooperative cleric or some other centralized form of government. The current problem in Iraq is that we're trying to force a democracy to work in a population that gravitates towards charismatic leaders, and frequently supports those leaders in opposition of the less familiar democracy. We don't really need to introduce a new form of government to the region; we just need to set up a reasonably stable and friendly leadership that will cause significantly less trouble than the previous dictator.

The most problematic scenario is allowing an actively hostile leader to stay in power, and/or failing to apply and enforce restrictions on that leader's government after he does something like attacking Kuwait. It's penny-wise and pound-foolish to beat back the Iraqi troops, patch up Kuwait, and then repeat as necessary for decades.

[Skatt]

Oh, and you do realise that if (when) Obama gets in, the first time he does something radical, he'll be assassinated?

There are a lot of crazy people in America (never mind islamic states!).

Even so, Obama hasn't shown any radical beliefs at all. He treats every issues individually and as a whole. No one is going to be perfect at being president, Obama has shown that he can do a good job. Biden isn't all that great, but he would do a good job as well in either the VP or presidential seat.
The way the radicals are in this country, Obama wouldn't even have to do anything radical for someone to attempt to assassinate him. He doesn't deserve to die for any reason though.


I don't have "party loyalty," by the way. Republican candidates' stances are usually closer to my own, but that is correlation, not causation.
I don't have party loyalty either, and the republican party stances are typically more of my cup in tea in a lot of ways. Just wanted to say that we have that in common in some ways.

You seem to have missed my point. I know I would not like all of Palin's votes in the senate, but I'm fairly certain I would agree with her vote more often than Biden's. What matters is which I prefer, not how good I think the better one will be.


I choose the candidates based on how well I think they will perform in office in addition to their stands on the issues. The stances that I am most passionate about this time around are generally the same for each candidate, so I feel forced to resort to the ways that they seem to go about making decisions and minor details that hardly matter in the big picture.


I don't know if I should delve into said policies here, but his health care plan

McCain's health plan is estimated to be about equal in cost. Obama's is at least complete and well documented.


and his attitudes towards foreign policy regarding hostile nations are both particularly troublesome. (A succinct example of the latter is his praise for the Gulf War as a well-executed operation, apparently including the part about leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the attack on Kuwait.)

When you have a problem with a person that you cannot avoid forever, do you give them the silent treatment and hope that they will eventually submit to you? If so, how successful has this been for you?
I have never seen this work for anyone in any situation that mattered outside of stupid drama, so I'd be pretty surprised if it works for you or McCain. I don't see how you think meeting with the leaders of hostile nations could possibly be less troublesome than disrespecting them by sending grunts to outline demands pre-negotiation. That's pretty much the lunch room drama shit that I know we all hated in elementary.

The Gulf War was well executed in that it accomplished most of it's goals efficiently and with minimal casualties. I'm pretty sure that McCain, Bush, and Bush Sr. all agree on this also, therefore it can't really be used as an argument against Obama.

I'll save this for another thread, I guess, except for one quick thing. I think he was saying that the Gulf War was well executed because removing Hussein was never the goal. The goal was to stop the threat to a friendly nation. Hussein wasn't stupid enough to attack them again if the US beat him, so the threat would be ended. We don't have the resources to go around setting up new governments (and anyway, we've tried that and the results were the last two countries we've invaded), so the goal has to be to end threats to our allies and us, not to bring down tyrants.

Who ever made it the policy of the US to bring down tyrants anyway? I don't remember that ever being a part of the agenda in the past. Iraq was mostly stable before we went in there. There were plenty of other countries that were/are less stable and bigger threats that could have been dealt with first. Now we are facing the possibility of being spread too thin. On top of that, if the economy continues like it is there is going to be a huge problem with both funding the overseas affairs and maintaining economic worth in the global market. We could potentially piss of crucial trade partners enough for them to cut back and worsen our economic standing even more. That would not only undermine the efforts for expanding the western form of democracy, but also leave our economy fragile and open to a lot more job losses and even potential foreign take-overs. Speculative, of course, but still a real and more potential than not scenario. Not the only one, but the one I felt like mentioning.

What? It's a hypothetical question meant to clarify your reasoning. My current understanding is that you feel it is wrong to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket because you think Palin is an idiot. I want to know if you would consider it wrong to not vote for the McCain-Palin ticket in the event that the Democratic ticket included someone less intelligent than Palin, or if you would then consider it wrong to vote for either.


I didn't vote for Kerry or Bush because both of them were too stupid by my standards.


It's a complex issue, and a lot depends on what other people of influence are present at the time. In some cases, I could see going to the trouble of setting up a democracy. Most of the time, however, I think it would be better to aid a cooperative cleric or some other centralized form of government. The current problem in Iraq is that we're trying to force a democracy to work in a population that gravitates towards charismatic leaders, and frequently supports those leaders in opposition of the less familiar democracy. We don't really need to introduce a new form of government to the region; we just need to set up a reasonably stable and friendly leadership that will cause significantly less trouble than the previous dictator.

The most problematic scenario is allowing an actively hostile leader to stay in power, and/or failing to apply and enforce restrictions on that leader's government after he does something like attacking Kuwait. It's penny-wise and pound-foolish to beat back the Iraqi troops, patch up Kuwait, and then repeat as necessary for decades.

Good points, but helping Iraq establish some other form of government wouldn't really do any good. One, it would be like trying to teach someone how to knit when you have never knitted. Two, it would be pretty much the same as the stupid band-aid approach you described in that last paragraph.
The problem with US foreign policy is that it's too controlling and forceful; it lacks finesse. Communication is horrible and the goals are set to expect instantaneous results. A better option could possibly be offering something that would give our leaders a chance to offer different options with support from the UN to these countries that aren't prepared to join right away. I haven't thought about it enough to propose something different, but basically I'm trying to say switch to more intuitive policies rather than these tightly ran demands that hardly even touch on the preferences of the foreign leaders.


On a side note, anyone see the whole Palin power abuse thing?

[Futuremouse]

What? It's a hypothetical question meant to clarify your reasoning. My current understanding is that you feel it is wrong to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket because you think Palin is an idiot. I want to know if you would consider it wrong to not vote for the McCain-Palin ticket in the event that the Democratic ticket included someone less intelligent than Palin, or if you would then consider it wrong to vote for either.

no, i get it. but, there isn't any call to clarify my reasoning, as i see it, nor backpedal into hypotheticals. the terms of this election are set, will not change, and are actually the thing we're talking about, right?



The current problem in Iraq is that we're trying to force a democracy to work in a population that gravitates towards charismatic leaders, and frequently supports those leaders in opposition of the less familiar democracy.


i'm sorry? a population that gravitates towards more charismatic leaders?

that's why our 'destroy infrastrucutre -> invade country -> overthrow government -> enable sectarian civil war -> start democracy' plan isn't working?

that statement is at best misinformed, and at worst patently false and derisive.

[TheLastMohican]

McCain's health plan is estimated to be about equal in cost. Obama's is at least complete and well documented.

McCain's has been pretty well laid out as well. I don't like his either, but at least it involves less government intervention. In that case I am going on the theory/principles rather than the cost.


When you have a problem with a person that you cannot avoid forever, do you give them the silent treatment and hope that they will eventually submit to you? If so, how successful has this been for you?
I have never seen this work for anyone in any situation that mattered outside of stupid drama, so I'd be pretty surprised if it works for you or McCain. I don't see how you think meeting with the leaders of hostile nations could possibly be less troublesome than disrespecting them by sending grunts to outline demands pre-negotiation. That's pretty much the lunch room drama shit that I know we all hated in elementary.


Meeting with leaders of hostile nations has not helped us much. Consider North Korea. The pattern continues: we negotiate, they agree to terms that cost us, and after a short break they resume their illegal activities, resulting in more negotiations and more persuasive gifts. It's practically an ongoing blackmail routine, and I don't think hostile nations plan on stopping anytime soon.
Giving them the silent treatment actually might work. The key is that we all know that the U.S. is far more powerful than any other nation. The leaders of the hostile nations who happen to be sane know that it would stupid to attack us. Those who are not sane could still be dealt with relatively easily in the event of a genuine war. The same applies to our allies, who have our strength by extension. Imagine if we established our threshhold of tolerance (leading up to military action) and then refused to negotiate further. What would the hostile nations do? They could no longer get rich off of our recurring settlements, and they could not feasibly take us down in retaliation for our silence. Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see what the hostile nations would gain from our cessation of negotiation.


Good points, but helping Iraq establish some other form of government wouldn't really do any good. One, it would be like trying to teach someone how to knit when you have never knitted. Two, it would be pretty much the same as the stupid band-aid approach you described in that last paragraph.


I mean that that is what we are trying to do right now, and that is the problem. My suggestion about the cleric option (think Al Sadr) is that we could give him a little aid to squelch insignificant rivals in the process, but on the whole we would not need to do much. Just let it take its course, only interfering if the dominant cleric is an especially hostile one. My guess is that such a coup will happen anyway within the next 15 years or so, and there goes all our effort to form a democracy. The most stable form of government in the middle east is a Muslim regime, and that's no surprise. For our own benefit, we should simply ensure a high turnover rate, since the leaders tend to get cocky and rambunctious after our presence has slipped into distant memory.

The problem with US foreign policy is that it's too controlling and forceful; it lacks finesse.

Sure, I agree with you there. It would help a lot if the U.N. would get its act together. Then we wouldn't always be "world police" due to our influence their lack of conviction. If we pulled out of the U.N. altogether, I doubt they could last more than a decade or so.


no, i get it. but, there isn't any call to clarify my reasoning, as i see it, nor backpedal into hypotheticals. the terms of this election are set, will not change, and are actually the thing we're talking about, right?

Right; I already know your position. But I do think it is reasonable to want to know on what you base your position, and how you define its application. I have been explaining my reasoning, and I'd like you to explain yours.

i'm sorry? a population that gravitates towards more charismatic leaders?

that's why our 'destroy infrastrucutre -> invade country -> overthrow government -> enable sectarian civil war -> start democracy' plan isn't working?

that statement is at best misinformed, and at worst patently false and derisive.

If the majority of Iraqis preferred a democracy to a dictator (with each Iraqi's religious affiliation and political views in mind), we would not have nearly as much trouble as we do. The fact is that Islam comes with a strong propensity towards centralized government, a single Muslim leader uniting the world. Iraqis like figureheads. I don't see anything wrong with that tendency as long as the chosen leader is a peaceful one, and that is why I think letting a cooperative cleric take over would be a wiser option. The three-way split in Iraq makes such a setup more awkward than in most countries, since the leader would tend to persecute the two dissenting groups. Still, I think our prospects would have been better with that route than with the attempt at a democracy.

[Futuremouse]

Right; I already know your position. But I do think it is reasonable to want to know on what you base your position, and how you define its application. I have been explaining my reasoning, and I'd like you to explain yours.

what part of the reasoning isn't clear to you? you vote for the ticket. the mccain-palin is flawed, because it's a mccain-palin ticket.

i wouldn't get on a plane where a baggage handler was the co-pilot, no matter how much folksy bullshit he spewed over the PA pre-flight.

the republican ticket is null, in my opinion. the party ceremoniously removed themselves from serious consideration from me.

it's like asking me to choose between a soft-boiled egg (which i hate) and a stab in the face. one of those two (guess which) ceases to be a viable option.

[TheLastMohican]

what part of the reasoning isn't clear to you?

I want to know if it is possible for both tickets (in any election) to be removed from your consideration for these reasons, or if you would always vote for one of them.

[tp6626]

I wasn't gonna post, but futuremouse, you appear to be acting like a dick.

TLM's point was clear ages ago, before you got on your high horse and attempted to patronise him.
foul.

you don't get to change the odds after i've placed my bet. and, young man, you don't get to change the scenario once i've made my argument.
I see he's since spoon fed it to you and now you are beginning to understand, though. Every cloud, eh?

[Skatt]

I think that the problem is that FM isn't really concerned with hypothetical ideals. His judgment is conditional and the question can't possibly outline all the variables that would be required to answer the question according to his standards. I don't think he's trying to be a dick, I think he can't answer the question. I know that I can't really answer it either. All I can say is that I didn't vote for Kerry because he was an idiot too, though not as bad as Palin.

[tp6626]

I am keeping an open mind by saying he expresses better judgements than mccain, but since we know so little about his ways, he can also fall way behind mccain when it comes time for his presidency.

You appeared to be saying of Obama, that he appears so good and unblemished, that he cannot be trusted.

The same reasoning when applied to the decision of who becomes president, could actively filter out better candidates. If you keep rejecting candidates because they appear too good to be true, then you will have no chance of ever electing a president who may be 'saviour of the nation'.

To put it another way, if you were presented with a hypothetical 'perfect' candidate, you would actively filter him/her out through suspicion, and miss out on your best chance for a better future.

Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

[Mau]

wish there was an option for "unsatisfied with either of the available candidates"

Independents, the Green Party?

[PHS Philip]

Meeting with leaders of hostile nations has not helped us much. Consider North Korea. The pattern continues: we negotiate, they agree to terms that cost us, and after a short break they resume their illegal activities, resulting in more negotiations and more persuasive gifts. It's practically an ongoing blackmail routine, and I don't think hostile nations plan on stopping anytime soon.
Giving them the silent treatment actually might work. The key is that we all know that the U.S. is far more powerful than any other nation. The leaders of the hostile nations who happen to be sane know that it would stupid to attack us. Those who are not sane could still be dealt with relatively easily in the event of a genuine war. The same applies to our allies, who have our strength by extension. Imagine if we established our threshhold of tolerance (leading up to military action) and then refused to negotiate further. What would the hostile nations do? They could no longer get rich off of our recurring settlements, and they could not feasibly take us down in retaliation for our silence. Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see what the hostile nations would gain from our cessation of negotiation.

They wouldn't gain anything. We'd lose. I think what you're missing is that going to war with a country who might, even if it's a small chance, have nukes is simply too great a risk. The risk of nuclear war is unacceptable. Even against a non nuclear enemy...Iraq was not just a mismanaged war. Such wars do not work. We saw that in Vietnam, and we've seen it in Afghanistan and Iraq. We do not have the resources to take over and prop up a new government, when we DO prop up a government you get the Taliban, Hussein, etc, and when you leave without a government you have acted unacceptably toward the people of that nation.

I think it's an important point, so I'm going to go into more detail about why war with a potentially nuclear nation is unacceptable. Countries like Iran can't hit American targets with a missile, they don't have the range. But they could certainly hit Israel. So, if Iran's nuclear and we invade, Jerusalem's gone. And what if they load one onto a passenger jet? That can get further, certainly. If it tried to get to the US from Iran, maybe it'd get shot down, maybe not. But what about Europe? They'd be much slower to shoot it down. So, will it be Madrid? Paris? Rome? London? And what if one of the big nuclear nations enters on their side? China or Russia could certainly hit us and Europe. So, will it be L.A.? New York? Chicago? And if a US city or one of our allies' cities gets hit, you think we wouldn't retaliate? If Iran nuked Israel, then Tehran's gone. Maybe Moscow? Beijing? And if that happens, well, I'm sure you know about nuclear fallout and the potential for a nuclear winter.

Is it unlikely? I hope and think so, but at the same time, that is an unacceptable risk. A nuclear war is essentially doomsday.


I mean that that is what we are trying to do right now, and that is the problem. My suggestion about the cleric option (think Al Sadr) is that we could give him a little aid to squelch insignificant rivals in the process, but on the whole we would not need to do much. Just let it take its course, only interfering if the dominant cleric is an especially hostile one. My guess is that such a coup will happen anyway within the next 15 years or so, and there goes all our effort to form a democracy. The most stable form of government in the middle east is a Muslim regime, and that's no surprise. For our own benefit, we should simply ensure a high turnover rate, since the leaders tend to get cocky and rambunctious after our presence has slipped into distant memory.

