# Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin(Speedsolving Votes)



## Lotsofsloths (Aug 29, 2008)

Which team?
You choose


----------



## kratos94 (Aug 29, 2008)

Lol palin is old i cant believe my friend thought she was hot... well yeah go obama!


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Aug 29, 2008)

kratos94 said:


> Lol palin is old i cant believe my friend thought she was hot... well yeah go obama!



Palin is a sexy beast 
jking lol


----------



## Kian (Aug 29, 2008)

haha, i think she's doing pretty well for a 44 year old. she was runner up for miss alaska in 1984, as well.

she's attractive for her age, i think most people would agree with that.

and i'm happy to be the first person to vote against a socialist.


----------



## Lofty (Aug 29, 2008)

Vote Nader!
on topic: unfortunately i didnt get my voters registration in on time to be able to vote int he election. And honestly idk if either of them are attractive enough for me to want to vote for them. And by attractive im not commenting on physical appreance like the above posters lol. 
It'll be an interesting election. Either a black individual or a women... hmmm.
idk. My opinions havent matured enough for me to feel comfortable backing either of them. I suppose as a conservative evangelical Christian. I'm supposed to jump on McCain's bus but I haven't decided my opinion on most of the "important issues".


----------



## darkzelkova (Aug 29, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Either a black individual or a women... hmmm.



Heh well in that race the black guy won last time! I hope he wins again


----------



## MistArts (Aug 29, 2008)

darkzelkova said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Either a black individual or a women... hmmm.
> ...



Why do you care if you are in Canada?


I don't really care because this election is just too hard to decide.


----------



## McWizzle94 (Aug 29, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Vote Nader!
> on topic: unfortunately i didnt get my voters registration in on time to be able to vote int he election. And honestly idk if either of them are attractive enough for me to want to vote for them. And by attractive im not commenting on physical appreance like the above posters lol.
> It'll be an interesting election. Either a black individual or a women... hmmm.
> idk. My opinions havent matured enough for me to feel comfortable backing either of them. I suppose as a conservative evangelical Christian. I'm supposed to jump on McCain's bus but I haven't decided my opinion on most of the "important issues".



lol you are like my math/science/american history teacher. you just don't know who to pick lol


----------



## darkzelkova (Aug 29, 2008)

MistArts said:


> darkzelkova said:
> 
> 
> > Lofty said:
> ...



Lol because Canadian politics are REALLY BORING. So I watch American instead xD


----------



## Dene (Aug 30, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Vote Nader!
> on topic: unfortunately i didnt get my voters registration in on time to be able to vote int he election. And honestly idk if either of them are attractive enough for me to want to vote for them. And by attractive im not commenting on physical appreance like the above posters lol.
> It'll be an interesting election. Either a black individual or a women... hmmm.
> idk. My opinions havent matured enough for me to feel comfortable backing either of them. I suppose as a conservative evangelical Christian. I'm supposed to jump on McCain's bus but I haven't decided my opinion on most of the "important issues".



You should be careful Mr. Loftus. Religious views should not affect your political reason. Do you really want to back the team that sends your country into war and gets your economy in billions of dollars of debt, for nothing but lost lives?

EDIT: I put Obama, but I'm in New Zealand and voting National  (National are technically conservative, but in New Zealand both major political parties are effectively bang on center.


----------



## Kurzeja (Aug 30, 2008)

Bob Barr and Wayne Root.

But I chose McCain Palin because I cannot support a socialist, and a nationalized health care system is the last thing I want.
Besides, Obama has very little experience in politics. Listening to him talk without a prepared speech or teleprompter is sad, he really doesn't know what he is doing.


----------



## toast (Aug 30, 2008)

I vote Obama/Biden ftw.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Aug 30, 2008)

Dene said:


> You should be careful Mr. Loftus. Religious views should not affect your political reason. Do you really want to back the team that sends your country into war and gets your economy in billions of dollars of debt, for nothing but lost lives?



Your logic doesn't follow. On the contrary, religion provides a basis of ideas and morals that can guide one's own ideologies.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 30, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > You should be careful Mr. Loftus. Religious views should not affect your political reason. Do you really want to back the team that sends your country into war and gets your economy in billions of dollars of debt, for nothing but lost lives?
> ...


But I have more solid morals than a great number of religious people, but I do not believe in a god of any kind.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 30, 2008)

Barr/Root

the democlicans and republicrats both suck


----------



## Dene (Aug 30, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > You should be careful Mr. Loftus. Religious views should not affect your political reason. Do you really want to back the team that sends your country into war and gets your economy in billions of dollars of debt, for nothing but lost lives?
> ...



Ah yes for sure, but following other religious people like sheep doesn't follow. Just because generally Christians vote conservative, it doesn't mean that you should (I mean, just look at Bush, I'm sure most Christians would agree he was a bad choice).


----------



## pcharles93 (Aug 30, 2008)

Can I still vote on this poll even though I'm not old enough to vote yet?


----------



## Alex DiTuro (Aug 30, 2008)

_* Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich 2008*_ 

Are choices are Little Bush Jr. or *a guy who attended the buildiburger **confrence("bohemian grove")*. Hmm... I choose Ron Paul.


----------



## Brett (Aug 30, 2008)

Let's make sure we pick a sub-par picture of McCain and Palin and try to get the best looking one of Obama, not to try to sway the votes or anything.

Vote McCain. Leadership that's realistic, can think for itself, has experience, understands the war, understands how finances work (I'll lower taxes while raising government spending! while lowering the national debt!).

McCain prefers small-town discussions with audience discussions because he can think for himself. Obama needs large areas to flail his arms around and yell to make mindless voters believe he's better because he has energy. Without a teleprompter or someone to tell Obama what to think, he's completely useless.

Besides, in the video Daniel posted making fun of "Bushes third term", later in the video (for those of us who watched the entire thing) Biden mispronounces Obama. What a great running mate


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 30, 2008)

Brett said:


> Let's make sure we pick a sub-par picture of McCain and Palin and try to get the best looking one of Obama, not to try to sway the votes or anything.
> 
> Vote McCain. Leadership that's realistic, can think for itself, has experience, understands the war, understands how finances work (I'll lower taxes while raising government spending! while lowering the national debt!).
> 
> ...


If I could vote (turning 18 in April of next year  )...
I would consider voting for McCain.
The REAL McCain. The REAL maverick- but he's not the same man he was 4 years ago, and especially not 8 years ago. He's sold himself out to the conservatives, he's just another lackey now. There are no fundamental differences between his policies and the Neocon agenda. 
That is not McCain. And so, I must support Obama.


----------



## Brett (Aug 30, 2008)

I cannot vote either, but I'm lobbying both my parents to vote McCain.

McCain is much more consistent on his policies than Obama. Obama has been changing his decision, plan, future, ideals in every speech, depending on where he's giving it. He's trying to please everyone in the most generic "You hate the government now, I'm different vote me" way possible. He's just being unrealistic.

In my opinion McCain isn't the most conservative of people now, which at the time is good for what needs to be done in this economy/"world police" status. (that we need to get rid of, btw)


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 30, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
Be careful about who you call inconsistent.


----------



## Brett (Aug 30, 2008)

First Point Iraq War: He's talking about his own plan as being quick, but the overall process before his plan has been slow. 

Second Point, Confederate Flag: 8 years ago he said 2 different things about a flag that hasn't been used in nearly 150 years. Boo hiss. Republicans freed the slaves anyway

Third Point, Religious Right: How is he being inconsistant here? He likes the guy, says the guy "shouldn't be a figure of intolerance" and then has a meeting with him.

Fourth Point, Gay Marriage: He says "if you want to call it that" meaning he doesn't mind if people live together and are couples for life, then 11 minutes later he's more straightforward saying that it should be illegal.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 30, 2008)

Brett said:


> First Point Iraq War: He's talking about his own plan as being quick, but the overall process before his plan has been slow.
> 
> Second Point, Confederate Flag: 8 years ago he said 2 different things about a flag that hasn't been used in nearly 150 years. Boo hiss. Republicans freed the slaves anyway
> 
> ...


No, he's saying at first that the war and invasion would be quick and easy, then he says that it will not be easy but that the American people were led to believe that it would be, also stating that "many of us understood from the very beginning" that it would be a very very difficult undertaking.

With the flag, he says its offensive in many ways, a symbol of racism and slavery. But then he says he believes its a symbol of heritage.
And let me remind you- though they were called Republicans, at the time the Republican party was liberal, Democrats were conservative.

McCain says that no one should be pandering to the far left or far right, then he goes and does exactly that. Do as I say, not as I do..?

"Do you think gay marriage should be allowed?"
"I think that gay marriage should be allowed..."
11 minutes later-
"I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal."

Usually, if a national politician talks about something being allowed, he means that its legal, yeah?


----------



## MistArts (Aug 30, 2008)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Barr/Root
> 
> the democlicans and republicrats both suck



Too bad the other people don't get much attention.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Aug 30, 2008)

Dene said:


> Ah yes for sure, but following other religious people like sheep doesn't follow. Just because generally Christians vote conservative, it doesn't mean that you should (I mean, just look at Bush, I'm sure most Christians would agree he was a bad choice).