Mohican, you disappoint me. The last time we did that, as I already said, we got the last 2 countries we've invaded. The Muslim regimes are also so stable in part because the West is perceived as pushing against them. We're resented there; if we stay out, the resentment decreases, and they lose support. If we keep interference up, if we keep starting stupid wars, that's not going to happen.

Sure, I agree with you there. It would help a lot if the U.N. would get its act together. Then we wouldn't always be "world police" due to our influence their lack of conviction. If we pulled out of the U.N. altogether, I doubt they could last more than a decade or so.

We're too worried about our sovereignty to give the UN any power. What are they supposed to do?




If the majority of Iraqis preferred a democracy to a dictator (with each Iraqi's religious affiliation and political views in mind), we would not have nearly as much trouble as we do. The fact is that Islam comes with a strong propensity towards centralized government, a single Muslim leader uniting the world. Iraqis like figureheads. I don't see anything wrong with that tendency as long as the chosen leader is a peaceful one, and that is why I think letting a cooperative cleric take over would be a wiser option. The three-way split in Iraq makes such a setup more awkward than in most countries, since the leader would tend to persecute the two dissenting groups. Still, I think our prospects our better with that route than with the attempt at a democracy.

Mohican, these are really below you. You should know perfectly well that the majority doesn't win out when the minority are better armed. Most people aren't fanatics, whatever their religion or nationality. They're prefer to live in peace. They'd prefer not to have their families killed. The would be theocrats and dictators are a small, well armed minority. You're making absurd and, honestly, disgusting generalizations here. What you've said amounts to an insult to the intelligence of the Iraqis and the Mid East as a whole.

[Skatt]

McCain's has been pretty well laid out as well. I don't like his either, but at least it involves less government intervention. In that case I am going on the theory/principles rather than the cost.
If your only principle is lack of regulation then I suppose you are.
Obama's offers more coverage and is far more efficient than McCain's. Obama's plan simply expands the present system to cover more ground. It's not like insurance is bad for those that have it. It's just bad for those that don't and that's what his system is designed to do. McCain's system doesn't even fix that problem. All it is is another version of the exact same system, except his will make paying for insurance far more noticeable and invent many incentives to purchase less comprehensive coverage. Why base a decision on principles without considering how it will affect you and/or the people you love?


Meeting with leaders of hostile nations has not helped us much. Consider North Korea. The pattern continues: we negotiate, they agree to terms that cost us, and after a short break they resume their illegal activities, resulting in more negotiations and more persuasive gifts. It's practically an ongoing blackmail routine, and I don't think hostile nations plan on stopping anytime soon.
Giving them the silent treatment actually might work. The key is that we all know that the U.S. is far more powerful than any other nation. The leaders of the hostile nations who happen to be sane know that it would stupid to attack us. Those who are not sane could still be dealt with relatively easily in the event of a genuine war. The same applies to our allies, who have our strength by extension. Imagine if we established our threshhold of tolerance (leading up to military action) and then refused to negotiate further. What would the hostile nations do? They could no longer get rich off of our recurring settlements, and they could not feasibly take us down in retaliation for our silence. Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see what the hostile nations would gain from our cessation of negotiation.
I mean that that is what we are trying to do right now, and that is the problem.

It's not really about whether they would gain from it IMO. I think Obama is more likely to be able to convince the leaders of these hostile nations to actually stick to our proposals. His plans are far more intuitive than McCain's. They allow greater freedom while regulating in the proper areas. Obama is about establishing a threshold of tolerance too, his just involves more tact. Respect is key and that is something that really hasn't been considered much. These leaders are used to a certain level of treatment and I'm not saying that we need to feed that. Just understand that that is a factor. Ignoring them isn't going to teach them that they are nothing, it's going to make them believe that we have run out of options and are backing off. It should be stated very clearly where our threshold is drawn and then we should follow through with that. This message should come directly from our leader's mouth to their leader's ears because it shows more strength. Right now, the certain impression is that our leader cannot do much because our people are too soft and have too much power. We have to show them that we really mean business. We have the show the the short-term and long-term benefits of being on our side. Make them reevaluate their priorities


Sure, I agree with you there. It would help a lot if the U.N. would get its act together. Then we wouldn't always be "world police" due to our influence their lack of conviction. If we pulled out of the U.N. altogether, I doubt they could last more than a decade or so.

It's not likely that we would last long without the UN either. As fun as it is to know that we are the most powerful, our allies are what make us that way. If it weren't for them, many countries would be far greater threats and increase the imperativeness of action for us, which is something our system doesn't handle well.


My suggestion about the cleric option (think Al Sadr) is that we could give him a little aid to squelch insignificant rivals in the process, but on the whole we would not need to do much. Just let it take its course, only interfering if the dominant cleric is an especially hostile one. My guess is that such a coup will happen anyway within the next 15 years or so, and there goes all our effort to form a democracy. The most stable form of government in the middle east is a Muslim regime, and that's no surprise. For our own benefit, we should simply ensure a high turnover rate, since the leaders tend to get cocky and rambunctious after our presence has slipped into distant memory.


If the majority of Iraqis preferred a democracy to a dictator (with each Iraqi's religious affiliation and political views in mind), we would not have nearly as much trouble as we do. The fact is that Islam comes with a strong propensity towards centralized government, a single Muslim leader uniting the world. Iraqis like figureheads. I don't see anything wrong with that tendency as long as the chosen leader is a peaceful one, and that is why I think letting a cooperative cleric take over would be a wiser option. The three-way split in Iraq makes such a setup more awkward than in most countries, since the leader would tend to persecute the two dissenting groups. Still, I think our prospects our better with that route than with the attempt at a democracy.

It is a far more intuitive solution, however, it's still not something that our currently leaders are prepared to handle any better than making them a democracy. The democracy that they are currently implementing is much more like the Vatican anyway. It's more religious oriented and designed for a figurehead. The problem is that they are having trouble with the particulars. The same kind of troubles they would have with the cleric option.
It's pretty easy to look at this from over here and see a lot of generalizations. It doesn't really work well to do so though. As much as I hate the war, I have been convinced through a lot of research that it is getting to the point of success. This late in the game, suggestion an alternative plan is not useful. It would be more productive to discuss ways to improve what is already happening. These details are better left to another thread though because this one's topic is candidate specific.





Skatt added to this post, 5 minutes and 40 seconds later...

They wouldn't gain anything. We'd lose. I think what you're missing is that going to war with a country who might, even if it's a small chance, have nukes is simply too great a risk. The risk of nuclear war is unacceptable. Even against a non nuclear enemy...Iraq was not just a mismanaged war. Such wars do not work. We saw that in Vietnam, and we've seen it in Afghanistan and Iraq. We do not have the resources to take over and prop up a new government, when we DO prop up a government you get the Taliban, Hussein, etc, and when you leave without a government you have acted unacceptably toward the people of that nation.

I think it's an important point, so I'm going to go into more detail about why war with a potentially nuclear nation is unacceptable. Countries like Iran can't hit American targets with a missile, they don't have the range. But they could certainly hit Israel. So, if Iran's nuclear and we invade, Jerusalem's gone. And what if they load one onto a passenger jet? That can get further, certainly. If it tried to get to the US from Iran, maybe it'd get shot down, maybe not. But what about Europe? They'd be much slower to shoot it down. So, will it be Madrid? Paris? Rome? London? And what if one of the big nuclear nations enters on their side? China or Russia could certainly hit us and Europe. So, will it be L.A.? New York? Chicago? And if a US city or one of our allies' cities gets hit, you think we wouldn't retaliate? If Iran nuked Israel, then Tehran's gone. Maybe Moscow? Beijing? And if that happens, well, I'm sure you know about nuclear fallout and the potential for a nuclear winter.

Is it unlikely? I hope and think so, but at the same time, that is an unacceptable risk. A nuclear war is essentially doomsday.




Mohican, you disappoint me. The last time we did that, as I already said, we got the last 2 countries we've invaded. The Muslim regimes are also so stable in part because the West is perceived as pushing against them. We're resented there; if we stay out, the resentment decreases, and they lose support. If we keep interference up, if we keep starting stupid wars, that's not going to happen.



We're too worried about our sovereignty to give the UN any power. What are they supposed to do?





Mohican, these are really below you. You should know perfectly well that the majority doesn't win out when the minority are better armed. Most people aren't fanatics, whatever their religion or nationality. They're prefer to live in peace. They'd prefer not to have their families killed. The wood be theocrats and dictators are a small, well armed minority. You're making absurd and, honestly, disgusting generalizations here. What you've said amounts to an insult to the intelligence of the Iraqis and the Mid East as a whole.

Excellent post, I was trying to get at that, but couldn't find the right words.

[Lagawrd]

You appeared to be saying of Obama, that he appears so good and unblemished, that he cannot be trusted.

The same reasoning when applied to the decision of who becomes president, could actively filter out better candidates. If you keep rejecting candidates because they appear too good to be true, then you will have no chance of ever electing a president who may be 'saviour of the nation'.

To put it another way, if you were presented with a hypothetical 'perfect' candidate, you would actively filter him/her out through suspicion, and miss out on your best chance for a better future.

Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

I understand your point, and that is not what I mean. Can you provide some examples of obama's negative attributes worthy enough to analyze and have a concrete understanding about? I think this is important to know. We should not only measure how good he is, but also how bad he can be. I am aware that there is no Perfect president. I just want to be assured that there will be no radical surprises later on if obama were to become president.

Everyone knows Mccain's bull. One question about that, millions will recite every negative feature there is to name. We know what he can do based on bush's policies.

I am not against obama in anyway. I am just being as pragmatic as I can be, to my understanding, between these two presidents. Obviously there are things I agree with and things I do not with both.

[TheLastMohican]

They wouldn't gain anything. We'd lose. I think what you're missing is that going to war with a country who might, even if it's a small chance, have nukes is simply too great a risk.

You speak as though the war and the risk are within our control. I already explained that the problem with negotiation is that it is never finished, because a hostile nation will not quit, though it may pause operations long enough to accept some of our money. Our negotiations and the U.N. sanctions usually slow things down, but ultimately a hostile nation is going to slowly but surely develop its military as it sees fit. I don't think buying the extra time really helps us in the long run.


Mohican, you disappoint me.

For my part, I am not "disappointed" when people disagree with me. It's an inevitable part of human discourse.

The last time we did that, as I already said, we got the last 2 countries we've invaded. The Muslim regimes are also so stable in part because the West is perceived as pushing against them. We're resented there; if we stay out, the resentment decreases, and they lose support. If we keep interference up, if we keep starting stupid wars, that's not going to happen.


This doesn't seem to dispute my position. If we set up a simpler government faster and get out sooner, than the resentment decreases, and we win. Do you think Iraqis would then want a democracy back due to the lack of resentment?


We're too worried about our sovereignty to give the UN any power. What are they supposed to do?


I was not aware that we were in charge of the U.N. or its limitations of power. The U.S. is unpopular enough as it is to prevent any American from becoming the U.N. Secretary General.
The U.N. should not be expected to be a very effective or powerful body; the nations of the world are far too sectarian to function together towards a unanimous goal. But what they can do is stop walking on eggshells around the obvious culprits. The 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah was a classic example. The U.N. called for a cease-fire, but did not demand that Hezbollah return the two captured soldiers over whom the brief war was fought. The U.N.'s methods would be much improved if injected with a dose of fairness.

Mohican, these are really below you. You should know perfectly well that the majority doesn't win out when the minority are better armed. Most people aren't fanatics, whatever their religion or nationality. They're prefer to live in peace. They'd prefer not to have their families killed. The would be theocrats and dictators are a small, well armed minority. You're making absurd and, honestly, disgusting generalizations here. What you've said amounts to an insult to the intelligence of the Iraqis and the Mid East as a whole.

Of course they prefer not to have their families killed. That is why most prefer a dictator, specifically one who shares their religious beliefs. Each group wants one of its own to be in charge, so that that group will be protected and not persecuted. I don't think that is a fanatical mindset.

Furthermore, those who support the insurgency are not all seeking bloodshed amongst opposing groups. They simply think, with good reason, that they will be safer under a victorious insurgency than under a shaky democracy split three ways. That is why so many continue to harbor the insurgents. Weapons can get the insurgents a certain amount of hospitality, but that method has its limits. We can see the difference when the locals get fed up with the insurgency. When the population is intermingled, or when American troops get the upper hand, the insurgent quickly shift from being seen as a protective force to being seen as a disruptive one. The public opinion has been very helpful in purging the insurgency from certain regions.

Understand that this has little to do with fanaticism, stupidity or ethnicity. The religion does have an effect because of its magnified importance to the population. Besides that, we are just observing normal social psychology and group behavior, which is not unreasonable on an individual level.

Why base a decision on principles without considering how it will affect you and/or the people you love?

When voting for national officials, I tend to think on a national scale. It is possible that socialism would be best for the current interests of my family, but that does not mean I want to establish it as the national standard.


It's not really about whether they would gain from it IMO. I think Obama is more likely to be able to convince the leaders of these hostile nations to actually stick to our proposals. His plans are far more intuitive than McCain's. They allow greater freedom while regulating in the proper areas. Obama is about establishing a threshold of tolerance too, his just involves more tact. Respect is key and that is something that really hasn't been considered much.


If Obama is that skilled at persuasion, great. I'd like to see it in action. Given the record of hostile nations' attitudes, however, I am not holding my breath. As long as we have more money to shell out, I think most hostile leaders will take the opportunity to bargain hard...and often.


It's not likely that we would last long without the UN either. As fun as it is to know that we are the most powerful, our allies are what make us that way. If it weren't for them, many countries would be far greater threats and increase the imperativeness of action for us, which is something our system doesn't handle well.


Perhaps...but remember that we would also have more resources to use for ourselves in that case, making defense easier. I don't think isolationism is a good extreme to approach, but it has its pros that could balance in our favor.

It's pretty easy to look at this from over here and see a lot of generalizations. It doesn't really work well to do so though. As much as I hate the war, I have been convinced through a lot of research that it is getting to the point of success. This late in the game, suggestion an alternative plan is not useful. It would be more productive to discuss ways to improve what is already happening. These details are better left to another thread though because this one's topic is candidate specific.


Yes, I agree with that. I should have said that our prospects would have been better, since we are so far along now it is probably best to finish it. There's always the next time to try out a new method.

[PHS Philip]

What disappoints me isn't that you disagree with me. It's your arguments in support of your opinion. I respect you enough to know that you can do much better.





PHS Philip added to this post, 12 minutes and 29 seconds later...

You speak as though the war and the risk are within our control. I already explained that the problem with negotiation is that it is never finished, because a hostile nation will not quit, though it may pause operations long enough to accept some of our money. Our negotiations and the U.N. sanctions usually slow things down, but ultimately a hostile nation is going to slowly but surely develop its military as it sees fit. I don't think buying the extra time really helps us in the long run.


You can avoid a confrontation through diplomacy. If we have to dump huge amounts of money into them, it's still better than the risk of nuclear war. Nuclear war is game over. Either you know for certain that they're not nuclear and you act quickly to prevent them from becoming nuclear, or you make damn sure you don't provoke them.



This doesn't seem to dispute my position. If we set up a simpler government faster and get out sooner, than the resentment decreases, and we win. Do you think Iraqis would then want a democracy back due to the lack of resentment?

No, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying we shouldn't be there, period. Our interfering provokes resentment. Our wars and interference in the Middle East have not been justified, except perhaps invading Afghanistan. We should not be trying to control the Middle East, and it hurts us to attempt it. War is justifiable only to eliminate a threat that you can eliminate reasonably safely. A nuclear nation won't be beaten safely, and Iraq wasn't a threat.

I was not aware that we were in charge of the U.N. or its limitations of power. The U.S. is unpopular enough as it is to prevent any American from becoming the U.N. Secretary General.
The U.N. should not be expected to be a very effective or powerful body; the nations of the world are far too sectarian to function together towards a unanimous goal. But what they can do is stop walking on eggshells around the obvious culprits. The 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah was a classic example. The U.N. called for a cease-fire, but did not demand that Hezbollah return the two captured soldiers over whom the brief war was fought. The U.N.'s methods would be much improved if injected with a dose of fairness.

"We" didn't just mean America. I meant all nations.

As for why the UN didn't call for the release of the soldiers...might it have anything to do with the flagrant violations of common sense, decency, and the laws of war throughout Israel's history? You know, invading and conquering, bombing civilians, using phosphorous bombs...Hezbollah have similar issues, but it's not as one sided as you're portraying it.

As for the obvious culprits, well, 2 of them have veto power. The US and Russia are both still among the most aggressive countries, and the US continues to do things like aid coups and set up dictators.

Of course they prefer not to have their families killed. That is why most prefer a dictator, specifically one who shares their religious beliefs. Each group wants one of its own to be in charge, so that that group will be protected and not persecuted. I don't think that is a fanatical mindset.

And you're still insulting their intelligence. You're still assuming that they won't understand and worry about the problems of a dictator. You're still assuming that most of them don't care about other sects, which is most certainly a fanatical mindset.

Furthermore, those who support the insurgency are not all seeking bloodshed amongst opposing groups. They simply think, with good reason, that they will be safer under a victorious insurgency than under a shaky democracy split three ways. That is why so many continue to harbor the insurgents. Weapons can get the insurgents a certain amount of hospitality, but that method has its limits. We can see the difference when the locals get fed up with the insurgency. When the population is intermingled, or when American troops get the upper hand, the insurgent quickly shift from being seen as a protective force to being seen as a disruptive one. The public opinion has been very helpful in purging the insurgency from certain regions.

And very problematic in others. What you're ignoring, though, is that most of them would rather that all the insurgent groups be gone. They pick one who will protect them out of practicality, but that doesn't mean that that's what they want. It's just less bad.

Understand that this has little to do with fanaticism, stupidity or ethnicity. The religion does have an effect because of its magnified importance to the population. Besides that, we are just observing normal social psychology and group behavior, which is not unreasonable on an individual level.

But you're attributing the behavior to things that just aren't there.

[TheLastMohican]

You can avoid a confrontation through diplomacy.

This would probably work with nations that are just looking to make a buck. If you think it is worth it, go ahead and keep paying them off. Some nations (their leaders, that is) have the goal of destroying us, and those nations are not likely to quit, regardless of how much money we give them. Like you said, we must prevent such nations from becoming nuclear powers, leading us to...

I'm saying we shouldn't be there, period. Our interfering provokes resentment. Our wars and interference in the Middle East have not been justified, except perhaps invading Afghanistan. We should not be trying to control the Middle East, and it hurts us to attempt it. War is justifiable only to eliminate a threat that you can eliminate reasonably safely. A nuclear nation won't be beaten safely, and Iraq wasn't a threat.

This is a catch-22. Is it worth it to deal with these threats before they become too big to deal with safely? If nuclear proficiency is the threshhold (after which the nation is too dangerous to oppose), is it not advisable to forcefully dismantle the programs before they reach the goal?

This would all be moot if, as Skatt implies, Obama is capable of talking sense into Ahmadinejad, but I think that is an unlikely scenario.


As for why the UN didn't call for the release of the soldiers...might it have anything to do with the flagrant violations of common sense, decency, and the laws of war throughout Israel's history? You know, invading and conquering, bombing civilians, using phosphorous bombs...Hezbollah have similar issues, but it's not as one sided as you're portraying it.


I don't know which conflicts you are referring to Israel's history; Israel has consistently been the victim of first strikes, not the initiator of wars. This isn't even relevant, however. Why should Israel's history cause the U.N. to give preferential treatment to Hezbollah, when the latter was clearly the aggressor? It doesn't make either side any more or less at fault.


And you're still insulting their intelligence. You're still assuming that they won't understand and worry about the problems of a dictator. You're still assuming that most of them don't care about other sects, which is most certainly a fanatical mindset.


Then I insult the intelligence of the whole world, which negates the distinction. I don't know whether it is a majority, but a hefty portion of the world population is indeed of that mindset, and that includes people in western countries. The moral zeitgeist is has advanced farther on the average in some countries than others, and in the Middle East it tends to lag behind. That causes the mindset to be more strongly expressed. Also, the Iraqis are not nearly as aware of global happenings as you seem to be assuming. Out of sight, out of mind.


And very problematic in others. What you're ignoring, though, is that most of them would rather that all the insurgent groups be gone. They pick one who will protect them out of practicality, but that doesn't mean that that's what they want. It's just less bad.


That holds true only in some regions. In regions dominated by a certain group, that group will tend to want an insurgency of its own to be victorious, and prefer that scenario over a democracy that includes rulers from different groups. If all the insurgencies disappeared, my guess is that the democracy would still be overthrown with majority public approval within 20 years.

[Karamazov]

This would probably work with nations that are just looking to make a buck. If you think it is worth it, go ahead and keep paying them off. Some nations (their leaders, that is) have the goal of destroying us, and those nations are not likely to quit, regardless of how much money we give them. Like you said, we must prevent such nations from becoming nuclear powers, leading us to... Well, technically that would also include 2 permanent members of the U.N. security council (Russia, China, etc) and several other nations that posses nuclear weapons. It's not necessarily restricted to those few leaders with the perceived collective hard-on for America's destruction. Which government would not want the highly coveted moniker of "world super power"?

That holds true only in some regions. In regions dominated by a certain group, that group will tend to want an insurgency of its own to be victorious, and prefer that scenario over a democracy that includes rulers from different groups. If all the insurgencies disappeared, my guess is that the democracy would still be overthrown with majority public approval within 20 years.

True. No system is one-size fits all. The upheaval in Thailand these past few weeks is an example of this.

[brianh]

I Am Voting for Obama,the republican party has spent so much money I can not see how they can be called conservative. McCain offers no real changes over the criminals in office right now.

And his pick of VP is unbelievable Sara Palin could not even answer the question of what newspapers she read, she has a good chance of being in charge of the country if McCain gets elected, then we will talk about the good old days of George Bush.

[void]

After listening to the lucid dissertation of Joe the Plumber, I have decided that Barack HUSSEIN Obama does not deserve my vote. If you can't trust an astute guy like Joe, then who can you trust? I'll tell you who you cannot trust: Mr. Hussein.

[tp6626]

After listening to the lucid dissertation of Joe the Plumber, I have decided that Barack HUSSEIN Obama does not deserve my vote. If you can't trust an astute guy like Joe, then who can you trust? I'll tell you who you cannot trust: Mr. Hussein.

I hope this is sarcasm. 'Joe the Plumber' is one particular example of someone who will be worse off under Obama's tax plans. It's never possible for governments to please everyone, and most tax changes they make will affect different people in different ways.

Obama plans to hold or reduce tax for 95% of Americans. 'Joe the Plumber' must fall into the other 5%. Remember that McCain's tax plans would effectively deal out tax breaks to massive corporations (was it $4billion per annum to Exxon Mobil?).

From the debates I've seen, I think it is clear that Obama has a better vision for America, and clearly has better policies on the economy, healthcare, employment and energy.

McCain deflected almost every question in attacks against Obama, and glossed over the content of his plans. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be swayed by tactics like that. He frequently tried to put words into Obama's mouth as well, blatantly lying about what he'd done or said.

At least Obama stayed cool, confident and collected, and wiped the floor with most of McCain's infantile jibes.

McCain reminds me of Dr Evil when he speaks as well, and he frequently mixed his words up, and used bad phrasing & grammar. I doubt it will instil confidence in him.

And finally, "Our economy is fundamentally strong". Bollocks. Look what has happened, what further evidence is required that McCain and the republicans are out of touch with America.

I'm not American, but I can see that a breath of fresh air needs to be injected into the White House, and from what I can see, Obama seems to me to be the ideal candidate for the job.

Fingers crossed that Americans make the right choice when voting.

[enWTFp]

Obama seems more of an ENFP on a mission to me... perhaps an ENFJ. I'd say he's definitely an EN though.

I am voting for Obama, mostly because I like his stances better than McCain's new stances and Palin :scared: She scares me so much! McCain's choice of her for VP sealed my vote for Obama.Obama gets my vote. I used to respect McCain. No longer.

You can't tell me you can be an INTJ and be able to listen to Palin for more than five seconds without your brains bleeding. She so badly needs to go on The Daily Show.Someone thought McCain was INTJ? Heh. The guy is clear SP, a very rude and careless one. I would say ISTP, because ESTPs are more into bragging than insulting all the time. He has this humble I-will-punch-you-if-you-talk-too-much appearance, characteristic for ISTPs. I think there is a tendency for NTs to misread SPs as their own kind. SPs seem pragmatic, when in fact they are plain selfish and pleasure-seeking. At the same time SPs learn how to speak with the principle-based vocabulary of NTs, because they see it works most of the time to get through with their mindless hedonism. Also no wonder then, if McCain is ISTP, he would choose an ESFJ like Palin. Darn, she surpasses my worst ESFJ nightmares easily.

Obama is ENFP, that's why you see him with wide smile, or very serious. His wife is clear INFJ, and they are a perfect team. I think he is a good and hard working man, but of course an ENFP cannot easily lead on their own. However, presidency is usually about working teams. As ENFP, if Obama gets more INTJs in his teams then things might work well. As long as his family is intact, I think this man is very resilient to go through, and won't mess it up. About the ENFJ hypothesis, I find him fundamentally different from the ENFJs I know. They would be closer to Palin, only smarter. The key is to observe how one reacts under pressure. Obama gets very serious and focused when pushed. ENFJs are more prone to backfire and make bitter jokes of opponents. They are not mean, they are good people, but for them the way Obama behaves would be too chicken. Obama seems very selfless in his quest to follow his ideas, he doesn't really manage his image as much. ENFJs achieve the effect of cult-following, but they control it, and also know when and how to stop it. The dangerous thing about ENFPs is that they do not aim to be followed, and their own supporters may get out of control. However, I hope Obama has wise advisers in his close range and will do fine in the end.

I'm far from a registered voter, and just an observer of this election. I don't even take it as seriously as most of the people, and I'm never too political, in general. I just enjoy analyzing people, and here are my thoughts, if they might be an interesting different angle for anyone.

[JustMel]

I hate the fact that no matter how we vote that the electoral college will pick our next president. I believe that if they got rid of the electoral college and allowed us to actually have a say---we wouldn't have had Bush who was not elected but appointed both times. Neither of his elections were kosher--thank you Jeb as it always helps to have a brother as governor when you need an election fixed........

The electoral college in its original premise was to vote WITH the people but they don't. The electoral college is for sale to the highest bidder just like a lot of the legislation that gets passed.

As for Obama--I will not vote for him. I have several reasons why but one of them is the fact that his great tax plan everyone is so enamored of has one HUGE flaw---if you raise taxes on people and businesses who make over $250,000 a year you're going to cut into the bottom line of big business (all of them) and being as they like their profits at a certain margin they will then INCREASE their prices which will then, to use Obama's own word, TRICKLE down to the middle and lower classes in the form of us paying more for goods and services that will end up costing us MORE than we would get back from his great tax cut.

Second: I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to run for President that has not had military service---at the very least the national guard--how the hell can you command troops and discuss strategy if you only know how it works in theory. There's a reason you get classes on theory and classes on practice/use. It might not have been as important in history as it is now but, IMO, it's vital for our commander in chief to at least have a clue how military strategy works. I won't even go into his idea that he can walk in and talk with other leaders of other countries with no preconditions.

Third: We do not need another lawyer or oil man in the White House. We have had enough of them both to last a lifetime. Someone informed me recently that Clinton wasn't a lawyer and I had to remind them that he does have a law degree.

Fourth: I don't like his wife or her comments or the way she presents herself and anyone who says "but you're not voting for her" doesn't realize how much power a woman has--especially the first lady. Man might have the head and make the decisions but woman controls the neck. If you doubt the level of control a wife can and does exert on her husband--read Nancy Reagan's autobiography. When things are hard/bad and you have to make hard decisions you turn to your source of strength and in marriage that is your spouse and anyone who thinks the president doesn't talk confidential things with his wife is insane.

Fifth: While I'm not enamored of Palin, I like her better than Biden because she doesn't react the way other politicians want and expect her to. I don't like that Biden has admitted to changing his "beliefs" on certain things because he is on the ticket with Obama. I do like the fact that if McCain and Palin disagree they let one another be entitled to their opinions and move on--they don't try to change the other and I see Biden and Obama butting heads in the white house and that is dangerous.

The only thing I like about Obama is his health plan but I happen to believe that national & economic security is more important right now. Obama wants to DOUBLE foreign aid---I have MAJOR problems with that considering we have families and children right here that our own country doesn't take care of and they should be taken care of before some other country. Someone please explain to me why we go in and blow things up and then give them money to rebuild. They screwed it up on their own and they can fix it on their own. Obama is for bigger government and if it gets any bigger we are heading to more trouble--not less. More things should be decided on a state level and fewer on a national level. Too many things are considered "unconstitutional" and taken to the supremem court that they shouldn't even be ruling on.

They are now in talks about amending the constitution to say that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman therefore making gay marriage unconstitutional----I believe I'd like my separation of church and state back, please. I don't give a rat's fart if Joe and Mike down the street have a piece of paper saying they are married. They live like a married couple--they should get the same priviledges, tax breaks and health benefits we do--and right along with it they can have the drama that can only come when you are legally tied to another person. And for the record--while I'm on my soapbox--- a marriage license is issued on a STATE level--the Federal government needs to keep their happy noses and sticky hands off that part of the constitution and law in general. That piece of paper issued by the state is only there to make the state money---historically a couple lived together as married until a traveling minister or the one in town could perform the ceremony joining them together before god and their families---there was no piece of paper.

[PHS Philip]

I hate the fact that no matter how we vote that the electoral college will pick our next president. I believe that if they got rid of the electoral college and allowed us to actually have a say---we wouldn't have had Bush who was not elected but appointed both times. Neither of his elections were kosher--thank you Jeb as it always helps to have a brother as governor when you need an election fixed........

Might want to do some fact checking. Bush won the popular vote the 2nd time around (not that that's any less scary...)

The electoral college in its original premise was to vote WITH the people but they don't. The electoral college is for sale to the highest bidder just like a lot of the legislation that gets passed.


...they do vote with the constituency. Not sure where you pulled that from.

As for Obama--I will not vote for him. I have several reasons why but one of them is the fact that his great tax plan everyone is so enamored of has one HUGE flaw---if you raise taxes on people and businesses who make over $250,000 a year you're going to cut into the bottom line of big business (all of them) and being as they like their profits at a certain margin they will then INCREASE their prices which will then, to use Obama's own word, TRICKLE down to the middle and lower classes in the form of us paying more for goods and services that will end up costing us MORE than we would get back from his great tax cut.

Ah, no. It'll get passed down, but not all of it.

Second: I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to run for President that has not had military service---at the very least the national guard--how the hell can you command troops and discuss strategy if you only know how it works in theory. There's a reason you get classes on theory and classes on practice/use. It might not have been as important in history as it is now but, IMO, it's vital for our commander in chief to at least have a clue how military strategy works. I won't even go into his idea that he can walk in and talk with other leaders of other countries with no preconditions.

Oh man, where to start...