I doubt most educated people follow religious beliefs blindly, as [American] society is stressing less and less on religion.

You can say that now because of what has happened in the past eight years. However, Bush is a much better choice than Kerry. Also, based on how Gore has turned out, it is a good thing that Bush was elected.

Also, Bush is not a terrible president; not as bad as, say, Buchanan or Johnson, and certainly not as useless as Garfield or Harrison. But history will tell.


----------



## Lofty (Aug 30, 2008)

Dene said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Vote Nader!
> ...



I know. I'm trying to decide whether I want to be libertarian or not because obviously all my Christian morals couldn't and shouldn't be enforced on other people by the govt. But like I said I haven't put enough thought into my opinion to really have one.
Religion should of course affect who I vote for by providing my with morals and such like that. But I would vote for someone with with good policy and a different religion over bad policy and the same religion as me.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Aug 30, 2008)

McCain choose Palin only to get the Hillary vote.
If McCain kicks the bucket(he is 72!!), our President will be a person who's only experience would be governing a state with less than 700,000 people. 
I find that just plain scary.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 30, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> McCain choose Palin only to get the Hillary vote.
> If McCain kicks the bucket(he is 72!!), our President will be a person who's only experience would be governing a state with less than 700,000 people.
> I find that just plain scary.



Yea, because those 3 years Obama served in the senate while he spent two of them running for president is just soooooooooo experienced. As a governer Palin actually did things like veto bills and pass budgets. Obama has yet to do ANYTHING in his political career that qualifies him for an executive job.


----------



## Bryan (Aug 30, 2008)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Lotsofsloths said:
> 
> 
> > McCain choose Palin only to get the Hillary vote.
> ...



Bingo! Palin has experience being a leader of government. While it isn't a huge state, it's still running a state. Obama's camp wants to make note that she use to be mayor of a town, but ignore the governor position. When Obama has done nothing.

But yeah, if I had to choose betwen a unexperienced VP versus an unexperienced president, I'll choose the unexperienced VP.

And if someone is going to gain experienced on the job, it's much better to have a VP gain experience on the job than the president. And unless McCain dies the first day in office, I'm sure Palin would do fine. Also, McCain has passed a clean bill of health.

For those of you voting for Obama, are you actually of voting age? Or are you just buying in to the Obama hype? Seriously, he's all talk.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 30, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> I doubt most educated people follow religious beliefs blindly, as [American] society is stressing less and less on religion.


While this may be true, there are still quite a lot of people who are not well-educated and who DO follow religious beliefs blindly. And of course by their very existence they become an important voting block in Democracy.



ExoCorsair said:


> You can say that now because of what has happened in the past eight years. However, Bush is a much better choice than Kerry. Also, based on how Gore has turned out, it is a good thing that Bush was elected.
> 
> Also, Bush is not a terrible president; not as bad as, say, Buchanan or Johnson, and certainly not as useless as Garfield or Harrison. But history will tell.


I don't agree. Kerry might not have been a good choice, but I'm confident that Gore would have done at least some things better than Bush. Even if you don't believe the things Gore says, his environmental activism shows that he does care about the environment and is willing to spend time improving the Earth, something Bush doesn't do at all, and it would be entirely reasonable to argue that taking care of the environment is more important than almost any other action the President could take (since the effects of serious environmental damage would last for much longer and affect more people than war or economic policies). It's not okay to have a President who's effectively working for oil companies. Gore also had several years' experience being in the White House at the time that he ran, so he would have at least been able to get off to a good start, and the experience also means he probably wouldn't destroy the economy like Bush seems to have done.

Of course Bush is a terrible president - the fact that politicians from _his own party_ are trying to show they're not like him should be clear evidence of this. Just because other people were worse doesn't make him suddenly capable: we expect a certain level of competence from anyone elected to such a high office, and any President who shows he doesn't know what he's doing will be remembered as a bad one. Also, having actual negative effects is way worse than being useless. Would you rather a stranger steals $1000 from you or leaves you alone? (By the way - don't blame Garfiend and Harrison, they had less than six months in the office!).


----------



## DavidWoner (Aug 30, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> Bob Barr and Wayne Root.



high-five!



Ethan Rosen said:


> Barr/Root
> 
> the democlicans and republicrats both suck



high-five again!



hawkmp4 said:


> If I could vote (turning 18 in April of next year  )...
> I would consider voting for McCain.
> The REAL McCain. The REAL maverick- but he's not the same man he was 4 years ago, and especially not 8 years ago. He's sold himself out to the conservatives, he's just another lackey now. There are no fundamental differences between his policies and the Neocon agenda.
> That is not McCain. And so, I must support Obama.



agreed mccain used to be a good candidate, but now he blows.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 30, 2008)

I'm still disappointed that Bill Richardson didn't get the nomination. his experience blows McCain and Obama out of the water...


----------



## Tim_Likes_Cubing (Aug 30, 2008)

Obama FTW!
I read some thing on Palin - they sound like the worst vice-president ever!


----------



## Hadley4000 (Aug 30, 2008)

The man who is intelligent. Has 1 house. Doesn't have his nose up George Bush's ass. 

I could go on. I might post my 8 page pro-Obama/anti-McPain blog at some point here.


----------



## Dene (Aug 31, 2008)

I don't think Bush would have been a better candidate than a single other person qualified enough to do the job in the entire world. You have to see him from an outside perspective to understand how the rest of the world feels about him. Let's see: Since Bush has been president there has been a huge war in Afghanistan (possibly not his fault), a huge war in Iraq (all his fault), a huge rise in American Debt (mainly his fault), millions of innocent people dead (all his fault), the biggest threat of world war 3 to date (mainly his fault), another cold war about to start (perhaps not his fault, but what is he doing about it?)
The simple truth is, everyone outsie of America hates Bush, and blames him for pointless killing. Would another president have done the same...?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 31, 2008)

"You know, I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people."

-Barack Obama
November 8, 2004


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

Obama may not have the experience McCain does. But Obama is in touch with the America, and world, of today.
McCain has experience, but I'm not exactly sure what he's in touch with... I keep getting reminded of Albert Einstein's quote...
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."


----------



## Kurzeja (Aug 31, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> Obama may not have the experience McCain does. But Obama is in touch with the America, and world, of today.
> McCain has experience, but I'm not exactly sure what he's in touch with... I keep getting reminded of Albert Einstein's quote...
> "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."



McCain is not the same as Bush. They disagree on a great number of issues.

Obama may be in touch with Americans, but McCain is in touch with reality. Most Americans don't know anything about politics, and thats all they hear is that Obama and the Democrats are going to give them free stuff. Obama is just pandering to the ignorant, greedy, and lazy, by telling them that he is going make the achievers pay their "fair share" and make everyone equal. He is making the tax payers pay for his votes.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> McCain is not the same as Bush. They disagree on a great number of issues.


Like...? Any of importance, at all?


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Aug 31, 2008)

Bryan said:


> Seriously, he's all talk.


Sure, he isn't experienced as McCain, every one knows that.
But Joe Biden has a lot more experiance than McCain AND Palin.
Joe Biden has had 6 consectutive terms serving in the Senate.
Obama will lead the country. Because he can give good speeches, and Joe Biden will help him.



Kurzeja said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama may not have the experience McCain does. But Obama is in touch with the America, and world, of today.
> ...


_
Yea, they only agree on 95% of the issues. Thats not THAT much._


----------



## Kurzeja (Aug 31, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> Like...? Any of importance, at all?



-McCain supported the surge for a long time while Bush opposed it for many years. 
-McCain opposes torturing terror suspects for interrogation.
-He believes in helping end climate change.
-McCain and Lieberman's energy bill
-McCain very strongly believes in a balanced budget and wants to eliminate earmarks.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Like...? Any of importance, at all?
> ...



I won't argue he supported the surge. But... I will argue that supporting the surge isn't a good thing.

He opposes torture? He funded the contra rebels back in 1988. They tortured. 
annnd... http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-enhanced-interrogation-techniques.html

Helping end climate change? By allowing more drilling for oil and increasing dependence on petroleum?

He opposes earmarks?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/49_50/news/3502-1.html


----------



## Hadley4000 (Aug 31, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama may not have the experience McCain does. But Obama is in touch with the America, and world, of today.
> ...





I know more about politics than 9/10 people out there. I am not ignorant, greedy or lazy. 

McCain in touch with reality? Thank you for giving me a belly laugh. I've needed one of those.


----------



## Kurzeja (Aug 31, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> I won't argue he supported the surge. But... I will argue that supporting the surge isn't a good thing.
> 
> He opposes torture? He funded the contra rebels back in 1988. They tortured.
> annnd... http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-enhanced-interrogation-techniques.html
> ...