Since when is the president running a war? That's why we have generals. Also, how the hell does serving in the military mean you have any grasp of strategy? A very large portion of the military is severely incompetent. And further, how does being a pilot give you a grasp of strategy? Do GIs deal with strategy now, too? Come on. You're rationalizing your refusal to vote for him by making stuff up.

Oh, and seriously? In everyday dealings, would you say that if you don't like someone you should refuse to speak to them, and just point a gun at them every time they're within half a mile of you? If you haven't even figured out what they want, how the hell do you plan on having preconditions?

Third: We do not need another lawyer or oil man in the White House. We have had enough of them both to last a lifetime. Someone informed me recently that Clinton wasn't a lawyer and I had to remind them that he does have a law degree.

Ignorant garbage. Pure, unadulterated crap. If you want to claim that you need experience with war strategy to be commander in chief, how can you brush aside the need to have a thorough understanding of how the law works? You don't like lawyers, so you claim they're bad. Basic psychology. This is on the level of "the common man's virtue."

Fourth: I don't like his wife or her comments or the way she presents herself and anyone who says "but you're not voting for her" doesn't realize how much power a woman has--especially the first lady. Man might have the head and make the decisions but woman controls the neck. If you doubt the level of control a wife can and does exert on her husband--read Nancy Reagan's autobiography. When things are hard/bad and you have to make hard decisions you turn to your source of strength and in marriage that is your spouse and anyone who thinks the president doesn't talk confidential things with his wife is insane.

I heard one of his kids is a commie!!!

Fifth: While I'm not enamored of Palin, I like her better than Biden because she doesn't react the way other politicians want and expect her to. I don't like that Biden has admitted to changing his "beliefs" on certain things because he is on the ticket with Obama. I do like the fact that if McCain and Palin disagree they let one another be entitled to their opinions and move on--they don't try to change the other and I see Biden and Obama butting heads in the white house and that is dangerous.

Ah, I see, you want a macho president who never ever ever changes his mind. You see, intelligent people change their minds sometimes. You want the president and VP to make each other prove that they're right.

And seriously, she doesn't react like most politicians? So what? Acting and reacting more ignorantly and poorly is not a high qualification for office.

The only thing I like about Obama is his health plan but I happen to believe that national & economic security is more important right now. Obama wants to DOUBLE foreign aid---I have MAJOR problems with that considering we have families and children right here that our own country doesn't take care of and they should be taken care of before some other country. Someone please explain to me why we go in and blow things up and then give them money to rebuild. They screwed it up on their own and they can fix it on their own. Obama is for bigger government and if it gets any bigger we are heading to more trouble--not less. More things should be decided on a state level and fewer on a national level. Too many things are considered "unconstitutional" and taken to the supremem court that they shouldn't even be ruling on.

They screwed it up on their own? We topple the government, and it's their fault? Ignorance at its finest. You also prove here absolute ignorance of Obama's policy, McCain's policy, what the Supreme Court is for, why the states have lost control...

McCain has, since the banks started floundering, started bragging that he's more pro-big government than Obama. His VP wants to expand the role of the VP. He's also pro-patriot act.

If you believe in states' rights, the supreme court should throw out the laws involved in half the cases brought to it at least. Considering the position you claim to have, you should think that they do too little, not too much. You see, the constitution dictates everything that the federal government can and cannot do. The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution. That means that they have power over every single law the federal government passes.

Finally, states' rights have been trampled because the states are even worse than the federal government when let off the leash of federal control. The cult of states' rights ignores the states' history, but that's the simple truth of the matter.

They are now in talks about amending the constitution to say that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman therefore making gay marriage unconstitutional----I believe I'd like my separation of church and state back, please. I don't give a rat's fart if Joe and Mike down the street have a piece of paper saying they are married. They live like a married couple--they should get the same priviledges, tax breaks and health benefits we do--and right along with it they can have the drama that can only come when you are legally tied to another person. And for the record--while I'm on my soapbox--- a marriage license is issued on a STATE level--the Federal government needs to keep their happy noses and sticky hands off that part of the constitution and law in general. That piece of paper issued by the state is only there to make the state money---historically a couple lived together as married until a traveling minister or the one in town could perform the ceremony joining them together before god and their families---there was no piece of paper.

...you realize that Obama agrees with you here, right?


Arguments identical to yours have been demolished time and again. But in America, we pride ourselves on our ignorance, so of course it doesn't matter how many times an argument is refuted. It just keeps coming back, over and over, just as easily destroyed the 100th time as the 1st.

[JustMel]

Might want to do some fact checking. Bush won the popular vote the 2nd time around (not that that's any less scary...)



...they do vote with the constituency. Not sure where you pulled that from.



Ah, no. It'll get passed down, but not all of it.



Oh man, where to start...

Since when is the president running a war? That's why we have generals. Also, how the hell does serving in the military mean you have any grasp of strategy? A very large portion of the military is severely incompetent. And further, how does being a pilot give you a grasp of strategy? Do GIs deal with strategy now, too? Come on. You're rationalizing your refusal to vote for him by making stuff up.

Oh, and seriously? In everyday dealings, would you say that if you don't like someone you should refuse to speak to them, and just point a gun at them every time they're within half a mile of you? If you haven't even figured out what they want, how the hell do you plan on having preconditions?



Ignorant garbage. Pure, unadulterated crap. If you want to claim that you need experience with war strategy to be commander in chief, how can you brush aside the need to have a thorough understanding of how the law works? You don't like lawyers, so you claim they're bad. Basic psychology. This is on the level of "the common man's virtue."



I heard one of his kids is a commie!!!



Ah, I see, you want a macho president who never ever ever changes his mind. You see, intelligent people change their minds sometimes. You want the president and VP to make each other prove that they're right.

And seriously, she doesn't react like most politicians? So what? Acting and reacting more ignorantly and poorly is not a high qualification for office.



They screwed it up on their own? We topple the government, and it's their fault? Ignorance at its finest. You also prove here absolute ignorance of Obama's policy, McCain's policy, what the Supreme Court is for, why the states have lost control...

McCain has, since the banks started floundering, started bragging that he's more pro-big government than Obama. His VP wants to expand the role of the VP. He's also pro-patriot act.

If you believe in states' rights, the supreme court should throw out the laws involved in half the cases brought to it at least. Considering the position you claim to have, you should think that they do too little, not too much. You see, the constitution dictates everything that the federal government can and cannot do. The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution. That means that they have power over every single law the federal government passes.

Finally, states' rights have been trampled because the states are even worse than the federal government when let off the leash of federal control. The cult of states' rights ignores the states' history, but that's the simple truth of the matter.



...you realize that Obama agrees with you here, right?

I got the information on the electoral college from back when Ross Perot ran for office. I worked at the polls that day and know several other people who worked them throughout the state and our exit polls showed Perot did well--not winning--but well and he didn't get a single electoral vote. You can say Bush got the popular vote all you like but I will always believe that he was appointed not elected the second time around.

I don't dislike lawyers---I just took the LSATs to go to law school. I'm already a paralegal with an MBA so I do understand the numbers and the law.

As for the supreme court-- I understand they are the absolute law and are there to rule on and for the constitution etc but I also believe that a lot of things get to the supreme court that shouldn't. Example: Prisoner's rights. I will never believe that the supreme court had to step in and rule that a man was being treated unconstitutionally because he didn't like the food in prison. You're in PRISON for a reason. But then I don't believe in prison time for a lot of the reasons that put people there either. I still have a hard time working up any kind of sympathy/empathy for anyone who has done something to land in prison and then has the audacity to comlpain about the food and the need for conjugal visits in prison is a joke.

I don't like Obama---I don't like McCain all that much either. I do think that you should have to be in the military before you can serve as president. Regardless of whether you're a pilot or on the front lines---- I don't care but I believe in the old saying "don't ask others to do what you wouldn't do yourself" and IMO if you don't serve your country how the hell can you declare a war that sends others to serve when you didn't/wouldn't. I understand if it were a physical reason you couldn't go but other than that how can you send troops to die for a country's freedom, etc when you yourself didn't even serve that country?

I realize Obama and I agree on gay marriage but Biden doesn't. He and Palin both said in the VP debate they are against gay marriage that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's not a legal issue--it's a moral/religious one and doesn't belong in the constitution. We already have the right to the pursuit of happiness---enough said.

You can scoff and make remarks saying I'm ignorant all you'd like--I managed to state my opinions and beliefs in such a manner that didn't disparage anyone else's beliefs or opinions. I also managed--according to the reputation comment I rec'd to state them rather well.

I don't believe that the electoral college serves a purpose other than to muddy up the waters. Disagree all you'd like--it doesn't bother me but I will say that I am completely surprised at your comments and that they were so personal. Quite unlike what I would have expected from someone that I normally like to read even when I disagree.

The "Commie" comment was not only childish but pointless. You are not just electing the man--you are electing his belief system and if he is married you are electing his spouse's belief system as well.

Oh and for the electoral college issue I used wikipedia because I don't feel like pulling up the other sites and wading through them. This proves my point that the people don't always elect the president--the electoral college does.

"Candidates can fail to get the most votes in the nationwide popular vote in a presidential election and still win that election. This occurred in 1876, 1888 and 2000. "

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PHS Philip]

There you go, THAT'S what I was looking for. An actual defense of your position. I treated your post like that because you didn't defend your position at all. Some of what you said I somewhat agree with (the electoral college is crap, for example), but you have to defend your position, not just state it.

[Trym]

Funny, as americans promote their favourite candidate as the actually think they have a choice. The president is not elected by the people, but by the major corporations. Freedom to fascism...

[JustMel]

There you go, THAT'S what I was looking for. An actual defense of your position. I treated your post like that because you didn't defend your position at all. Some of what you said I somewhat agree with (the electoral college is crap, for example), but you have to defend your position, not just state it.

:p

[dragonsscout]

Funny, as americans promote their favourite candidate as the actually think they have a choice. The president is not elected by the people, but by the major corporations. Freedom to fascism...

Do you have a better system?

[tp6626]

I don't care but I believe in the old saying "don't ask others to do what you wouldn't do yourself" and IMO if you don't serve your country how the hell can you declare a war that sends others to serve when you didn't/wouldn't.

This is quite an old fashioned viewpoint, and one which I believe is not appropriate nowadays.

There are many things the president is not, yet he still orders people to do these things daily.

He's not a doctor, yet he makes decisions on medical policy, he's not an engineer, yet he makes decisions on these issues, he's not a scientist, yet he has a say in research which is funded. He may be a lawyer, but what effects or biases has this shown in the past. Likewise, he may be an oil man, and what biases has this seen in the past?

There is no need for the president to have direct experience in this sense, he has many extremely qualified advisers, and he needs to look at and make decisions based on the bigger picture, from as unbiased a viewpoint as possible.

[JustMel]

This is quite an old fashioned viewpoint, and one which I believe is not appropriate nowadays.

There are many things the president is not, yet he still orders people to do these things daily.

He's not a doctor, yet he makes decisions on medical policy, he's not an engineer, yet he makes decisions on these issues, he's not a scientist, yet he has a say in research which is funded. He may be a lawyer, but what effects or biases has this shown in the past. Likewise, he may be an oil man, and what biases has this seen in the past?

There is no need for the president to have direct experience in this sense, he has many extremely qualified advisers, and he needs to look at and make decisions based on the bigger picture, from as unbiased a viewpoint as possible.

I disagree. Yes, he has advisers and them advising him on medical policy and scirentific policy but in reality he makes a good portion of those decisions based on his personal belief systems and when it comes to commanding the military it takes more than just strong advisors who have knowledge and experience,IMO, it takes having the knowledge and experience to go along with it. He can dictate medical policies, etc and they MIGHT have a negative effect on people depending on the policy---military policy has a effect on every single person in this country. Period. The military is not given the respect its due not is it always run the way it should be.

The ideal of not asking others to do what you yourself wouldn't do is far from antiquated. It used to be and should be a basic responsibility. If you are asking someone to potentially die for a cause--shouldn't you yourself be willing to die for that same cause? While McCain isn't all that and a bag of chips too at least he knows what happens out there and the personal sacrifices it takes to be a soldier. Bush doesn't know and Obama doesn't know. Palin doesn't know. I don't know what Biden's service record is or isn't. IMO, if a leader isn't willing to put his life on the line for his country---he's not much of a leader.

[Skatt]

I hate the fact that no matter how we vote that the electoral college will pick our next president. I believe that if they got rid of the electoral college and allowed us to actually have a say---we wouldn't have had Bush who was not elected but appointed both times. Neither of his elections were kosher--thank you Jeb as it always helps to have a brother as governor when you need an election fixed........

The electoral college in its original premise was to vote WITH the people but they don't. The electoral college is for sale to the highest bidder just like a lot of the legislation that gets passed.

As for Obama--I will not vote for him. I have several reasons why but one of them is the fact that his great tax plan everyone is so enamored of has one HUGE flaw---if you raise taxes on people and businesses who make over $250,000 a year you're going to cut into the bottom line of big business (all of them) and being as they like their profits at a certain margin they will then INCREASE their prices which will then, to use Obama's own word, TRICKLE down to the middle and lower classes in the form of us paying more for goods and services that will end up costing us MORE than we would get back from his great tax cut.

Second: I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to run for President that has not had military service---at the very least the national guard--how the hell can you command troops and discuss strategy if you only know how it works in theory. There's a reason you get classes on theory and classes on practice/use. It might not have been as important in history as it is now but, IMO, it's vital for our commander in chief to at least have a clue how military strategy works. I won't even go into his idea that he can walk in and talk with other leaders of other countries with no preconditions.

Third: We do not need another lawyer or oil man in the White House. We have had enough of them both to last a lifetime. Someone informed me recently that Clinton wasn't a lawyer and I had to remind them that he does have a law degree.

Fourth: I don't like his wife or her comments or the way she presents herself and anyone who says "but you're not voting for her" doesn't realize how much power a woman has--especially the first lady. Man might have the head and make the decisions but woman controls the neck. If you doubt the level of control a wife can and does exert on her husband--read Nancy Reagan's autobiography. When things are hard/bad and you have to make hard decisions you turn to your source of strength and in marriage that is your spouse and anyone who thinks the president doesn't talk confidential things with his wife is insane.

Fifth: While I'm not enamored of Palin, I like her better than Biden because she doesn't react the way other politicians want and expect her to. I don't like that Biden has admitted to changing his "beliefs" on certain things because he is on the ticket with Obama. I do like the fact that if McCain and Palin disagree they let one another be entitled to their opinions and move on--they don't try to change the other and I see Biden and Obama butting heads in the white house and that is dangerous.

The only thing I like about Obama is his health plan but I happen to believe that national & economic security is more important right now. Obama wants to DOUBLE foreign aid---I have MAJOR problems with that considering we have families and children right here that our own country doesn't take care of and they should be taken care of before some other country. Someone please explain to me why we go in and blow things up and then give them money to rebuild. They screwed it up on their own and they can fix it on their own. Obama is for bigger government and if it gets any bigger we are heading to more trouble--not less. More things should be decided on a state level and fewer on a national level. Too many things are considered "unconstitutional" and taken to the supremem court that they shouldn't even be ruling on.

They are now in talks about amending the constitution to say that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman therefore making gay marriage unconstitutional----I believe I'd like my separation of church and state back, please. I don't give a rat's fart if Joe and Mike down the street have a piece of paper saying they are married. They live like a married couple--they should get the same priviledges, tax breaks and health benefits we do--and right along with it they can have the drama that can only come when you are legally tied to another person. And for the record--while I'm on my soapbox--- a marriage license is issued on a STATE level--the Federal government needs to keep their happy noses and sticky hands off that part of the constitution and law in general. That piece of paper issued by the state is only there to make the state money---historically a couple lived together as married until a traveling minister or the one in town could perform the ceremony joining them together before god and their families---there was no piece of paper.

Well, unlike McCain, Obama understands that being president doesn't mean you're in charge of everything. Obama's support team is very knowledgeable in their respective areas.
As far as his tax plan goes, most of the companies that would need to pay more are the same companies that sent jobs overseas. His plan also includes incentives to bring the jobs back over here in exchange for tax breaks. His system is designed to keep up with globalism, because right now there is nothing that compensates for that. It's also designed to stop this split where it's nothing but socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
McCain spent most of his time in the army as a POW, other than that he flew planes. It's not like he was given some position where he would be taught all of the ins and outs. Military men are not talkers, they are fighters. Most Americans are not fighters. We don't want war, and we don't want to be all up in everyone else's business overseas. We just want to have a safe place to live for our families and loved ones.
It's obvious that you are slightly out of touch with where both candidates stand. Both candidates are opposed to amending the constitution. They both believe that the issue of who can marry who is best left to the states. Obama doesn't want to double foreign aide, he has to do what he can to clean up what's already there, but other than that he wants to work with the leaders to help them work on their own countries even more. He wants to avoid having troops overseas as best as he can. McCain has already given up on that before he's even gotten to office. He's already planning attacks without even considering real diplomacy. I don't blame McCain for that though, he wouldn't know where to start. Not to mention most foreign leaders would just see him for the American devil that he is anyway.
The main role of the president isn't war, it's foreign relations. There are plenty of men in the white house that know war. Obama knows economy and diplomacy. There's nothing bad about him being a lawyer, lawyers are trained in the art of convincing people they are right. McCain can fly planes and tell people about beer based on his pre-congressional experience. Biden didn't say that he changed his opinion just because he was on the ticket, he said that after sitting and talking with Obama he was convinced that Obama had the right idea about things. There is a difference.
What about Palin though, not even thinking about the stupidity, inexperience, and completely vague persona. Who is she and more importantly who was she before she joined the McCain ticket? I'm am pretty sure that she wasn't the type to be 100% on every McCain issue like she is now. It seems like every republican candidate as of late has been trained in speech by the exact same person. Because they all dodge questions using a simple mad-lib. Every answer is the same they just change the nouns. They tell a story of a person, who's name is Joe or Jane, and by then end of the story, they have said nothing more than that they feel the same way as this fictional person they invented. (I know Joe the plumber is real, I don't know if Palin knows based on her response)
It's obvious that Palin is completely out of touch with the happenings of the lower 48. McCain is simply out of touch with anyone who can't afford to buy a business.





Skatt added to this post, 5 minutes and 15 seconds later...

IMO, if a leader isn't willing to put his life on the line for his country---he's not much of a leader.

Do you understand how many people are willing to kill Obama if he becomes president? Not to mention the sacrifice that it takes to be a real president(not like Bush). McCain is far more gung-ho about sending people to fight than Obama is. If anything I would see McCain as desensitized.

[Karamazov]

As for the supreme court-- I understand they are the absolute law and are there to rule on and for the constitution etc but I also believe that a lot of things get to the supreme court that shouldn't. Example: Prisoner's rights. I will never believe that the supreme court had to step in and rule that a man was being treated unconstitutionally because he didn't like the food in prison. You're in PRISON for a reason. But then I don't believe in prison time for a lot of the reasons that put people there either. I still have a hard time working up any kind of sympathy/empathy for anyone who has done something to land in prison and then has the audacity to comlpain about the food and the need for conjugal visits in prison is a joke.
I don't know about you, but I don't think prisoners whining about their Tuesday mystery meat is epidemic, much less taken seriously. Much like the death-row inmate claiming he can't be executed because he's too fat. It's a nuisance, but not a big issue. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if you could qualify on that further I'd appreciate it.

I'm not one to elicit immediate sympathy/empathy/good feelings, what have you, for any group of people, regardless of rank or social standing. However, I am understanding. Able to understand why a Palestinian in the West Bank or Nazareth might join the PLO because of prior abuse at the hands of a zealous Israeli military. Understand but never sympathize. People should be wary to avoid airbrushing any group of people under one hue, and recognize that issues dealing with Prisoners or Terrorism, is not in purely Manichean terms.

[Lights]

If the economy continues to go on a downward trend then Obama is going to win, if we get into another war, then McCain is going to win. Obama's strength is the economy and energy, and McCain's is foreign relations. Hence why Obama picked Biden and McCain picked Palin.

Personally, I'm waiting for Bush to start another war about a week before the election.

[void]

If the economy continues to go on a downward trend then Obama is going to win, if we get into another war, then McCain is going to win. Obama's strength is the economy and energy, and McCain's is foreign relations. Hence why Obama picked Biden and McCain picked Palin.

Personally, I'm waiting for Bush to start another war about a week before the election.

A sudden war next week? That fits nicely into my schedule.

There really is no point trying to predict the victor now. Obama just torpedoed his campaign with the "spread the wealth around" comment. What a dumb thing to say. And his mouth was doing so well until now (with the exception of Bittergate).

[Lights]

A sudden war next week? That fits nicely into my schedule.

There really is no point trying to predict the victor now. Obama just torpedoed his campaign with the "spread the wealth around" comment. What a dumb thing to say. And his mouth was doing so well until now (with the exception of Bittergate).

I liked the comment. The upper class of this country have been manipulating the system for too long and redistributing the wealth into their pockets. Turn about is fair play.

[void]

I liked the comment. The upper class of this country have been manipulating the system for too long and redistributing the wealth into their pockets. Turn about is fair play.

There is nothing wrong about the comment itself, just how easily it can be (and has been) misconstrued. The first thing that comes to mind when most Americans hear that phrase is socialism. Sure enough, the McCain campaign went for that line of attack immediately. The S-word is going to stick with Obama for the next couple of weeks, which is especially bad considering that he has been desperately trying to shake off that preconceived image of him as a big-government tax-and-spend "liberal" (used in the pejorative sense). The image is not entirely false, but calling it socialism is senseless hyperbole. With Colin Powell about to endorse McCain in the next few days, Obama's chances are about to go up in smoke.

[phantasma]

I liked the comment. The upper class of this country have been manipulating the system for too long and redistributing the wealth into their pockets. Turn about is fair play.

While the upper class has been manipulating the system, that doesn't mean it's right to rob the rich and feed the poor through taxes. Why not simply have the same tax percentage for everyone, and stop with the bail-outs?

No matter what way you look at it, "spreading the wealth around" is perceived as socialism, and the people won't stand for it especially many of those who were adults during the cold war.

[Reon]

While the upper class has been manipulating the system, that doesn't mean it's right to rob the rich and feed the poor through taxes. Why not simply have the same tax percentage for everyone, and stop with the bail-outs?

No matter what way you look at it, "spreading the wealth around" is perceived as socialism, and the people won't stand for it especially many of those who were adults during the cold war.

Ehrm, I've been reading (a lil bit) and I was wondering, if taxing everyone equally was/is possibly why haven't we done it yet? and, of course, if you make more money why shouldn't you be taxed more without 'hurting' your company

[JustMel]

It's obvious that you are slightly out of touch with where both candidates stand. Both candidates are opposed to amending the constitution. They both believe that the issue of who can marry who is best left to the states. Obama doesn't want to double foreign aide, he has to do what he can to clean up what's already there, but other than that he wants to work with the leaders to help them work on their own countries even more. The main role of the president isn't war, it's foreign relations. There are plenty of men in the white house that know war. Obama knows economy and diplomacy. There's nothing bad about him being a lawyer, lawyers are trained in the art of convincing people they are right. McCain can fly planes and tell people about beer based on his pre-congressional experience. Biden didn't say that he changed his opinion just because he was on the ticket, he said that after sitting and talking with Obama he was convinced that Obama had the right idea about things. There is a difference.
What about Palin though, not even thinking about the stupidity, inexperience, and completely vague persona. Who is she and more importantly who was she before she joined the McCain ticket? I'm am pretty sure that she wasn't the type to be 100% on every McCain issue like she is now. It seems like every republican candidate as of late has been trained in speech by the exact same person. Because they all dodge questions using a simple mad-lib. Every answer is the same they just change the nouns. They tell a story of a person, who's name is Joe or Jane, and by then end of the story, they have said nothing more than that they feel the same way as this fictional person they invented. (I know Joe the plumber is real, I don't know if Palin knows based on her response)
It's obvious that Palin is completely out of touch with the happenings of the lower 48. McCain is simply out of touch with anyone who can't afford to buy a business.


Skatt added to this post, 5 minutes and 15 seconds later...



Do you understand how many people are willing to kill Obama if he becomes president? Not to mention the sacrifice that it takes to be a real president(not like Bush). McCain is far more gung-ho about sending people to fight than Obama is. If anything I would see McCain as desensitized.

We will have to agree to disagree. I'm not out of touch with either candidate or their stance---I don't care for either of them but I utterly dislike Obama. And for the record he said himself he will double foreign aid and so did Biden at the VP debate:

Fight Global Poverty: Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal. They will help the world's weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I do understand that it's not all about the fighting and I know about McCain's POW status. I just have a hard time with any President controlling the military that doesn't know what it's really like to serve even in the reserves. I have a brother in law that has done 2 tours in Iraq and is being sent to Afghanistan in a couple of months. He is a helicpoter pilot. So I understand more than a lot of people what is happening over there.

I do like Obama's stance on some things---do I think those things will make him a better President, no. Do I believe he's really going to do what he says he's going to do, no. Do I believe McCain will do everything he says he's going to do, no.

Biden said in the VP debate that he has changed his stance on some issues to be on Obama's ticket. I understand that anyone might have been in that same position, I even understand the necessity--I just think Biden is an idiot who rewrites history worse than Al Gore.

I have an issue with anyone who wants to strengthen Homeland Security---I hope that by saying strengthen he means tighten the hold on what they can and can not do. Homeland Security needs a few leashes but on it and needs stricter guidelines. They provide a service but they need tighter controls on them.

As for amending the constitution---I don't care about the candidates per se on that issue--I care but that was a general comment.

As for the chance Obama takes in running for President---I live in North Mississippi, just south of Memphis, TN. I know more than you probably do about the racism and threat he faces. I have family members who won't come to my house to have dinner when my black brother in law is here so I get that more than most people. When my oldest daughter brought home a black friend to spend the night my brother in law, who had come for the weekend from out of state, packed his family up and went to a hotel. His race has nothing to do with it for me. I admire where he came from and how he got where he is but I don't like his stance on some of the issues and for me it's a matter of the lesser of the evils and who I think will be better for the country.

I have never, ever voted Republican in my life so this will be a first for me. I believe that Obama is going to win it but I'm not going to vote for him. And between now and Nov 4th I may change my mind. I'm not going to say otherwise because I plan to vote for McCain but I really like Obama's health care plan while I hate his plan to send more money to foreign aid. It's a catch 22 for me---on both sides of the election. I still think everything should be bipartisan--why do we need two parties? Shouldn't everyone run on their own stance and not that of a particular party? IMO, yes.





JustMel added to this post, 7 minutes and 40 seconds later...

I don't know about you, but I don't think prisoners whining about their Tuesday mystery meat is epidemic, much less taken seriously. Much like the death-row inmate claiming he can't be executed because he's too fat. It's a nuisance, but not a big issue. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if you could qualify on that further I'd appreciate it.

I'm not one to elicit immediate sympathy/empathy/good feelings, what have you, for any group of people, regardless of rank or social standing. However, I am understanding. Able to understand why a Palestinian in the West Bank or Nazareth might join the PLO because of prior abuse at the hands of a zealous Israeli military. Understand but never sympathize. People should be wary to avoid airbrushing any group of people under one hue, and recognize that issues dealing with Prisoners or Terrorism, is not in purely Manichean terms.

While prisoner cases made up only about half of the appeals filed with the Court a decade ago, they now outnumber the other cases by 2 to 1, an increase fueled by the burgeoning prison population and the impact of mandatory sentences.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 60

There is another article that breaks down the actual cases by type but I can't find it quickly and will look for it again later.

This site talks about the prosioner's rights to kosher meals, etc in prison and their rights to "religious accomodation" while in PRISON. That's stupid IMO. Yes, they are of that religion (whichever it may be) but they are in PRISON--not summer camp.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Our prison system needs a complete overhaul and so does our judicial system. Including what constitutes a crime punishable by state or federal prison.

[Skatt]

I don't see how McCain picking Palin helps with the fact that he is weak in economy. Palin is weak in that also. McCain doesn't have anyone strong in economics on his side, unless you count business as economics, but that's really not the same thing.

Obama bases his plans on what is going to help the most people and create the most long term solutions. That seems to be the most important reason to vote for him to me.

[PRBori]

McCain/Palin duo are out!!! He is too old and I could not see Palin as a rational president. She will dig the current situation into a bigger whole and she will abuse power..

So for the first time in my life, I will vote, and I will vote for OBAMA/BIDEN team. I relate much more to their plan and can see Biden as a better presidential replacement than Pavlin. My only concern is that Obama may end up like president Kennedy, which I'm hoping it doesn't happen but seems likely to happen. Obama is well educated and his plan makes more sense to me.

[Karamazov]

This site talks about the prosioner's rights to kosher meals, etc in prison and their rights to "religious accomodation" while in PRISON. That's stupid IMO. Yes, they are of that religion (whichever it may be) but they are in PRISON--not summer camp.

Our prison system needs a complete overhaul and so does our judicial system. Including what constitutes a crime punishable by state or federal prison.

Right, but they aren't in Gulags either. All of these requests aren't unequivocally out of bounds; when one is considering the bigger picture at hand, namely Prison reform. It does seem frivolous, but not liable to break the Feds back.

With the dysfunctional nature of our prisons today, which is symptomatic of our Judicial system, overhaul is needed. Alas, easier said than done.

[Lights]

While the upper class has been manipulating the system, that doesn't mean it's right to rob the rich and feed the poor through taxes. Why not simply have the same tax percentage for everyone, and stop with the bail-outs?

Flat tax only works if nobody gets tax cuts. We establish a flat tax, and the first thing the upper class are going do is start pushing via the media and lobbying to get cuts on top of that in order to "stimulate the economy".

No matter what way you look at it, "spreading the wealth around" is perceived as socialism, and the people won't stand for it especially many of those who were adults during the cold war.

America has been reduced to a sad state when you have to vote between a candidate who advocates socialism and a candidate who advocates oligarchy. But perhaps the most pathetic part is most Americans still think we live in a meritocracy while we are slowly but surely falling into a kleptocracy.

Many developing countries have suffered under the personal rule of ‘kleptocrats’, who implement highly inefficient economic policies, expropriate the wealth of their citizens, and use the proceeds for their own glorification or consumption. The incidence of kleptocracy is a serious impediment to development. Yet how do kleptocrats survive? How can they apparently exploit the entire citizenship of countries and not foment successful opposition? In this research we argue that the success of kleptocrats rests on their ability to use a particular type of political strategy, which we refer to as ‘divide-and-rule’. Members of society need to cooperate in order to depose a kleptocrat. A kleptocrat, however, may defuse such cooperation by imposing punitive rates of taxation on any citizen who proposes such a move, and redistributing the benefits to those who need to agree to it. Thus kleptocrats can intensify the collective action problem by threats that remain off the equilibrium path. In equilibrium, all are exploited and no one challenges the kleptocrat because of the threat of divide-and-rule. The divide-and-rule strategy is made possible by the weakness of the institutions in these societies, and highlights the different nature of politics between strongly- and weakly-institutionalized polities. We show that foreign aid and rents from natural resources typically help kleptocratic rulers by providing them with greater resources to buy off opponents. Kleptocratic policies are also more likely to arise when opposition groups are shortsighted and when the average productivity in the economy is low. We also find that greater inequality between producer groups may constrain kleptocratic policies because more productive groups are more difficult to buy off.