Why isn't supporting the surge a good thing? It has succeeded.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/630/

He also supports research into alternative energy such as nuclear. We need to drill here to help lower oil prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/14/GR2008021400384.html


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

The surge has just embedded us even more in Iraq. Its treating symptoms of violence, not the causes. 
And nuclear is just as bad- its not sustainable, in the sense that the waste from nuclear energy will destroy the environment.
How... HOW?!?!?!?
How can ANYONE think that drilling here in America will lower our prices? The petroleum industry is NOT nationalized, so the prices will stay the same. Our prices are for the most part dictated by the GLOBAL economy. Canada has a surplus of oil, they produce more than they use, yet... they pay as much if not more for gasoline than we do! 
Saying drilling for oil in the US will lower our gas prices is the biggest load of horse **** I have ever heard.


----------



## Kurzeja (Aug 31, 2008)

Hadley4000 said:


> I know more about politics than 9/10 people out there. I am not ignorant, greedy or lazy.
> 
> McCain in touch with reality? Thank you for giving me a belly laugh. I've needed one of those.



I'm not saying that all of Obama's supporter are ignorant, greedy, or lazy, but a larger number of them are. Many of his supporters can't tell you anything about him besides that he supports "change." They also know that he is going to raise taxes on the rich (who many poor people hate) and give to the middle class (the voters). The poor / middle class don't realize that this hurts them too.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> I'm not saying that all of Obama's supporter are ignorant, greedy, or lazy, but a larger number of them are. Many of his supporters can't tell you anything about him besides that he supports "change." They also know that he is going to raise taxes on the rich (who many poor people hate) and give to the middle class (the voters). The poor / middle class don't realize that this hurts them too.


How does taxing the people that make disgusting amounts of money hurt the middle class and those in poverty?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 31, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> Kurzeja said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying that all of Obama's supporter are ignorant, greedy, or lazy, but a larger number of them are. Many of his supporters can't tell you anything about him besides that he supports "change." They also know that he is going to raise taxes on the rich (who many poor people hate) and give to the middle class (the voters). The poor / middle class don't realize that this hurts them too.
> ...



When factory owners move to Asia and take the jobs with them because they will be able to keep more money there, then you will see just how great Obama's policies are. Not to mention when the leaders of the service industry need to raise prices to make up for the loss of money caused by heavily increased taxes, you will see how great your socialism is.


----------



## Kurzeja (Aug 31, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> Kurzeja said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying that all of Obama's supporter are ignorant, greedy, or lazy, but a larger number of them are. Many of his supporters can't tell you anything about him besides that he supports "change." They also know that he is going to raise taxes on the rich (who many poor people hate) and give to the middle class (the voters). The poor / middle class don't realize that this hurts them too.
> ...



Businesses will be driven out of the country so that they can operate without the government trying to take their money. Plus, can you tell me what happens when you raise the taxes on you employer? Surely they aren't going to just accept their loss of money and get over it. They will fire new employees in order to make up for the loss, they will raise prices to make up for the loss, or they could decrease the pay of their employees.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Businesses will be driven out of the country so that they can operate without the government trying to take their money. Plus, can you tell me what happens when you raise the taxes on you employer? Surely they aren't going to just accept their loss of money and get over it. They will fire new employees in order to make up for the loss, they will raise prices to make up for the loss, or they could decrease the pay of their employees.
> ...


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Aug 31, 2008)

If you want to know why the gas prices have gone so dramatically in the last couple of weeks, its because the elections are coming closer. And Republicans have all the control over oil, because they only support the largest companies. NOT the little ones.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 31, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> If you want to know why the gas prices have gone so dramatically in the last couple of weeks, its because the elections are coming closer. And Republicans have all the control over oil, because they only support the largest companies. NOT the little ones.



Actually its primarily because the American Dollar is rebounding against most major currencies because Japan is in a recession and that Euro and Pound didn't do as well in the first semester as expected. But yea, nice try with your little conspiracy theory.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 31, 2008)

nice, ethan, I lol'd
actually, it's a little thing called 'Supply and Demand'!


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 31, 2008)

Stachuk1992 said:


> nice, ethan, I lol'd
> actually, it's a little thing called 'Supply and Demand'!




Well if he had bothered to take the time to refute me I would've gone into supply and demand, but the rising dollar is a primary reason for the drop.


----------



## MistArts (Aug 31, 2008)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > nice, ethan, I lol'd
> ...



The rising dollar is caused by the supply and demand of the dollar.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 31, 2008)

MistArts said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > Stachuk1992 said:
> ...



OOO I thought he was referring to the price of oil and not the price of the dollar. Woops!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 31, 2008)

i was talking about everything!!!


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Aug 31, 2008)

You got me there Ethan.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 31, 2008)

What does that have to do with anything?

Edit: really all that you did was not accept that you had been completely defeated when you tried to make a point, so you brought in a chart with well known information. In reality, all that shows is that when the government wastes a ton of money like the neocons, there will be debt. However, the entire platform of the democrats is to tax people a lot and spend a ton of money on socialist things like welfare and healthcare. The libertarians and true republicans on the other hand, are completely against wasteful government spending.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

Ethan Rosen said:


> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> Edit: really all that you did was not accept that you had been completely defeated when you tried to make a point, so you brought in a chart with well known information. In reality, all that shows is that when the government wastes a ton of money like the neocons, there will be debt. However, the entire platform of the democrats is to tax people a lot and spend a ton of money on socialist things like welfare and healthcare. The libertarians and true republicans on the other hand, are completely against wasteful government spending.


...*snickers*
Please don't try to tell me that McCain is a true republican.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 31, 2008)

I didn't lol
I don't like Mccain, I just prefer him to Obama, but Bob Barr is significantly better than both.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

There you go- vote 3rd party, really change things (no sarcasm, I swear)


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 31, 2008)

Ethan, first off I respect your opinions despite the fact that I disagree on which team would be better for this country. That's what politics is about though, if we all agreed on everything it'd be crazy boring. However, dude you should chill out a bit man. You're pretty angry when it comes to politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4

Chris ;-)


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

Call me a sissy but that video brought tears to my eyes 
Thanks Chris!


----------



## Bryan (Aug 31, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> If you want to know why the gas prices have gone so dramatically in the last couple of weeks, its because the elections are coming closer. And Republicans have all the control over oil, because they only support the largest companies. NOT the little ones.



Yup, couldn't be the hurricane approaching some of our big refineries, or the fact that Russia (a big oil producer) started invading other countries, or the fact that it's a holiday weekend.

In fact, in the last few weeks, oil has take one of the largest _drops_ in years. It may have ticked up just slight recently.


----------



## Dene (Aug 31, 2008)

Ethan Rosen said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Kurzeja said:
> ...



This is true, and greatly contributes to why I will be voting National here this year. Lots of big businesses are going over to Asia at the moment. The stupid Green party (super-liberal) are whining about climate change and how we need to pass all these bills to reduce greenhouse emissions or whatever, but then the companies go over to China and use coal to generate power which is even worse! (I think it is illegal in New Zealand to use coal, or there are some obscene taxes on it, or something). Dumb greens, stupid Jeanette Fitzsimons.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2008)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...under George Bush, who cut taxes, the United States has been steadily losing jobs. Under Bill Clinton, who raised taxes, more and more jobs were being created...
So, I'm failing to see your logic.


----------



## Bryan (Sep 1, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but...under George Bush, who cut taxes, the United States has been steadily losing jobs. Under Bill Clinton, who raised taxes, more and more jobs were being created...
> So, I'm failing to see your logic.



Yes because taxes are the only factor in jobs. The economy was on it's way up when Clinton took office, and by the time he left, the economy was heading towards a recession (that Bush inherited).

Inflation was lower under Bush, disposable income was higher, household assets were higher. 

If it wasn't for the GOP taking control of Congress in 94, Clinton probably would've messed up the economy by his tax hikes like he did in 93.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 1, 2008)

Well, I just find it hard to believe that the economy follows a trend that mimics the party of the president- Republicans always seem to have recessions, do they not?


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 1, 2008)

I think the president is just a figurehead anyway. The Fed really actually did everything for the economy. So you should really thank/blame Alan Greespan for everything about the economy for the last 20 years or so.(Now the chairman is Ben Bernanke.) The president can't actually make an appropriations bill (or any other bill), it's the Congress. The president's mainly appoints people, veto bills, sign treaties etc. He really can't do much to influence many of the things that he is promising. So the best thing he can do is pretty much make nice speeches so that the people will believe him and be proud that he is representing the country. The presidential coat tail doesn't really exist, so that wouldn't influence the Congress. The only thing of really concern is who will he appoint as the top level bureaucrats.

The vice president is just a laughable position of no real purpose. Adams's two terms as Vice President were frustrating experiences for a man of his vigor, intellect, and vanity. He complained to his wife Abigail, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."


----------



## Dene (Sep 1, 2008)

> "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."


What a silly thing to say, he belongs in the 1700's.

And you're forgetting the most important thing: War. The president definitely influences that.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 1, 2008)

And this goes along with appointing people, but its far from insignificant- Supreme Court justices.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Sep 1, 2008)

Ethan, I admit you've completely stomped me.


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 1, 2008)

of course us Canadians are interested in what is going on with leadership in US. Politics of US does not only currently affect the entire world because it is a superpower (even though that has changed somewhat during the Bush presidency) but in particular it affects Canada a lot because we are so close, and rely on each other so much in trade and culture.


----------



## Bryan (Sep 1, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> in particular it affects Canada a lot because we are so close, and rely on each other so much in trade* and culture*.