Sound familiar? When you use tax money in the form of bailouts to nationalize the losses of the wealthy but not their profits, it seems almost obvious what the conclusion will be.

[Skatt]

Obama also plans to cut all of the unnecessary spending that has been going on. For every thing he has planned to spend money on, there is something that he has cut spending on to balance it out. The biggest thing that is drawing me to the Obama/Biden ticket is this. To me, neither candidate is especially great, but Obama is way more organized and detailed.
Saying that Obama and Biden both plan to double foreign aide is only part of a sentence. There is more to it than that and most of it is specifics on who gets the aide. They didn't say that they would simply double all foreign aide.
Both candidates have said the same thing about homeland security also.
It feels like you are only hearing what you want to hear JustMel. If I'm wrong, then I am, but that's what it feels like. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about who understands what. I grew up in the south and most of my family is racist too, that's why I brought up that point. My own grandmother wants to kill Obama if he makes it into office.
My brother-in-law is serving in Afghanistan right now. Best of luck to your's when he goes. I understand how hard that is to go through.
I feel there is a difference in understanding strategy and understanding how to fight. Obama doesn't plan on making choices regarding war on his own. He is aware that is not his area of expertise. He has made choices to compensate for that. McCain has not mentioned getting anyone that understands economy on his team.
IMO, McCain would be front runner for me if he could complete a real plan and show some understanding of balance. He is playing off of the ignorance of Americans by trying to pretend that there are things that don't cost money. During the last debate, every time that he mentioned a plan that he hadn't claimed any spending for, Obama called him out and his only response was, "Why does it have to cost money?" Everything costs money, because everything takes man power. McCain's campaign doesn't add up when it comes to numbers, Obama's does. That is pretty important if you ask me.





Skatt added to this post, 28 minutes and 39 seconds later...

With Colin Powell about to endorse McCain in the next few days, Obama's chances are about to go up in smoke.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oops.

[Lights]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oops.

ROFL!

This is made 1,000 times better because Powell even commented on the socialism charges!

We can't judge our people and hold our elections on that kind of basis. Yes, that kind of negativity troubled me. And the constant shifting of the argument, I was troubled a couple of weeks ago when in the middle of the crisis the campaign said 'we're going to go negative,' and they announced it. 'We're going to go negative and attack his character through Bill Ayers.' Now I guess the message this week is we're going to call him a socialist. Mr. Obama is now a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying less, and for us to say that makes you a socialist is an unfortunate characterization that I don't think is accurate.

Unless, of course, by "going up in smoke", he meant the smoke off of the exhaust as Obama's chances rocket off into the stratosphere.

[void]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oops.

This is bad news ... for Obama.

More seriously, I find it amusing how the brown-shirts are spinning his endorsement. A man revered in Republican loyalist circles has gone from hero to traitor, just because he didn't endorse the guy with an (R) next to his name. I suppose that "support the troops!!1!" rhetoric only applies if the troops support the right politicians. Fox News pinheads are already running with the "helping a brutha out" line of reasoning, even after the fact that Powell clarified that question very well.

Nonetheless, this still makes little difference. Obama can have a 25% lead in the popular vote, but he still won't beat Rove et al and Premier Election Solutions on election day. People are already reporting voter registration shenanigans (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (not ACORN) and faulty (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) voting machines.

[Reon]

This is bad news ... for Obama.

More seriously, I find it amusing how the brown-shirts are spinning his endorsement. A man revered in Republican loyalist circles has gone from hero to traitor, just because he didn't endorse the guy with an (R) next to his name. I suppose that "support the troops!!1!" rhetoric only applies if the troops support the right politicians. Fox News pinheads are already running with the "helping a brutha out" line of reasoning, even after the fact that Powell clarified that question very well.

Nonetheless, this still makes little difference. Obama can have a 25% lead in the popular vote, but he still won't beat Rove et al and Premier Election Solutions on election day. People are already reporting voter registration shenanigans (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (not ACORN) and faulty (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) voting machines.

I thought racism was gone??? (sarcasm) One thing I've always wondered was how will Obama be perceived internationally, There are still a lot of places in the world that think white is right so how are they going to respond to a non-white president.

[dragonsscout]

Ehrm, I've been reading (a lil bit) and I was wondering, if taxing everyone equally was/is possibly why haven't we done it yet? and, of course, if you make more money why shouldn't you be taxed more without 'hurting' your company
While the upper class has been manipulating the system, that doesn't mean it's right to rob the rich and feed the poor through taxes. Why not simply have the same tax percentage for everyone, and stop with the bail-outs?
Here's the problem with that. I assume that you want it to be 'fair.' What is fair?

If everyone pays the same flat amount, doesn't that mean that the poor are paying a larger proportion of their income than the rich?
If everyone pays the same fraction of their income, doesn't that mean that the rich are paying more? Doesn't that also mean that because the poor spend more of their money on necessities, the poor are giving up more of their disposable income than the rich?
If the rich pay a larger percentage of their income as their wealth increases, doesn't that mean that they're paying more than the poor? Wouldn't that decrease the willingness of people to work harder to get more money?

Assuming that for some magical reason, everyone had the same income, there would still be problems. Suppose Bob drove his car to work every day. Dan, meanwhile walked along the side of the road. The road needs to be repaired. Should Dan and Bob be taxed the same amount? Should Bob pay all of the tax? What if Dan needed to go to the hospital and used the road only when an ambulance came to pick him up (x2 over the course of his life)?

Now suppose, that, again everyone has the same income and uses government services the same amount. Jane is a healthy person who has no children. Laura is sick and has big medical bills. Emily has two children in college. Should they all pay the same amount? What if Laura got her medical bills because she saved a person's life but became injured in the process? What if Emily's two children got out of college, got higher paying jobs, were more productive, and therefore payed higher taxes?

A flat, proportional tax was used in Rome, I believe, though I know nothing else about it.

[Skatt]

This is bad news ... for Obama.

More seriously, I find it amusing how the brown-shirts are spinning his endorsement. A man revered in Republican loyalist circles has gone from hero to traitor, just because he didn't endorse the guy with an (R) next to his name. I suppose that "support the troops!!1!" rhetoric only applies if the troops support the right politicians. Fox News pinheads are already running with the "helping a brutha out" line of reasoning, even after the fact that Powell clarified that question very well.

Nonetheless, this still makes little difference. Obama can have a 25% lead in the popular vote, but he still won't beat Rove et al and Premier Election Solutions on election day. People are already reporting voter registration shenanigans (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (not ACORN) and faulty (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) voting machines.

Then I guess McCain is a traitor too for being a "Maverick" in his party? It's kind of silly reasoning if you ask me. I would think that many people who were questioning how safe our country would be at the hands of Obama would be put at ease by the fact that a man who has been at the helm of national security for so long would endorse him. Seems to be nothing but good for Obama and nothing but bad for McCain.

[Synamon]

I thought racism was gone??? (sarcasm) One thing I've always wondered was how will Obama be perceived internationally, There are still a lot of places in the world that think white is right so how are they going to respond to a non-white president.

Isn't the US one of those places? I think the criticism will be harsher at home than abroad. Looks like we will get to find out, he's way ahead in the polls now.

[Reon]

Isn't the US one of those places? I think the criticism will be harsher at home than abroad. Looks like we will get to find out, he's way ahead in the polls now.

I read something recently that stated that most 'polls' have a margin of error extending up to 10 - 15 % for democrats (t might be wrong, it might be right, just thought someone would like to know)

[PHS Philip]

I read something recently that stated that most 'polls' have a margin of error extending up to 10 - 15 % for democrats (t might be wrong, it might be right, just thought someone would like to know)

Most that I've seen are 3 or 4% + or -, I think for each candidate, so it ends up being +/- 7% or so. Which, in most of them, still leaves Obama way ahead.

[metamagnet]

Most that I've seen are 3 or 4% + or -, I think for each candidate, so it ends up being +/- 7% or so. Which, in most of them, still leaves Obama way ahead.

The problem with the polls is that they never state what Confidence Interval they use. Regardless though, I agree, Obama seems to be ahead.

[ame]

I don't live in the US but if I did my first choice would have been Hilary because of her experience but opted for Obama after she was out. I contribute with a bit of advertising on his part around the internet.
Last thing your country and everyone else needs are the other 2 in office.

[Noname128]

HELL NO. Just because you want 'change' doesn't mean you should gamble on such a scary unknown. His rise to power (and probable victory) is eerily similar to the rise of another unknown in turbulent times by the name of Adolf Hitler...do your homework. (no, I'm not thrilled with McCain by any means)

[Lights]

HELL NO. Just because you want 'change' doesn't mean you should gamble on such a scary unknown. His rise to power (and probable victory) is eerily similar to the rise of another unknown in turbulent times by the name of Adolf Hitler...do your homework. (no, I'm not thrilled with McCain by any means)

Um...he has been running for 2 years...what is "unknown" about him?

Unlike Obama, Adolf Hitler wrote a book that demonstrated his hatred and prejudice before he came to power. In other words, he was far from "unknown".

[Reon]

HELL NO. Just because you want 'change' doesn't mean you should gamble on such a scary unknown. His rise to power (and probable victory) is eerily similar to the rise of another unknown in turbulent times by the name of Adolf Hitler...do your homework. (no, I'm not thrilled with McCain by any means)

'Do your homework' Since you seem so informed on the subject, could you please tell me what makes obama so much like Hitler (as opposed to mcCain or any other presidential candidate) and, with that line of thought, should we stick with the 'good ole boys' since, at least, we know about them?

[Krazy P]

My vote is private, but I will offer a couple of predictions.

Obama will win. His opponent is older and shorter and humans make judgments most of the time on these criteria. We are animals, after all.

With a super-majority, the D's will have a "blank check". They will approve policies which will greatly increase the role of government in the lives and commerce of the U.S.

This will result, given the serious and marked weakness in the economy today, in even more serious and long term impediments to growth. If a trade war erupts to "protect American jobs" we could be into a 8-10 year downturn.

In any event, look for more government subsidies of special industries, and demographic groups, a much weaker economy, high unemployment and very rough conditions in the developing world. I would see more regional conflicts and generally more war due to economic problems.

I see a good chance of another break-out conflict in the Middle East - probably involving Iran.

I also see some serious issues in South America and Africa. Venezuela could be flashpoint due to oil issues and mis-management by the current government.

The poor - as they always do - will suffer most. "Green" initiatives will become a quaint historical relic of another time.

[PHS Philip]

Or someone invents nuclear fusion and we all live in a happy utopia :p

[void]

Or someone invents nuclear fusion and we all live in a happy utopia :p

Iran is pretty close to "inventing nuclear fusion" on their own. Of course, the world might not like how they invent it. Even if they do manage to invent it, we'd still have a utopia, what with the newly irradiated and cratered planet glowing. :)

[PHS Philip]

Iran is pretty close to "inventing nuclear fusion" on their own. Of course, the world might not like how they invent it. Even if they do manage to invent it, we'd still have a utopia, what with the newly irradiated and cratered planet glowing. :)

That's fission.

We have fusion in hydrogen bombs I guess, but I meant controlled fusion.

[Futuremouse]

i've had a few very interesting and insightful discussions about the coming election, and more than one of them has veered off into:

'was the decision made high up in the republican party leadership to throw the election?'

sinister, when you think about, but not as unlikely as it seems on the surface. Running McCain seemed a bit desperate and out of step, but the Palin thing was so nonsensical that it smacked of theater.

the GWB administration was all about profit taking. lower capital gains tax, almost no tax of dividends, record high energy prices = record high profits for energy concerns...

and now there really isn't any wealth left for anyone to take. all the useful money has flowed out of your wallet into a select few hands; through the gas pump, through the money you put into your 401K fund that was sold short, through your income tax that went to Halliburton, Bechtel, & KBR via Iraq.

seems like a pretty smart idea to sit back and let the Dems make whatever small gains they can in rebuilding the national economy and job market, then swoop in a little later on and skim off the cream. plus, they finally have a realistic scapegoat to blame things on.

interesting theory, and i've heard it more than once, from different people with vastly different political leanings.

[searcheagle]

'Do your homework' Since you seem so informed on the subject, could you please tell me what makes obama so much like Hitler (as opposed to mcCain or any other presidential candidate) and, with that line of thought, should we stick with the 'good ole boys' since, at least, we know about them?

Ignoring the Hitler comment, because it completely unfounded, have you seen what Obama's running mate said about life in an Obama Administration:

This was in a speech that Biden made to Seattle Fundraisers, twice over the last weekend.

Also, note the Biden says these things that he is predicting will only occur if Obama and he are elected.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on.

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real."

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

After speaking for just over a quarter of an hour, Biden noticed the media presence in the back of the small ballroom.

"I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.

"All kidding aside, these guys have left us in a God-awful place," he then said of the Bush regime, promptly wrapping up his remarks. "We have the ability to straighten it out. It's gonna take a little bit of time, so I ask you to stay with us. Stay with us."

Article is posted in its entirety. Emphasis is Added.

[Reon]

Ignoring the Hitler comment, because it completely unfounded, have you seen what Obama's running mate said about life in an Obama Administration:

This was in a speech that Biden made to Seattle Fundraisers, twice over the last weekend.

Also, note the Biden says these things that he is predicting will only occur if Obama and he are elected.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Article is posted in its entirety. Emphasis is Added.

I think that its good that biden, at least, recognized that 'that' will most likely be the case throughout Obama's reign of presidency(if, of course.) It could be implied that they could avoid that whole problem by just picking McCain but I don't think thats the case. This, also, seems to state that the problem we have today are just caused by the 'bush' administration when, at least, one significant portion (credit) wasn't 'caused' by them; maybe worsened, but not caused.

Anyway, I wonder if Palin is going to make a similar statement >>

[SmileyMan]

HELL NO. Just because you want 'change' doesn't mean you should gamble on such a scary unknown. His rise to power (and probable victory) is eerily similar to the rise of another unknown in turbulent times by the name of Adolf Hitler...do your homework.

Except for the fact that he doesn't advocate genocide.

P.S.:Godwin's Law.

[dragonsscout]

HELL NO. Just because you want 'change' doesn't mean you should gamble on such a scary unknown. His rise to power (and probable victory) is eerily similar to the rise of another unknown in turbulent times by the name of Adolf Hitler...do your homework. (no, I'm not thrilled with McCain by any means)

DAMNIT! I was so happy that Godwin's law had not been appearing in the forums. :disappointed:

We have fusion in hydrogen bombs I guess, but I meant controlled fusion.

Darn, I was going to say that. :)

[jadefalcon]

Obama will hike taxes and many will suffer under his tax plans, at least I have heard from people I trust. Palin, in my opinion was purely a strategical move. I am ancy as to how McCain will handle foreign policy, though. The war in Iraq was a sucess- Iraq is now re-establishing control and it is about time to pull the boys and girls out. Embassies probably should be put into Iraq if they have not done so already for fears of other countries coming in and undermining what has been done since 2003.


I am independent and I am leaning 50/50 here, to vote for John McCain or abstain.

[Lights]

The war in Iraq was a success

If you call a war that will cost us 3 trillion dollars and has cost us thousands of American lives a success, then sure.

But I will say that our troops made the best out of a horrible situation. They need to be praised, but the leadership should be shot.

I recommend you vote for McCain. He is going to need all the help he can get.

[TheLastMohican]

If you call a war that will cost us 3 trillion dollars and has cost us thousands of American lives a success, then sure.


This is an incomplete assessment. A war's success is not measured in cost. It is measured in the ratio of your opponent's cost to yours. (The cost itself can be measured in part or in whole as a percentage of your capacity.)