Yes, because if America voted for a President that had a pro-polka platform, that could seriously affect Canada.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 2, 2008)

Bryan said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > in particular it affects Canada a lot because we are so close, and rely on each other so much in trade* and culture*.
> ...


*whimpers*
Give me back Bush!
(kidding)


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 25, 2008)

there should be another option: "I don't live in the U.S."


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 25, 2008)

Sa967St said:


> there should be another option: "I don't live in the U.S."



And a "I wish I didn't live in the US"


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Sep 25, 2008)

I would vote democratic in this election if i had the opportunity... but next election...!!


----------



## Lofty (Sep 25, 2008)

Or another option for those voting for someone not in the main two parties?
I'm torn between Barr and McCain... 
I won't be terribly upset regardless of who wins it tho.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 25, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> I think the president is just a figurehead anyway. The Fed really actually did everything for the economy. So you should really thank/blame Alan Greespan for everything about the economy for the last 20 years or so.(Now the chairman is Ben Bernanke.) The president can't actually make an appropriations bill (or any other bill), it's the Congress. The president's mainly appoints people, veto bills, sign treaties etc. He really can't do much to influence many of the things that he is promising. So the best thing he can do is pretty much make nice speeches so that the people will believe him and be proud that he is representing the country. The presidential coat tail doesn't really exist, so that wouldn't influence the Congress. The only thing of really concern is who will he appoint as the top level bureaucrats.
> 
> The vice president is just a laughable position of no real purpose. Adams's two terms as Vice President were frustrating experiences for a man of his vigor, intellect, and vanity. He complained to his wife Abigail, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."



you should be thanking alan greenspan. you should also be thanking Jeff Sachs. look him up.

and i think Cheney proved that VP is not a laughable position, He did a lot. not a lot of good, but he still did a lot.



Sa967St said:


> there should be another option: "I don't live in the U.S."



there should be many many more options, since there are more than 2 candidates for president. party politics really suck.


----------



## Gunnar (Sep 27, 2008)

I'm from Europe, so I don't know all about US politics, but I would have liked to see Ron Paul in the final race for president. As a libertarian he could have made a great difference being president for the economicly biggest country in the world. USA is a big contrast to Sweden which has, together with Denmark, the highest taxes in the world, with a total taxation of 49% of the GDP. I think the US is around 25%.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 27, 2008)

Gunnar said:


> I'm from Europe, so I don't know all about US politics, but I would have liked to see Ron Paul in the final race for president. As a libertarian he could have made a great difference being president for the economicly biggest country in the world. USA is a big contrast to Sweden which has, together with Denmark, the highest taxes in the world, with a total taxation of 49% of the GDP. I think the US is around 25%.



i agree that a free market would be good, but Ron Paul's econ policies are a bit too extreme for the unstable state that our economy is in right now. He has the right idea of what needs do be done, but i dont like his strategy of implementation.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Sep 27, 2008)

Good debate, eh? I watched it with an open mind and I'm further in support of Obama.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 27, 2008)

McCain seemed to dominate only in that...I don't know, he controlled who talked when, it seemed like he had a bigger presence in the room. But on issues I think it was very close, Obama ahead I believe, but its up for debate. What I really want to see is the VP debate.


----------



## Fobo911 (Sep 27, 2008)

Yeah, the presidential debate was really good today.

But as a joke, I'd like to vote for third-party candidate Bob Barr......ker.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 27, 2008)

I thought the debate went overwhelmingly for Mccain on both issues and presence. I'm not interested in debating charisma or anything like that, but if you want to talk about who was better with the issues feel free to PM me. I will say though, that when they were talking about sitting down with foreign leaders I saw quite a bit of Neville Chamberlain in Obama.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Sep 27, 2008)

Many presidents, I believe, are part of a bigger picture, a bigger group of people who really controls everything. On head on a multiheaded dragon, if you will. anyway, I can't vote but I like McCain!


----------



## Brett (Sep 27, 2008)

I enjoyed that debate. Both candidates were clearly prepared, and there wasn't a clear cut winner (That coming from a strong McCain supporter).

Obama didn't do anything to impress me, or show that he had sense in foreign issues. Although economically he gained some ground...

I found it amusing that they both had a bracelet


----------



## deathbypapercutz (Sep 27, 2008)

Did anyone else try to count the Ronald Reagan references? I tried, but I lost count


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 27, 2008)

Just a quick point, if you do not understand politics, you should not be commenting on it and coming to ridiculous conclusions because of the crap you here on NBC. You can be liberal, thats fine, but make sure you know the facts first, because i find most people who are liberal, are that way because they have no idea of the facts. Gun control, universal healthcare, no war, it all sounds good straight up, and many people fall under the illusion that whoever preaches this is the right candidate. Just do me a favor and look up some facts and watch Fahrenhype 9/11 and get the other point of view, because reading this thread, i have seen extremely naive ideas being thrown out, and its a bit absurd and aggravating, specifically to Dene, its clear you have no idea what is happening and your bush-bashing, condescending remarks are frankly, offending.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 27, 2008)

On those grounds, your Bush-loving, super-nationalistic remarks are offending and ignorant. If you don't understand politics, you shouldn't be commenting on it and coming to ridiculous conclusions because of the crap you hear on Fox.

...

Hey, I figured I'd talk out of my ass too. Seems to be all the rage these days.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 27, 2008)

When do i use bush-loving super-nationalistic remarks??? I happen to understand politics and actually know what i'm saying, can you back up any remark you just made? Clearly there is a bias in the media and if you deny that you are quite ignorant, i dont think telling people to get the facts before they make their decisions is a radical position.

Your post is amazingly immature, for the record.


----------



## pjk (Sep 27, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> Good debate, eh? I watched it with an open mind and I'm further in support of Obama.


I thought Obama 'won' the debate. McCain's public speaking skills are slightly worse than Obama's, and that seemed to make a huge difference. Many of the economic issues that were discussed seemed to be controlled by Obama. It seemed that Obama picked out all the bad points McCain made, and McCain couldn't back them up, while when McCain tried to pick apart Obama's plans, Obama had a logic answer.

One thing that really drove me away from McCain was him choosing Palin as VP. It is pretty irr-logical, other than the fact to gain Clinton's female supporters.


----------



## genwin (Sep 27, 2008)

palins interview with katie couric gives a clear reminder of how weak she is for a vp candidate.. i mean she kept on that russia is close to alaska argument,then the i'll get back to ya, then the bailout.... what?? if you've seen real time, bill joked that she made a lot of sentences to nowhere in that interview.. and she is not even participating in the post debate interviews.. what a shame.. i can't wait for their debate..


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 27, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> When do i use bush-loving super-nationalistic remarks??? I happen to understand politics and actually know what i'm saying, can you back up any remark you just made? Clearly there is a bias in the media and if you deny that you are quite ignorant, i dont think telling people to get the facts before they make their decisions is a radical position.
> 
> Your post is amazingly immature, for the record.


Immature?
Yes absolutely! I was mocking you.
I made the same claims you did, with no support at all for them. You make no mention of where certain claims aren't backed up.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 27, 2008)

I don't think Bush would have been a better candidate than a single other person qualified enough to do the job in the entire world. You have to see him from an outside perspective to understand how the rest of the world feels about him. Let's see: Since Bush has been president there has been a huge war in Afghanistan (possibly not his fault), a huge war in Iraq (all his fault), a huge rise in American Debt (mainly his fault), millions of innocent people dead (all his fault), the biggest threat of world war 3 to date (mainly his fault), another cold war about to start (perhaps not his fault, but what is he doing about it?)
The simple truth is, everyone outsie of America hates Bush, and blames him for pointless killing. Would another president have done the same...?

What do i have to back up? that Dene is a bush-basher, there you go, that he is condescending, pretty clear but is an opinion i guess, me saying "i find most people who are liberal, are that way because they have no idea of the facts," thats my experience, is that a wrong view?? Tell me where it was necessary to cite stuff.


----------



## Bryan (Sep 27, 2008)

If you look over a transcript, notice how McCain referred to "Senator Obama" whenever he was talking about him? Obama, on the other hand, refers to his opponent as "John".

Sorry, that just seems to reek of arrogance, or perhaps he was just getting flustered and decided to quit showing respect.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 27, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> What do i have to back up? that Dene is a bush-basher, there you go, that he is condescending, pretty clear but is an opinion i guess, me saying "i find most people who are liberal, are that way because they have no idea of the facts," thats my experience, is that a wrong view?? Tell me where it was necessary to cite stuff.


And I find that most people are conservative because they're selfish and ignorant, and that they attack liberals for being elitist where elitist = intelligent. That's my experience, is that a wrong view?
You can't have it both ways. Whining and *****ing when someone calls you out for not backing up your opinions, but attacking others for not supporting your own views.
And regardless, Dene's post was much more thought out and supported than what you wrote. So you proved my point. Bush basher he is, but a Bush basher with a well constructed argument considering other points of view.