[void]

This is an incomplete assessment. A war's success is not measured in cost. It is measured in the ratio of your opponent's cost to yours. (The cost itself can be measured in part or in whole as a percentage of your capacity.)

Except in cases when the opponent is improperly defined. Or when the definition depends on both the current phase of the Moon and the number of moos heard from an arbitrarily selected cow in Switzerland.

In any case, I thought the war itself was declared won when GWB proudly stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a large "Mission Accomplished" banner. A second "war" immediately commenced after that (this isn't really a war as much as a series of counter-insurgency operations against many factions of guerrillas).

[TheLastMohican]

Except in cases when the opponent is improperly defined. Or when the definition depends on both the current phase of the Moon and the number of moos heard from an arbitrarily selected cow in Switzerland.

Eh? I would define the opponent in this case as Al-Qaeda. (Of course that did not apply through the entire project.)

A second "war" immediately commenced after that (this isn't really a war as much as a series of counter-insurgency operations against many factions of guerrillas).

True. I prefer to call it an occupation, since there is no formal declaration of war in place, and technically the country is already established as an ally.

[Lights]

Eh? I would define the opponent in this case as Al-Qaeda. (Of course that did not apply through the entire project.

If Al-Qaeda was the enemy, then this war was a resounding failure. As I recall, we never got Osama bin Laden, and from the intelligence, it sounds like Al Qaeda is as strong as it has ever been, if not stronger.

True. I prefer to call it an occupation, since there is no formal declaration of war in place, and technically the country is already established as an ally.

Funny how conquering a country makes it your ally. ;)

[TheLastMohican]

If Al-Qaeda was the enemy, then this war was a resounding failure. As I recall, we never got Osama bin Laden, and from the intelligence, it sounds like Al Qaeda is as strong as it has ever been, if not stronger.

Now that's a better assessment. My objection was that your previous post implied that high cost automatically makes a war a failure.

Funny how conquering a country makes it your ally. ;)

I said "technically."

You'll find that I word things deliberately. ;)

[Lights]

Now that's a better assessment. My objection was that your previous post implied that high cost automatically makes a war a failure.

Indeed. World War II cost us approximately 6 trillion of today's dollars and hundreds of thousands of American lives, but it was a fairly decent success. And the leadership back then made some astonishing mistakes (not too much unlike the leadership of today), but fortunately the Japanese leadership made bigger ones. As my grandfather who served back then put it, "Had the Japanese decided to invade California right after Pearl Harbor, we would all be speaking Japanese right now."

It's strange, but if Barrack wins, then we will be paying for these wars the exact same way we paid for World War II. The rich were the ones that ultimately copped the bill because they were the only ones with enough money to do so. Had Bush had his way, we would have paid for these wars by just going out and spending more, but an economic collapse kind of screws that idea.

[void]

Funny how conquering a country makes it your ally. ;)

Iraq was not conquered - it was liberated. We were greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy. To say anything different is unpatriotic and indicative of insufficient love for the country and its flag. Why do you hate America?

[TheLastMohican]

Iraq was not conquered - it was liberated. We were greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy. To say anything different is unpatriotic and indicative of insufficient love for the country and its flag. Why do you hate America?

Ya gotta admit, the kids did like the soccer balls.

[Lights]

Iraq was not conquered - it was liberated. We were greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy. To say anything different is unpatriotic and indicative of insufficient love for the country and its flag. Why do you hate America?

Wait! Which America? The real one which votes for McCain or the fake one which votes for Obama? How am I suppose to know if I hate America if I don't know which one? :thinking:

[JustMel]

You can disagree with the war in Iraq and still not hate America. Just like people disagreed with Vietnam and didn't hate American. I'm talking our own citizens not those of the countries we forcefully liberate, etc.

I personally believe we should fix our own country before trying to change any others. Until we can take care of our own we shouldn't be telling others how to live and what is "fair and just". We have kids who are starving and can't go to school---as sorry of a state as our education system is in. We have families that have children in foster care because mom and dad can't afford to put/keep a roof over their heads. I don't see how we can hold ourselves up as a role model for other countries when we don't take care of our own problems first.

[a thinkin thing]

I am and proud of it! People deserve the opportunity to feel like they are being acknowledged and a vote for Obama is chance to give a lot more people the chance they never thought that they had in this age. It's symbolic. And historic.

[Moriarty]

I personally believe we should fix our own country before trying to change any others.

This argument, and variations of it, appear now and again when discussing forays outside of our borders or outside our atmosphere. On the surface, it's a compelling appeal to emotion. Quantifying the sentiment with a specific problem and detailed, proposed solution is another story. Without such specifics, we're just stoking propaganda.

I get a little ruffled when funding for new technological research (and pure research, specifically) is withheld because "we have real problems to solve first".

A good example of this sort of attitude is Ronald Reagan's revealing question: Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?

Anyway, I've wandered out into the weeds. I'd be more inclined to agree with you if your quote had simply been "We shouldn't try to change other countries that aren't threatening our borders." The state of our social system isn't relevant or related to our foreign policy, or at least shouldn't be.

[Reon]

I was talking to my Ap Us history teacher today and I believe that she was correct in saying that 'I don't think america is ready for a black man for president' (Just saw the subscription, so, yeah. )

[Skatt]

If we vote him in, then we are obviously ready regardless of what anyone says or what happens afterward. The race really shouldn't be an issue, especially with how ridiculously stupid McCain's campaign has made this election. America is not ready for another immature white president that doesn't know shit from economics.

[JTG]

I voted for Obama yesterday, confident that the election finally won't be decided by my idiotic state (go Florida! woooo! let other states screw things up this time) The sad truth is though, that the popular vote means nothing, as pointed out by elston on the first page:

No one is voting for Obama, due to the fact that no one in the United States has the right to vote for president. ...Unless you happen to be one of the 538 people who are apparently the only people qualified to pick their executive. Otherwise, you're just voting for people who say that they're voting for Obama.

Honestly, electoral college is a large reason why things get shady around election time. It's also the reason for the disenfranchisement of many voters, because conservatives in new york don't count for example. The american people lost when Bush won in 2000, and seriously, HOW DID THAT GUY WIN AGAINST A RHODES SCHOLAR (now nobel prize holder as well) AND A DECORATED WAR VETERAN (in his second run)

*sigh* anyway...

My vote is private, but I will offer a couple of predictions. you don't have to tell your vote when you make it clear that you buy into conservative scare tactics

have you seen what Obama's running mate said about life in an Obama Administration:

This was in a speech that Biden made to Seattle Fundraisers, twice over the last weekend.

Also, note the Biden says these things that he is predicting will only occur if Obama and he are elected.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

that biden speech is always taken so out of context. first, it's pretty clear to anybody paying attention that biden's speeches don't include the "if he wins" mentality. the US is going to be tested either way, because honestly we're in a weakened state now. not only that, we've created, almost single-handedly, a world climate that encourages extremism and terrorism. biden is just saying that "when he wins, obama will be tested." he's not saying that a vote for obama is a vote for disaster. that would be moronic. if it was a closer race i'm sure the line would be worded to include the possibility of mccain being in the same position.

second, you shouldn't really quote that line about obama being tested without including the statement after it - that he has a steel spine

Iraq was not conquered - it was liberated. We were greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy. To say anything different is unpatriotic and indicative of insufficient love for the country and its flag. Why do you hate America?
I HATE AMERICA BECAUSE OF ITS FREEDOM

...or something like that

[Skatt]

I only hate real America. I love fake America with all its extreme values like liberty and fairness. I was a bit surprised to find out that you are required to be 100% subjective politically in order to be a part of real America. I'll stick with the fake America that still believes in the same values that our country was founded on, each individual is entitled to their own way of life and government should only have hand in politics that can be dealt with objectively.

[idem]

I would... if I were old enough to vote.

[schwartzie]

Just came in from door knocking in a get out the vote for obama. Amazing. People were incredibly warm, happy, welcoming. We will make history tomorrow.

[Elsien]

Originally Posted by void
Iraq was not conquered - it was liberated. We were greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy. To say anything different is unpatriotic and indicative of insufficient love for the country and its flag. Why do you hate America?

Did the people of Iraq ask for us to do anything to/for them? How educated were these people about everything that was happening and for what true reasons? If they simply were told you were liberating them and thats it, then their standpoint becomes just as truly ignorant as your own. When was the last time you read the definition of a Patriot?
There is the one that America shoves down our throats: (from dictionary.com)
1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. (follow blindly)

oh and then there is this other little meaning as well:
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

so my question is where are all the Patriots with the 2nd meaning? Oh thats right, they have all been programmed to only know the 1st meaning and are uneducated and not privy/do not care about what their country is really up to.

Do not vote for Obama, He will most likely work to get the 2nd amendment stricken and if that happens it is just a downward spiral of governmental power after that until we are all locked into a 'safe' governmental grid and tracked everywhere we go.

[void]

We will make history tomorrow.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Pandemonium]

While i was watching the news today, a poll was put forward if 'Australians were voting for the American Presidential candidates who would they vote for?' This poll came out for 89% for Obama. I have been following current American politics for the last two years, since thats all that they put on tv here in Australia. After reviewing the policies of both candidates if i was allowed to vote in the American Presidential election i would vote for Obama. Obama has a more socialistic view which would be a great benefit for Americans, however Obama is no way a socialist.

A few things i don't understand about Americans is their xenophobia towards everything different especially socialism. If you have noticed countries with more socialistic policies have some of the highest living standards in the world. Your cling to the free market and for the deregulation of the market has caused the current global meltdown.

For a country to grow and prosper there needs to be adequate investment in education, health care and welfare.

Australia has the best voting system in the world because all Australian citizens must have a say on how the country is governed, mandatory voting. People are forced to engage in the system that supports them, gives an opportunity to reflect in the way the country wants to move in as a whole. The system that supports the voting is uniform across the whole of our country and is not electronically supported so their is accountability for future reference.

[Sere]

If I were an American citizen and had no other choice but to vote for one of the two, it would be Obama.

[PRBori]

OK, so I finally voted...long lines, too much fuss for something so simple.. hahaha... well hopefully my vote counts, voting in the US capital does't count since its not a state... but this time my vote should count for something.. hahahaha...

[Capt57]

While i was watching the news today, a poll was put forward if 'Australians were voting for the American Presidential candidates who would they vote for?' This poll came out for 89% for Obama. I have been following current American politics for the last two years, since thats all that they put on tv here in Australia. After reviewing the policies of both candidates if i was allowed to vote in the American Presidential election i would vote for Obama. Obama has a more socialistic view which would be a great benefit for Americans, however Obama is no way a socialist.

A few things i don't understand about Americans is their xenophobia towards everything different especially socialism. If you have noticed countries with more socialistic policies have some of the highest living standards in the world. Your cling to the free market and for the deregulation of the market has caused the current global meltdown.

For a country to grow and prosper there needs to be adequate investment in education, health care and welfare.

Australia has the best voting system in the world because all Australian citizens must have a say on how the country is governed, mandatory voting. People are forced to engage in the system that supports them, gives an opportunity to reflect in the way the country wants to move in as a whole. The system that supports the voting is uniform across the whole of our country and is not electronically supported so their is accountability for future reference.

Our public education system is a form of socialism along with the post office. I still think they should take away tenure for teachers and see if the system improves compared to the best public educational systems in the world, which are not in the US. Besides, as the world becomes more competitive things like tenure will look more and more absurd.

[schwartzie]

We have a new president. By a landslide. Congratulations, people!

[Firebrand9]

I did. His speech was awesome!

[JTG]

McCain's speech was better i thought. Pity of a time for him to finally sound like a caring patriot, as opposed to the belligerent douche we've been presented with for the past erm... forever? I voted for Obama, but even i think that the McCain campaign did a bad job of showing how capable and patriotic he really is.

and
OK, so I finally voted...long lines, too much fuss for something so simple.. hahaha... well hopefully my vote counts, voting in the US capital does't count since its not a state... but this time my vote should count for something.. hahahaha...
Voting in D.C. does count. The city has 3 electoral votes - as many as Alaska, Deleware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Obama also won in D.C. with 93% of the vote.

[kmweber]

Obama claims to bring abstract "change," which could be anything from Hitler to the Second Coming.

I, for one, want no part of some politician's grand collective vision. I just want to be left alone to pursue my own individual vision. Obama will not do that for me.





kmweber added to this post, 5 minutes and 39 seconds later...


A few things i don't understand about Americans is their xenophobia towards everything different especially socialism. If you have noticed countries with more socialistic policies have some of the highest living standards in the world.
Irrelevant. Moral principle trumps all other concerns. Slavery is never acceptable.

Your cling to the free market and for the deregulation of the market has caused the current global meltdown.
I would submit that had we indeed had a free market (we currently don't), the situation would be way better than it is now.

For a country to grow and prosper there needs to be adequate investment in education, health care and welfare.
None of which is government's business.

Let the people who want it pay for it, and don't force people who aren't interested to pay for it. Anything else is slavery, and NOTHING justifies slavery.

Australia has the best voting system in the world because all Australian citizens must have a say on how the country is governed, mandatory voting. People are forced to engage in the system that supports them, gives an opportunity to reflect in the way the country wants to move in as a whole.

People are forced to do something? Yup, more slavery.

[dragonsscout]

Obama claims to bring abstract "change," which could be anything from Hitler to the Second Coming.

GODWIN'S LAW! This is the second time I've seen it in the forum. I consider it a scourge of rational discussion on the internet. The comparison is ridiculous. Stop it.

Irrelevant. Moral principle trumps all other concerns. Slavery is never acceptable.

This is another comparison that is unfounded. Slavery is not the same thing as socialism, especially the social-capitalist system that I'm sure Pandemonium was referring to.

None of which is government's business.

Let the people who want it pay for it, and don't force people who aren't interested to pay for it. Anything else is slavery, and NOTHING justifies slavery.

Again, it's not slavery. Ever heard of externalities? One of the common roles of government is to attempt to maximize positive externalities and minimize negative ones. Roads, common defense, law and order, technological innovation and research, welfare, health care, and education all have positive externalities that governments often work to maximize. I notice that you're using the internet, which is an invention by the US government. You're also using a keyboard to type and are writing and reading, all of which are skills that you probably developed in a public school.

[schwartzie]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





schwartzie added to this post, 525 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Again, it's not slavery. Ever heard of externalities? One of the common roles of government is to attempt to maximize positive externalities and minimize negative ones. Roads, common defense, law and order, technological innovation and research, welfare, health care, and education all have positive externalities that governments often work to maximize. I notice that you're using the internet, which is an invention by the US government. You're also using a keyboard to type and are writing and reading, all of which are skills that you probably developed in a public school.

probably breathing air that's relatively non-toxic, drinking water that is non-toxic thanks to government regulation; sitting in a heated or air-conditioned indoor environment courtesy of a heavily regulated monopoly provider restrained from charging sky high prices by a government agency; kept functional by eating food that has artificially low prices thanks to government intervention in the market, which food was brought home via either public transport, by driving a car down a public street or by walking or biking along a sidewalk/path constructed over private property courtesy of the government's exercise of eminent domain and construction of the facility for the public. etc. You have a personal space not invaded regularly by criminals intent on stealing yr stuff thanks to the publicly-maintained peace. You invest your accumulated wealth in something made more or less secure by government intervention.
We live collectively, for the most part, and our self-governance reflects that. How much self vs collective is just fine point stuff. All groups force pretty heavy-handed, pervasive outside governance on individuals and their trade activity.

[Golbez]

Luckily for me i barely made the deadline of being old enough to vote, so i voted for obama.

[kmweber]

GODWIN'S LAW! This is the second time I've seen it in the forum. I consider it a scourge of rational discussion on the internet. The comparison is ridiculous. Stop it.