----------



## shelley (Sep 27, 2008)

Crickets said:


> removed



I don't care what your sexual preferences and fantasies are. HOW in the world does that relate to this discussion? Is her attractiveness supposed to make up for her incompetency as a VP nominee?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 27, 2008)

shelley said:


> Crickets said:
> 
> 
> > removed inappropriate quote
> ...


There's no relevance, of course. Just an idiotic, stereotypical remark. How is that...even socially acceptable to say something like that? *shakes head* this is why I hate men.


----------



## pjk (Sep 27, 2008)

Bryan said:


> If you look over a transcript, notice how McCain referred to "Senator Obama" whenever he was talking about him? Obama, on the other hand, refers to his opponent as "John".
> 
> Sorry, that just seems to reek of arrogance, or perhaps he was just getting flustered and decided to quit showing respect.


I don't think that shows any sign of disrespect or respect. I've always thought about this, and whether it is really appropriate to call someone by their title, such as 'Senator', or Dr. if they have a PhD. Many people prefer to be called by their name, others prefer to be called by their title. I always try to refer to people by their first name, and not their title. I work with several PhD students and none of them really care if they are referred to by their title. Afterall, what is it really showing, and what is the point? When Obama and McCain were debating, I don't think it is necessary to state their title every time you refer to them, although I don't see anything wrong with it. Obviously everyone knows they are both senators.

On a side note:


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 27, 2008)

pjk said:


> Bryan said:
> 
> 
> > If you look over a transcript, notice how McCain referred to "Senator Obama" whenever he was talking about him? Obama, on the other hand, refers to his opponent as "John".
> ...



My principal has a PhD and he will only go by "Dr. Keith Kline". He doesn't like being called Mr. or anything. But I don't think he should be called doctor since that isn't his profession


----------



## Bryan (Sep 27, 2008)

pjk said:


> I don't think that shows any sign of disrespect or respect. I've always thought about this, and whether it is really appropriate to call someone by their title, such as 'Senator', or Dr. if they have a PhD. Many people prefer to be called by their name, others prefer to be called by their title. I always try to refer to people by their first name, and not their title. I work with several PhD students and none of them really care if they are referred to by their title. Afterall, what is it really showing, and what is the point? When Obama and McCain were debating, I don't think it is necessary to state their title every time you refer to them, although I don't see anything wrong with it. Obviously everyone knows they are both senators.



In the normal course of day to day activities, I don't think people should have to refer to people by their titles (I work with 2 PhD's, and refer to them by first name only, and I don't even like the sign on my Sunday School door that says "Mr Logan"). But in a debate, it looks really tacky to refer to your opponent by their first name.


----------



## Dene (Sep 27, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> Just a quick point, if you do not understand politics, you should not be commenting on it and coming to ridiculous conclusions because of the crap you here on NBC. You can be liberal, thats fine, but make sure you know the facts first, because i find most people who are liberal, are that way because they have no idea of the facts. Gun control, universal healthcare, no war, it all sounds good straight up, and many people fall under the illusion that whoever preaches this is the right candidate. Just do me a favor and look up some facts and watch Fahrenhype 9/11 and get the other point of view, because reading this thread, i have seen extremely naive ideas being thrown out, and its a bit absurd and aggravating, specifically to Dene, its clear you have no idea what is happening and your bush-bashing, condescending remarks are frankly, offending.



First of all, I have never watched the NBC, and I am NOT, I repeat, *NOT* a liberal, and never will be.

Gun control? How is this a problem? America is pretty much the only "developed" country where you can get a gun with almost no effort. Every other country has it right, why can't America?

Universal healthcare: Impractical, but at least it can be made a lot easier to get healthcare. We have it in NZ (to an extent) and our economy is a complete load of poopy (I use this word because I don't swear) compared to the American economy.

No war: Oh it is very simple: pull out. I have done political philosophy, and am qualified to say that defensive war, at the most, is the only justified war (I am a pacifist myself, but I couldn't expect a country to sit back and take a beating).

As for Bush-bashing: I have every right, the rest of the world hates him. America hates him. Look at the two main presidential nominees! They are both trying to put a huge barrier between themselves and Bush. The comment I hear all the time on the news here is that Bush is the most hated American president ever. And for very good reasons!

As for offending you: good. I feel I wouldn't have succeeded in my comments unless I offended as many people as possible (while still remaining true to my own opinions).


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 27, 2008)

To hawk, my post was meant to tell people to get informed, how is that ignorant in anyway, i make zero ridiculous claims, your being absurd, now Dene, Gun control, the problem is that in every situation where gun control is implemented, crime rates and homicide rates sky rockets, yet we continue to do it???its killing people, thats why its wrong, universal healthcare, we agree it seems, we should make it more affordable and mccain is doing that, the war, is in a sense a defensive war, please watch fahrenhype 9.11, its online, we cannot sit back and let people strike us, we need to stop it at its source, should we have gone into Afghanistan, of course, all but 2 senators voted for that war because we obviously needed to respond to 9/11, in Iraq, we had intelligence of WMDs, the UN past 17 resolutions telling Saddam to cooperate with weapons inspectors and he didnt, what were we to do, Saddam is also responsible for the deaths of about 1 million of his own citizens, children prisons where kids are tortured in front of their parents, torture chambers, he used biological weapons on his own people, they are also a sponsor of terrorism, saddam called for more suicide bombings on the anniversary of 9/11, his son made newspapers write about promoting suicide bombings, saddam payed huge bounties to terrorists' families if they blew themselves up to kill others, bush bashing, i dont think you can speak for the world because you are one person in another country, no doubt he has a low approval rating here and abroad, yet our congress, which votes for these things, has a 9% rating compared to a 25ish for Bush and we dont bash them, Democratic congress by the way, and im qualified, as a history major, to say in the past, Clinton, who didnt go after Osama after the 1993 bombing of the world trade center, who was responsible for it, allowed 9.11 to occur, so sitting back and waiting is absurd.


----------



## pjk (Sep 27, 2008)

Bryan said:


> But in a debate, it looks really tacky to refer to your opponent by their first name.


I'd have to disagree, for the same reasons I mentioned earlier.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 28, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> To hawk, my post was meant to tell people to get informed, how is that ignorant in anyway, i make zero ridiculous claims, your being absurd, now Dene, Gun control, the problem is that in every situation where gun control is implemented, crime rates and homicide rates sky rockets, yet we continue to do it???its killing people, thats why its wrong, universal healthcare, we agree it seems, we should make it more affordable and mccain is doing that, the war, is in a sense a defensive war, please watch fahrenhype 9.11, its online, we cannot sit back and let people strike us, we need to stop it at its source, should we have gone into Afghanistan, of course, all but 2 senators voted for that war because we obviously needed to respond to 9/11, in Iraq, we had intelligence of WMDs, the UN past 17 resolutions telling Saddam to cooperate with weapons inspectors and he didnt, what were we to do, Saddam is also responsible for the deaths of about 1 million of his own citizens, children prisons where kids are tortured in front of their parents, torture chambers, he used biological weapons on his own people, they are also a sponsor of terrorism, saddam called for more suicide bombings on the anniversary of 9/11, his son made newspapers write about promoting suicide bombings, saddam payed huge bounties to terrorists' families if they blew themselves up to kill others, bush bashing, i dont think you can speak for the world because you are one person in another country, no doubt he has a low approval rating here and abroad, yet our congress, which votes for these things, has a 9% rating compared to a 25ish for Bush and we dont bash them, Democratic congress by the way, and im qualified, as a history major, to say in the past, Clinton, who didnt go after Osama after the 1993 bombing of the world trade center, who was responsible for it, allowed 9.11 to occur, so sitting back and waiting is absurd.


First off, use some style- This is a headache to read. I got as far as gun control before I gave up. Spaces and paragraphs are your (and more importantly, as the reader, my friend)
You are making ridiculous claims about a liberal media bias, and that liberals are by definition ignorant. That offends me. You're telling me that my viewpoints are absurd but all you're offering is a fingers-in-the-ears approach when I ask you what's so absurd.

Every other developed country in the world has some sort of socialized medicine. Obviously, its working for them. Only reason it won't work here is because people equate socialist with communist. 
America is the only place I know of where "socialist" is used as a derogatory term. I know many other countries not only have an active socialist party, but one that holds several seats in their legislative house/s.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 28, 2008)

I'm not concerned with writing to please you. There is no ridiculous claim about media bias, donations from tv stations were 100-1 in obama's favor, its well-documented that there is a liberal bias, I don't see how you can argue that. And socialism is derogatory because it is inherently, un-american, as we believe in freedom, not the gov't telling us how we can spend our money, we don't believe we work for the gov't or other people, we work for ourselves. And i said it is ok to be liberal, and it goes for conservatives as well, as long as you are informed, its clearly silly to have an opinion on something without knowing anything about it, i didnt say you didnt know anything, just making a general statement, there's nothing absurd about it.


----------



## WWEFreak666 (Sep 28, 2008)

I would, like most Canadians, prefer Obama over McCain. It does seem like Obama will win, but sadly there's my fear and a lot of others, that if Obama is elected that he may become assassinated, because he's black. If all goes well and Obama does a successful run and actually changes America for the better, this could be amazing. But no matter what, Obama has already made history in the books. I'm just at fear that the government will turn their backs on this man simply because he seems to want change, unlike McCain who just seems to want exactly what Bush wants.


----------



## Dene (Sep 28, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> Gun control, the problem is that in every situation where gun control is implemented, crime rates and homicide rates sky rockets, yet we continue to do it???


Where does this come from? Where are the largest homicide rates in the western world? America! (America on a whopping 5.7, under a morbid list of eastern countries.



> the war, is in a sense a defensive war, please watch fahrenhype 9.11, its online, we cannot sit back and let people strike us,


It's called pre-emptive strike, and is a cheap excuse. Unless you are fighting on your borders, you shouldn't be fighting at all.



> Saddam is also responsible for the deaths of about 1 million of his own citizens, children prisons where kids are tortured in front of their parents, torture chambers, he used biological weapons on his own people, they are also a sponsor of terrorism


And how many have the Americans killed? Saddam Hussein was caught a long time ago, why are you still there?!



> bush bashing, i dont think you can speak for the world because you are one person in another country, no doubt he has a low approval rating here and abroad


I can assure you, I only speak what everyone else is saying. It is _not_ only me.



> Clinton, who didnt go after Osama after the 1993 bombing of the world trade center, who was responsible for it, allowed 9.11 to occur, so sitting back and waiting is absurd.


That is quite a claim, but at least Clinton isn't responsible for the deaths of thousands of American's in war, and other innocent civilians, and yet ignores his own country when hurricanes come blasting through. Good job Bush, good job!



Kyle Barry said:


> And socialism is derogatory because it is inherently, un-american, as we believe in freedom, not the gov't telling us how we can spend our money, we don't believe we work for the gov't or other people, we work for ourselves..



Clearly, you lack any knowledge of how the economy works (and that's saying something, as my knowledge of the economy is not very widespread, yet it is clearly above and beyond your own). You currently do _not_ work for yourself, you work for the few big businesses that are currently running the world.
Instead of working for the government, you would rather work in an absurdly unstable economy, which is now going into a recession because only a _few_ businesses are crumbling? At the moment the whole of the world is relying on just a few big businesses to keep afloat, or else we are going into the biggest depression in history.
No matter how you spin it, you will never truly work for yourself unless you live on a farm and produce all your own stock.
Personally, I'd rather the knowledge that I am forever financially secure in a socialist government, than scraping the bottom of the barrel in this capitalist farce.
Also, the government don't tell you how to spend your money. Get the facts straight please, instead of preaching against what a few anti-communists have told you.
I may as well add, you don't have freedom. Try taking some political philosophy, and you will know what I mean.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 28, 2008)

Where does this come from? Where are the largest homicide rates in the western world? America! (America on a whopping 5.7, under a morbid list of eastern countries.

-Yes, we have a bad homicide rate, and whenever we enforce stricter gun control, homicide rates go up, as does crime, dc bun ban, the year after it was enacted, homicide went up 200%, every situation, UK, Australia, and countless places in the United States, the new gun control causes more crime, its logical because all you do is take away guns from law-abiding citizens who defend themselves, and leave the criminals with the guns, because they buy illegally 85% of the time

It's called pre-emptive strike, and is a cheap excuse. Unless you are fighting on your borders, you shouldn't be fighting at all.

-It's in no way a cheap excuse, we are trying to prevent further terrorism

And how many have the Americans killed? Saddam Hussein was caught a long time ago, why are you still there?!

-We are there because we are rebuilding a democracy so the nation doesn't crumble and become a hot-bed for terrorism and make us go back there one day

That is quite a claim, but at least Clinton isn't responsible for the deaths of thousands of American's in war, and other innocent civilians, and yet ignores his own country when hurricanes come blasting through. Good job Bush, good job!

-Clinton allowed thousands of American citizens to die because of 9.11, Bush and Congress, again, not all Bush like everyone claims, has invaded a country, with our military to achieve a goal, to secure our homeland, long term, and are you aware FEMA is responsible for handling disasters and the director resigned because of his failures, sorry Bush cant control the weather

Clearly, you lack any knowledge of how the economy works (and that's saying something, as my knowledge of the economy is not very widespread, yet it is clearly above and beyond your own). You currently do not work for yourself, you work for the few big businesses that are currently running the world.
Instead of working for the government, you would rather work in an absurdly unstable economy, which is now going into a recession because only a few businesses are crumbling? At the moment the whole of the world is relying on just a few big businesses to keep afloat, or else we are going into the biggest depression in history.
No matter how you spin it, you will never truly work for yourself unless you live on a farm and produce all your own stock.
Personally, I'd rather the knowledge that I am forever financially secure in a socialist government, than scraping the bottom of the barrel in this capitalist farce.
Also, the government don't tell you how to spend your money. Get the facts straight please, instead of preaching against what a few anti-communists have told you.
I may as well add, you don't have freedom. Try taking some political philosophy, and you will know what I mean.

-By work for myself i mean we work to support OUR families and support OUR way of life, not other people's, "Also, the government don't tell you how to spend your money. Get the facts straight please, instead of preaching against what a few anti-communists have told you," clearly you not living here disallows you to see that the government forces you to take money out of your paychecks to pay for other people's healthcare and social security, and youd rather the knowledge that i am forever financially secure in a socialist govt then scraping the bottom of the barrel in this capitalist farce, America has become the most dominant economy in the world through capitalism, im certainly not scraping the bottom of the barrel, and neither are a humongous majority of americans, you said before your economy sucks compared to ours, and its true, i dont have complete freedom obviously, but i sure would like it, and socialism is the complete opposite of economic freedom


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 28, 2008)

If you want to respond, please just email me at [email protected], it's a hassle to check this every 5 minutes and we are discouraging other people from posting I think, but do as you will.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 28, 2008)

All I'd like to do is respond with a quote from the lovely Stephen Colbert for those of you who whine about the liberal media bias-
"Reality has a known liberal bias."


----------



## Crickets (Sep 29, 2008)

shelley said:


> Crickets said:
> 
> 
> > removed
> ...



I really don't see what "incompetency" your seeing. Seems like shes done a pretty good job with Alaska to me.


----------



## Crickets (Sep 29, 2008)

> the war, is in a sense a defensive war, please watch fahrenhype 9.11, its online, we cannot sit back and let people strike us,


It's called pre-emptive strike, and is a cheap excuse. Unless you are fighting on your borders, you shouldn't be fighting at all.[/QUOTE]

The thing is this is "terrorism" they want to fight they just don't want to have a "*fair fight*" cause they know they wouldn't stand a chance. Terrorist just want to make quick cheap hits against the country that they hate. And letting them get away with that would just be telling the people of this country. We love you when your payin taxes but, when the terrorists have your work building targeted your **** outta luck.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 29, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> whenever we enforce stricter gun control, homicide rates go up, as does crime, dc bun ban, the year after it was enacted, homicide went up 200%


Liar.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
(for those who don't know, it was enacted 1976)


----------



## Escher (Sep 29, 2008)

Im glad at least Stefan does his research.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 29, 2008)

Excuse me, I meant to say, from the year after it was enacted until 1991, homicide rates rose 200%

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2005/may/20/20050520-081040-3508r/


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 29, 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm - UK gun ban

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html - Australia gun ban

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/09/chicago-murder-rate-up-18-despite-the-handgun-ban/ - Chicago gun ban

The list goes on, tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, where a total of 40 innocent people were killed were done in "gun-free zones," its obvious a crazed maniac can bring a gun on campus and reek havoc, but if one of those kids were allowed to have a gun, they may have stopped it, like it happened at Appalachian State, but no one hears about that.


----------



## Dene (Sep 29, 2008)

Hang on, you're saying that anybody should be allowed to walk around on campus with a gun, on the off chance that someone is going to go on a rampage? Whereas if that person wasn't allowed to get guns in the first place he couldn't have gone on the rampage?

Here's a question: Why is it that because people aren't allowed to get access to guns, that homocide rates go up? Surely it is _not_ because your average Joe can no longer defend himself. I mean, that just doesn't make any sense. Why would people go on rampages with guns because they know that other people don't have guns? It wouldn't make a difference! If they felt like going on a rampage, they'd do it either way! Guns or no guns! You're turning correlation into causation, but there isn't a connection. (or, at least there is only an illogical connection)


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 29, 2008)

Well, let's look at the facts, every time gun control is enforced crime goes up, hmmm, so you're saying, "i can't think of a reason why, so lets keep doing it even if more people will die," the logic is that when you rid a place of guns, you take away law-abiding citizens' guns, not criminals guns. They can still get guns, and what worse situation is there than only criminals having guns, also, the number one deterrent for criminals is if the person they are robbing has a gun, they dont want to get shot, also, approximately 750,000 people in the US protect themselves with guns each year, where's the logic in it decreasing crime, and yes, students should be able to carry guns on campus as it can protect against a rampage, which it has in the past, and without anyone having a gun you are defenseless, as well as crime, i go to school in a city with a lot of crime, and you should be allowed to defend yourself, college campuses shouldnt be "constitution free zones." And exactly they will do the rampage either way, guns or no guns, if they want to get a gun on campus they obviously can even though its a "gun free zone" and they can buy guns illegally, which gun bans clearly do nothing to stop, so they go on their rampage, and if kids have guns on campus they may be able to limit deaths, if not, such as at Virginia tech, 32 students were murdered. When the correlation is that high, you can put one and two together.