You stop it. It's a valid comparison. Instead of experiencing a mindless, visceral, knee-jerk reaction to the word "Hitler", take a minute and think about what I was saying there.

This is another comparison that is unfounded. Slavery is not the same thing as socialism, especially the social-capitalist system that I'm sure Pandemonium was referring to.

Slavery is compelling one individual to provide for another without his consent, which is precisely what is being advocated by Obama (and most everybody else, unfortunately).

Again, it's not slavery. Ever heard of externalities?
Sure...but they're irrelevant. None of government's concern.

One of the common roles of government is to attempt to maximize positive externalities and minimize negative ones.
"Common" is not the same as "legitimate".

I notice that you're using the internet, which is an invention by the US government.
No, it isn't. That assertion is a huge (and unfortunately very common) tiptoe around the facts.

You're also using a keyboard to type and are writing and reading, all of which are skills that you probably developed in a public school.
Nope.





kmweber added to this post, 5 minutes and 29 seconds later...


probably breathing air that's relatively non-toxic, drinking water that is non-toxic thanks to government regulation
The end does not justify the means. If I want clean water, I'm capable of deciding for myself whether or not it's worth what I would have to exchange for it, and doing without if I decide it's not. The government has no business interfering in what is a private exchange between myself and my water-provider.

sitting in a heated or air-conditioned indoor environment courtesy of a heavily regulated monopoly provider restrained from charging sky high prices by a government agency
See above.

kept functional by eating food that has artificially low prices thanks to government intervention in the market,
See above.

which food was brought home via either public transport, by driving a car down a public street or by walking or biking along a sidewalk/path constructed over private property courtesy of the government's exercise of eminent domain and construction of the facility for the public. etc.
See above.

You have a personal space not invaded regularly by criminals intent on stealing yr stuff thanks to the publicly-maintained peace.
Since I am not the criminal, it is absurd to say I should have to pay to be protected from criminals. That is essentially a protection racket writ large. The criminals are the ones whose actions necessitate any government at all; therefore, they are the ones who should be compelled to fund its operations.

You invest your accumulated wealth in something made more or less secure by government intervention.
The end does not justify the means.

We live collectively, for the most part, and our self-governance reflects that. How much self vs collective is just fine point stuff.
Collective action is fine. COMPULSORY collective action is NEVER fine.

All groups force pretty heavy-handed, pervasive outside governance on individuals and their trade activity.
Then "all groups" are illegitimate and have no moral right to exist.

[blueback]

Then "all groups" are illegitimate and have no moral right to exist.
He he. . .it can be fun to get the anarchists riled up. Reality is a bitch, isn't it?

Good reasoning from poor assumptions yields the world's most durable nonsense - someone

Anarchism is based on the idea that the highest moral good is to never initiate the use of violence. This obviously rules out all government since all government, no matter how benign, relies on taxes which are forcibly extracted from at least a small percentage of the population.

However, that is not the highest moral good. The highest moral good is self-preservation. Since the best way for people to save their own lives from entropy and chance is to band together, they do. Forming the group seems obvious. After a while people take the things the group provides for granted and start to imagine that those things do not depend on the group. That is about the time that philosophies like anarchism start to spring up.

Anarchism will not work because the idea is fundamentally flawed. It is based on wishful thinking rather than reality. The facts support taxation. There are some things that people need, but cannot provide successfully in a for-profit-only organization. The way to provide these things is to force everyone to contribute to a common fund, and use that fund to provide those things.

If people don't like it they can always work within the system to change it. If that doesn't work they can always try to replace the system. If that doesn't work they can go somewhere else and try to start their own system. If none of that works they usually end up complaining a lot.

[kmweber]

He he. . .it can be fun to get the anarchists riled up.
Not really. Anarchism is profoundly irrational, and therefore anarchists are as well, so it's too easy to rile them up. It's no fun unless it's a challenge.

Anarchism is based on the idea that the highest moral good is to never initiate the use of violence.
Yes, that is where it fails--it uses an intermediate conclusion and treats it as a philosophical primary.

Anarchists are not the only ones who oppose the initiation of coercive force. Those of us who subscribe to valid philosophies, however, realize that principle for what it is.

This obviously rules out all government
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
since all government, no matter how benign, relies on taxes which are forcibly extracted from at least a small percentage of the population.
All current governments (which, because they do this, are not legitimate)--not all possible governments. I outlined a preferable scheme for funding government in an earlier post--namely, seizure of the assets of those duly convicted of bona fide crimes.

The ones whose actions necessitate government in the first place should be the ones who pay for it. No initiation of force by the state necessary--the criminal is the one who initiated the force.

Will this be enough to fund government sufficiently? I don't know. But I don't care. This is the difference between myself and an anarchist: I don't see the world through rose-colored glasses. I recognize that a trade-off exists, and choose the more preferable of two imperfect options. If the cost of freedom is lessened security against criminals, so be it. It's worth it. As a practical matter, I can defend myself against a common thief much more easily than I can defend myself against a confiscatory state.

However, that is not the highest moral good. The highest moral good is self-preservation.

Anarchism will not work because the idea is fundamentally flawed. It is based on wishful thinking rather than reality.
Precisely.

The facts support taxation.
No, they don't.

There are some things that people need, but cannot provide successfully in a for-profit-only organization.
Precisely.

The way to provide these things is to force everyone to contribute to a common fund, and use that fund to provide those things.
No, it isn't. Those who don't think it's worth what they would have to pay should be free to do without.

If people don't like it they can always work within the system to change it. If that doesn't work they can always try to replace the system. If that doesn't work they can go somewhere else and try to start their own system. If none of that works they usually end up complaining a lot.
That doesn't make those doing the complaining wrong.

[Skatt]

I'll start by saying that this isn't meant to be a stab at kmweber, but more of a clarification mixed with my own rebuttals against his statements.

You stop it. It's a valid comparison. Instead of experiencing a mindless, visceral, knee-jerk reaction to the word "Hitler", take a minute and think about what I was saying there. Not that your statement was anything more than a display of your ignorance to Obama's plan, but I want to point out; Godwin's Law does not apply to it because Hitler isn't being used as a comparison, it's being used a contrast to "the second coming". The contrast is being compared to your lack of knowledge on the particular subject. If you would like to know what Obama's plan for change is, go to his website. It's all there, it's all very specific and very comprehensive.


Slavery is compelling one individual to provide for another without his consent, which is precisely what is being advocated by Obama (and most everybody else, unfortunately).

Sure...but they're irrelevant. None of government's concern.
Socialism is not slavery, if you want to twist something to suit your means, do it more intelligently. Socialism is more like theft than it is slavery. Conservatism is more like slavery in our country. The difference is that Socialism uses public money to fund the things that are meant to improve the standard of living for everyone. Our current laws on drug policy, gay marriage, war, etc. all have parts in them that remove some people's liberties in an attempt to "save" people from their own stupidity in life.



"Common" is not the same as "legitimate".
It is legitimate that the government would protect the liberties of it's people as defined by the constitution. The do that part pretty well in a lot of the areas that were mentioned as examples to you. So, instead of "experiencing a mindless, visceral, knee-jerk reaction" to the idea that the government has responsibility, step back and learn a little bit from the people that don't think that the things they say can be backed by nothing more than opinion.


No, it isn't. That assertion is a huge (and unfortunately very common) tiptoe around the facts.
Not everyone that was involved in the creation of the World Wide Web was funded by our government, but the invention of TCP, which is what defines modern internet, was funded by our government. The internet also was heavily funded through the efforts of Al Gore more than any other.



The end does not justify the means. If I want clean water, I'm capable of deciding for myself whether or not it's worth what I would have to exchange for it, and doing without if I decide it's not. The government has no business interfering in what is a private exchange between myself and my water-provider.
The government's hand in there insures that your water provider actually gives you clean water. This is sadly necessary, because until the regulations existed most companies didn't test their supplies or maintain their pipes. It is the government's role to step in when one person's actions WILL put another person's life, liberty, or property at risk. If you really believe the shit you're saying, move to Pakistan or something, then maybe you'd understand what happens when there are not rules to protect you from this stuff.


Since I am not the criminal, it is absurd to say I should have to pay to be protected from criminals. That is essentially a protection racket writ large. The criminals are the ones whose actions necessitate any government at all; therefore, they are the ones who should be compelled to fund its operations.
Wow, it's a good thing that we have police and laws so that no one kills you for being narrow-minded. You are either way to trusting of other people than you should be, talking just to talk, or just plain stupid.



Collective action is fine. COMPULSORY collective action is NEVER fine.

Then "all groups" are illegitimate and have no moral right to exist.
You sound like you are just so bad at being a libertarian that you might as well claim anarchist. Using your logic, we could effectively twist every single rule into something corrupt that should be opposed. We would even be able to wipe out our entire race in like a couple weeks with that kind of attitude.

Not really. Anarchism is profoundly irrational, and therefore anarchists are as well, so it's too easy to rile them up. It's no fun unless it's a challenge.
Funny......


Yes, that is where it fails--it uses an intermediate conclusion and treats it as a philosophical primary.
Do you just lack complete introspective awareness or something?


Anarchists are not the only ones who oppose the initiation of coercive force. Those of us who subscribe to valid philosophies, however, realize that principle for what it is.
There is a difference, you are responding to literally every role that the government has like it's coercive force. That is, simply, not the case. What you are describing to us is Anarchism. Pretty much you are saying the government should be there, but it shouldn't do anything at all except exist.


Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
There too many times where you have skipped everything except premise and conclusion to count. If you want to attack style, learn to add a body with some real facts.


All current governments (which, because they do this, are not legitimate)--not all possible governments. I outlined a preferable scheme for funding government in an earlier post--namely, seizure of the assets of those duly convicted of bona fide crimes.

The ones whose actions necessitate government in the first place should be the ones who pay for it. No initiation of force by the state necessary--the criminal is the one who initiated the force.

Will this be enough to fund government sufficiently? I don't know. But I don't care. This is the difference between myself and an anarchist: I don't see the world through rose-colored glasses. I recognize that a trade-off exists, and choose the more preferable of two imperfect options. If the cost of freedom is lessened security against criminals, so be it. It's worth it. As a practical matter, I can defend myself against a common thief much more easily than I can defend myself against a confiscatory state.
Just to reiterate, everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property. It is the founding goal of the government to protect these rights. You really should figure out a way to come up with ideas that actually fit into that or else you are practicing the art of futility. There are plenty of people that would love to rid the world of people that live with such centric views, it's a good thing we have laws to prevent a group of them from killing you for being like that. Also, sometimes only differentiating things doesn't give you accurate results when it comes to determining pros and cons. For example, you are just as unrealistic as an anarchist.


No, they don't.
Facts do support taxation, you just haven't done your homework. I'm not going to do it for you this time though.


No, it isn't. Those who don't think it's worth what they would have to pay should be free to do without.
Alright, well I never want to see you drive a car on the roads that I pay taxes on, or walk on the sides of the roads that I pay taxes on. I don't want to see you use any legal service to obtain retribution for any wrong doings. I don't want to see you eat any food or drink any liquids that have been FDA approved. I could go on, but I've already taken out all your essentials for living in the modern world and you will surely die within weeks.


That doesn't make those doing the complaining wrong.
Just because complaining isn't wrong doesn't mean your complaints are correct. I think you really need to work on your ideals before presenting them to the public. Right now, you don't stand a chance when it comes to using facts and examples to back anything you say. When you pretend to know more than you actually do, it makes you look stupid. I can tell that your aren't, because your grammatical skills are impeccable. You are just contributing to the current problem by being an extremist and not really considering the reality of what the government can achieve from the current starting position. You aren't considering the effects that your ideals would have on EVERYTHING if they were implemented. There are many aspects that aren't usually discussed that have to be considered. I'm not really interested in teaching you the fundamentals of a collective and working it up to how it has to go when the collective is as massive as our country. Check out the libertarians though, I think they would give you the compromise and balance that you really should be looking for.

[blueback]

I think you really need to work on your ideals before presenting them to the public. Right now, you don't stand a chance when it comes to using facts and examples to back anything you say.
There is nothing wrong with presenting your idea for peer review. The only mistake is to not participate in the peer-review process. I'm only so sure of my conclusions because I've been testing them rigorously for so long. If I'd kept them to myself this long they probably wouldn't be as strong.

So, as long as he responds to criticism correctly, no harm no foul.

[jwp4]

A few things i don't understand about Americans is their xenophobia towards everything different especially socialism.

And if we brought American capitalism to Australia you might feel the same way. I don't care for socialism personally, because I don't see the value in government sponsored anything.


If you have noticed countries with more socialistic policies have some of the highest living standards in the world. Your cling to the free market and for the deregulation of the market has caused the current global meltdown.

Huh? Wow, we really messed up the world economy. Our bad.


For a country to grow and prosper there needs to be adequate investment in education, health care and welfare.

Ummm...agreed, but we probably disagree on who needs to do the "investing"


Australia has the best voting system in the world because all Australian citizens must have a say on how the country is governed, mandatory voting. People are forced to engage in the system that supports them, gives an opportunity to reflect in the way the country wants to move in as a whole. The system that supports the voting is uniform across the whole of our country and is not electronically supported so their is accountability for future reference.
Since the Australian government disarmed its citizens, it makes it pretty easy to make things mandatory. They have the guns and the few rule the many. Good thing the citizens are forced to contribute to the society for the good of all. It would be awful if people pursued their own interests. Since they are disarmed it is pretty easy to put them back inline.

I digress. I don't have a problem how other countries govern themselves, it is just not how I want to be governed.

To get back on track, I voted because someone has to be in the opposition.

[dragonsscout]

You stop it. It's a valid comparison. Instead of experiencing a mindless, visceral, knee-jerk reaction to the word "Hitler", take a minute and think about what I was saying there.

You appeared to be aiming for a knee-jerk reaction, effectively comparing Obama to both Hitler and Jesus Christ in the same sentence. Like most politicians, Obama is trying to be vague enough to be flexible in office and to not be cornered by opponents, while trying to be specific enough to get votes, endorsements, and money. Saying that Obama could kill several million people in death camps and launch a war that leaves a continent in blown to pieces is ridiculously unfounded. That's like saying that a teenager could become president of the US, then expand NATO to become a governing body that has sovereignty over all member states. Comparing Obama's presidency to the second coming is like saying that that same teenager could actually be Zeus.

Slavery is compelling one individual to provide for another without his consent, which is precisely what is being advocated by Obama (and most everybody else, unfortunately).

No it's not. A slave is a person who is the property of another person. Slavery is the existence of slaves. The residents of the US are not the property of the US government (though one could argue otherwise, especially in the case of soldiers and prisoners). Obama, nor any other politician who stood a remote chance of winning advocates that people should be property of the government. Since you can, and in all likelihood will still be able to, permanently leave the US to another country (assuming they'll take you), your are not really property of the government.

Sure...but they're irrelevant. None of government's concern...
..."Common" is not the same as "legitimate".
So what is legitimate? At the risk of being Nihilistic, I submit that the only things that are legitimate are those that are possible and those that are illegitimate are not possible. Legitimacy, like good and evil, is social construct that can be construed to support anything by anyone. I would also say that since the government makes it their concern, externalities are the concern of government. Unless people can make it not the government's concern, it will remain the government's concern.

No, it isn't. That assertion is a huge (and unfortunately very common) tiptoe around the facts.

Okay, I was too hasty. However, ARPANET was developed by the US government, and was the first packet-switching system, an integral forerunner of the internet. RAND also was set up by the USAAF and DARPA is part of the US government. Both of these were instrumental in coming up with the networks that led to the internet.



Since you can, and in all likelihood will still be able to, permanently leave the US to another country (assuming they'll take you), your are not really property of the government.

This wasn't meant to be an insult, by the way, I am merely stating that immigration policies of certain countries can be quite strict.