----------



## tim (Sep 29, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> Excuse me, I meant to say, from the year after it was enacted until 1991, homicide rates rose 200%
> 
> http://www.washtimes.com/news/2005/may/20/20050520-081040-3508r/



Homicide rates didn't raise at all until 1988 (12 years after it was enacted). I don't see the relation.


----------



## Crzyazn (Sep 29, 2008)

Anyone with the motivation to kill WILL find a way to acquire a weapon


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 29, 2008)

Well, first off its not an immediate process, ridding everyone in the metropolis of guns, and we can stop dwelling on this if you want, but the facts remain, gun control laws clearly had an adverse effect as it did in every situation, besides being unconstitutional. Desperately arguing that it barely hurts people is pretty silly. And homicide rates rose 12% in that time in the US and 200% in DC, its logically attributed to that major legislation.


----------



## Escher (Sep 29, 2008)

is it not interesting that the vast majority of people who wish to legalise guns (or completely remove gun controls), also say that drugs should be completely illegal?
The two arguments run on similar logical lines...
although the case for legalising drugs is probably stronger as it links with prostitution, organised crime and people trafficking more than guns do (not to say that there isn't a link).

anyway, i oppose guns in any hands other than in the military's or a police officers. i just dont think that most people are responsible enough, no matter how law abiding people might think themselves.


Plus its pretty difficult to blow somebody's face off with a spliff.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 29, 2008)

"Plus its pretty difficult to blow somebody's face off with a spliff."
This made me giggle. I have a story not appropriate for this forum that might make you think otherwise xD


----------



## pjk (Sep 29, 2008)

Let's try to get back on topic, Obama v. McCain. If you want to debate about other topics, please create a new topic or take it to PM.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 29, 2008)

I don't agree with most drug laws, but the debate is about gun control, and its a fact that it hurts people, maybe if there were no guns we would be safer, but thats not a reality, and if only the police and military have guns, thats called a police state, and is the most oppressive gov't possible, the founders made the constitution specifically to deter the gov't from being too powerful, and gun bans do exactly that.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 30, 2008)

really?
If only the police and military have guns, it automatically makes it a police state? Save the rhetoric.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 30, 2008)

It makes it impossible for the nation of people to revolt if necessary, making it oppressive, police state is just rigid oppression from the gov't, it doesnt have to be taken literally, you just ignored all the important points and are all over me because of semantics.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Sep 30, 2008)

I wonder how many people will be voting out of their party.

I dont much care for the parties, They restrict people to being narrow-minded. [IMO]


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 30, 2008)

I think you're right, ThePizzaGuy. Having only a two party system forces people to (for the most part) become narrow-minded. They either believe either one thing, or its opposite. If they're something else, their vote doesn't count. (You can bring up the few third parties that have made a big difference, like the Populists and such, but I don't think that is possible in the society of today)


----------



## JBCM627 (Sep 30, 2008)




----------



## Crickets (Sep 30, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm - UK gun ban
> 
> http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html - Australia gun ban
> 
> ...



AGREED! My aunt is a professor there and I live about 30 miles away from Boone and it was only on local news stations, I also have family in Raleigh and they didn't see anything about it.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Sep 30, 2008)

I think parties are a good way to give people a sense of direction, such as, if we don't know much about a candidate, but we know that they are republican/democrat, we know who we probably agree with on the issues and can vote at least a little bit informed, people only agreeing with their party despite their beliefs is unfortunate, but inevitable.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 30, 2008)

But at least with a parliamentary system there are viable "3rd" parties.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 30, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> Excuse me, I meant to say, from the year after it was enacted until 1991, homicide rates rose 200%


Yeah but then until 2006, they dramatically fell again back to about 1976 level. With the ban still in place!



Kyle Barry said:


> Well, let's look at the facts


Riiight... cause you're so good at that.


----------



## Bryan (Sep 30, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> Excuse me, I meant to say, from the year after it was enacted until 1991, homicide rates rose 200%
> 
> http://www.washtimes.com/news/2005/may/20/20050520-081040-3508r/



Yeah, they were really bad from 1988-1996. In fact, if you look, the Sega Genesis was released in 1988 (one of the first 16-bit video game systems). In 1996, the Nintendo 64 was released, in sync with a decrease in violence.

Now, you may be looking at that and saying it makes no sense, but I'm just stating the facts. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, there might be factors outside the gun ban that could have caused an increase in violence? And all the gun ban did was to lessen the increase? No, that's crazy talk, that could never happen. The gun ban and only the gun ban is the sole variable for violence rates. Nothing else, like police funding, social situations, lax setencing for other crimes, etc could have caused it.


----------



## supercube (Sep 30, 2008)

if you cant stop the flow of illeagal drugs what makes you think you can stop the flow of illeagal guns. infact they are falling into the hands of the same criminals and I think you can easily relate gun violence in the 80's to crack. the only reason any candidate wants to mess with gun control is to look like the good guy and/or keep us where we are. poor, scared, and hopeless. you don't see this **** in france cause the government is constantly affraid of the people. thats exactly why the average american works 50 hours and the average frenchman works 30. they stood up to their government on a daily basis. here we have hilary clinton hired by walmart to be a lawyer and she lobbies congress to get rid of overtime laws so walmart can make $$$$$. where were we. being poor, scared, and hopeless. and anyone who is scared of obama cause they think he is a socialist needs to wake up. HE IS NOT. he is as close as it gets to socialized medicine but in the end all it is is huge subsidies to poor people. wich is 95% of this country. I wish he would socialize medicine in this country so he can cut off the pork fat in corparations and government that get rich everytime someone gets sick. if you subsidize it, you need money. if you get rid of the insurance companies, poof, problem solved.


----------



## Dene (Sep 30, 2008)

Bryan said:


> Kyle Barry said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me, I meant to say, from the year after it was enacted until 1991, homicide rates rose 200%
> ...



Lol, now there's a funny correlation (but we are off topic guys, PJK said to stop!)


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 3, 2008)

The VP debate was pretty non-descript. I don't know if everyone caught it, but I heard this and laughed after our conversation about this type of thing- the first the Palin said on stage to Biden was, "Can I call you Joe?"


----------



## kratos94 (Oct 3, 2008)

wow the VP debate was pretty interesting. IMO Palin was inconsistent while answering her questions and often had no cover for Biden's attacks. On the other hand Biden had a cover for every single one of Palin's attacks


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 3, 2008)

I have said again and again that I am anti-Obama for quite a few reasons, and what I saw tonight did not change it. However, there is no chance in hell that she should be allowed into the white house. I personally am still against Obama and for Barr, but Palin was a terrible choice. I personally though would like to see Obama promise Wesley Clark a high position in his government and I would like to see him promise to put George W. Bush and **** (lol his first name got edited by the censor) Cheney on trial on criminal charges.


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 3, 2008)

Ethan Rosen said:


> I have said again and again that I am anti-Obama for quite a few reasons, and what I saw tonight did not change it. However, there is no chance in hell that she should be allowed into the white house. I personally am still against Obama and for Barr, but Palin was a terrible choice. I personally though would like to see Obama promise Wesley Clark a high position in his government and I would like to see him promise to put George W. Bush and **** (lol his first name got edited by the censor) Cheney on trial on criminal charges.



good lord ethan, is there anything we dont agree on?

i do have some favorite moments from tonight:
when Palin was asked a question(i forgot what it was, mainly because she didnt answer it) she started talking about the difficulties of raising a family. then Biden was like "When my wife and daughter died and i had to raise my family by myself..." and all the feedback lines(i was watching on CNN) shot to the top. she kind of got rocked there.

then when Palin was talking about kids getting extra credit for watching the debate and Gwen Ifill(the moderator) made a joke about "everyone's getting extra credit tonight" and no laughed. then Palin made fun of Gwen because nobody laughed at her joke. My friends and i were hoping that Gwen would just throw out the next question and say "Governer Palin, how has your stance on abstinence-only sex education changed since your unwed teenage daughter did the nasty with some random guy and now she's all Preggers?"


----------



## Dene (Oct 3, 2008)

Lol Palin is stupid. Laughing at American's is fun.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 3, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> My friends and i were hoping that Gwen would just throw out the next question and say "Governer Palin, how has your stance on abstinence-only sex education changed since your unwed teenage daughter did the nasty with some random guy and now she's all Preggers?"


LOL, seriously, you're gonna get me in trouble at school, that's amazing!
But no, asking a question like that would be sexism, cause that's what it is whenever they ask Palin a hard question.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 11, 2008)

Yes, well, if all the questions are easy for Biden, you can't ask Palin hard ones. That just wouldn't be fair.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Oct 15, 2008)

Dene said:


> Lol Palin is stupid. Laughing at American's is fun.



American's what? [shouldn't make it possessive] 
haha


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 15, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Yes, well, if all the questions are easy for Biden, you can't ask Palin hard ones. That just wouldn't be fair.



Oh, you mean hard questions like, how being close to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, or what newspapers she reads?


----------



## McWizzle94 (Oct 15, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, well, if all the questions are easy for Biden, you can't ask Palin hard ones. That just wouldn't be fair.
> ...



LMAO!


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 15, 2008)

Or naming a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade?
Come on. I'm in high school and I can name at least five...
Brown v. Board
Tinker v. Des Moines
Plessy v. Ferguson
Marbury v. Madison
Gibbons v. Ogden


----------



## Dene (Oct 15, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Lol Palin is stupid. Laughing at American's is fun.
> ...



Yikes good point. Dumb NZers.


----------



## natwky56 (Oct 17, 2008)

This is hitting Asia. Obama rawks!


----------



## Dene (Nov 3, 2008)

Election tomorrow (even though it's technically the 4th today  ). Get out and vote! I guess we'll be using this thread for live updates and the like.


----------



## Escher (Nov 3, 2008)

i feel vaguely sorry for Obama... insofar as you can for someone you've never met. I hear his grandma was very close, and she wont see him become president...


----------



## fanwuq (Nov 3, 2008)

Palin uses really bad grammar, even worse than some of the really horrible noobs on this forum; therefore, I'm anti-Palin. I don't really care about who is the president. But McCain is quite old, if he lives, I guess, it would be OK, but if he dies, we are screwed. Palin is an idiot in many many ways.


----------



## pjk (Nov 4, 2008)

I voted early last week.

It will be interesting to see the results tomorrow.


----------



## badmephisto (Nov 4, 2008)

I'm really interested in the results... 
I just loved that video where Sarah mocks fruit fly research.
"You wouldn't believe what we are spending research money on... on fruit flies!... I kid you not!"
LOLOLOLOLOLOL she has no clue what she is talking about its so funny  Fruit flies - the species that forms the absolute cornerstone of all modern field of Genetics? Can't be 

Lets just say that if McCain wins then the US is looking for some dark times... and I will most definitely give my aspiration to do grad work in the US more thought.


----------



## Dene (Nov 4, 2008)

That's is a very good point, as I plan on doing some graduate study in the US too. I certainly hope it won't be with Palin running around as VP.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Nov 4, 2008)

Everyone brings up the point to make them seem smart, that both candidates are gonna die(Obama assassinated, McCain die of old age). Most of these people are Republican. Who wants a complete IDIOT for president after McCain dies?


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Nov 4, 2008)

Obama is pretty ballsy, it's inevitable that someone will try to assassinate him, two plots have already been foiled and he's just running.


----------



## Crickets (Nov 4, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> Everyone brings up the point to make them seem smart, that both candidates are gonna die(Obama assassinated, McCain die of old age). Most of these people are Republican. Who wants a complete IDIOT for president after McCain dies?



Well considering she is the only one who has actually been in office out of the four people running(counting VP's of course), I wouldn't say shes "a complete idiot". That actually makes no sense. You can't be "a complete idiot" and get elected governor of the biggest state in the country, which also has probably the richest resources out of our whole country.

You might argue that Bush is "a complete idiot" but he's not, in fact I think he did pretty good considering he had to deal with the biggest crisis of this country since the cold war. In his first year of office.


----------



## Dene (Nov 4, 2008)

He had to deal with it, but did he do a good job of it? That is a far more important question.
Also, by the fact that Palin was elected the governor of the biggest state in the country does not show that she is not a complete idiot. It might be the case that everyone in Alaska that voted for her is just an idiot (far more likely).


----------



## qqwref (Nov 4, 2008)

Crickets said:


> You can't be "a complete idiot" and get elected governor of the biggest state in the country, which also has probably the richest resources out of our whole country.



Er... Alaska is an extremely large state geographically, but it is one of the smallest states in terms of people, with only about 600,000 residents. So I don't think being governor of Alaska is anywhere near as difficult a job as being governor of smaller but much more populated states like (say) New York. Each *Congressperson* in Texas, Florida, or California represents more people than she did. Besides, I think we've seen that if a politician runs as a populist (by being like everyone else - being a hockey mom, having a regular guy as a husband, etc.) she can win offices and support without necessarily being intelligent or a good leader.


It's an interesting point that you guys have been making recently, about how both McCain and Obama have a decent chance of not making it through their term alive (age-related health problems or assassination respectively). So maybe the question is: would you rather have Palin or Biden as president? Biden seems to have much more political experience and be a better debater than Palin. I think even if I leaned Republican I'd have to admit he would make a better leader of the free world.


----------



## shelley (Nov 4, 2008)

Crickets said:


> You can't be "a complete idiot" and get elected governor of the biggest state in the country



Why not? You can even be elected president of the whole country (zing!)

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll let you get back to your regular scheduled discussion on the current candidates.


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 4, 2008)

qqwref said:


> I think even if I leaned Republican I'd have to admit he would make a better leader of the free world.



my roommate is a Mccain supporter and hardcore republican, but he hates Sarah Palin so much that he's not voting. I know quite a few Mccain supporters, but I have yet to meet anyone who is a fan of Palin.



shelley said:


> Crickets said:
> 
> 
> > You can't be "a complete idiot" and get elected governor of the biggest state in the country
> ...



I'd laugh at this, but I'm too busy crying on the inside because its true...


----------



## Bryan (Nov 4, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> Everyone brings up the point to make them seem smart, that both candidates are gonna die(Obama assassinated, McCain die of old age). Most of these people are Republican.



Yup, it's a good thing Democrats have never brought up McCain's age. Seriously, that's one of the "base" Democrat arguments.



ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> Obama is pretty ballsy, it's inevitable that someone will try to assassinate him, two plots have already been foiled and he's just running.



I think assassination attempts for Presidents has grown anyway. But I also think the Secret Service is probably way better at investigating and preventing. Just look at how many attempts have been made at Bush.



Vault312 said:


> I know quite a few Mccain supporters, but I have yet to meet anyone who is a fan of Palin.



Yes, all those people who show up at her rally are just mystical. But you know what, I have yet to meet a fan of Biden. Seriously, I don't see anyone saying he's great.

anyway, I'm off to be an election judge for the whole day. It should be a busy time looking up people's polling places, getting them registered, for a constant bazillion hours. But I told my wife, if I wasn't doing this, then I'd be watching the news all day.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 4, 2008)

Most important: For those in the USA who are voting today, the lines WILL be long. So be SURE to bring your cube! 

I did 5 BLD solves (behind my back; 2 DNFs, the other 3 were rather slow but successful) and about 50 speedsolves.

The pollworkers seemed to thoroughly enjoy it.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 4, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Most important: For those in the USA who are voting today, the lines WILL be long. So be SURE to bring your cube!
> 
> I did 5 BLD solves (behind my back; 2 DNFs, the other 3 were rather slow but successful) and about 50 speedsolves.
> 
> The pollworkers seemed to thoroughly enjoy it.



I hope more people turn up in my state later in the day. I just got back from my polling place and I was in and out in 10 minutes, no lines at all. After an hour of voting I was only number 174 to turn in a ballot :-(

Chris


----------



## pjk (Nov 4, 2008)

Bryan said:


> ThePizzaGuy92 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is pretty ballsy, it's inevitable that someone will try to assassinate him, two plots have already been foiled and he's just running.
> ...


I was just about to bring that up, so glad you did. I think the Secret Service will indeed do a good job at protecting the president.



Bryan said:


> anyway, I'm off to be an election judge for the whole day. It should be a busy time looking up people's polling places, getting them registered, for a constant bazillion hours. But I told my wife, if I wasn't doing this, then I'd be watching the news all day.


Nice to hear someone here helping out with the elections. Good luck, and thanks for the help.


----------



## MistArts (Nov 4, 2008)

99% of Black voters are going for Obama. How racist is that? 

I was for Ron Paul at the beginning for primaries but since he lost, I'm for Barr. America needs to stop having a two dominant party system.


----------



## Brett (Nov 4, 2008)

MistArts said:


> 99% of Black voters are going for Obama. How racist is that?


Not very. Even before this election 95% of Black people were Democrats.

Also: I support Palin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHGbT_82w1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8zXi90EVeg&feature=related
Newt Gingrich says it best.


So, how about those Obama tax cuts? During the debates it was all people below $250,000 got cuts. Now it's all people below $120,000.
Shame he made this decision around 2-3 days ago, so it won't have enough time to get attention.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 4, 2008)

Brett said:


> So, how about those Obama tax cuts? During the debates it was all people below $250,000 got cuts. Now it's all people below $120,000.
> Shame he made this decision around 2-3 days ago, so it won't have enough time to get attention.



Where are you getting your information? I can't find anything mentioning that the amount was changed. I found this on cnn.com, dated yesterday:

http://tinyurl.com/6kf5yk

Here they mention that the tax cut-off bracket is still roughly $250,000 for tax increases. Where did you find that the number had changed? Can you provide a link or an article stating this?

Chris


----------



## badmephisto (Nov 4, 2008)

MistArts said:


> 99% of Black voters are going for Obama. How racist is that?



I never really though of Obama as being black. He is the kind of civilized black person that I don't have any trouble thinking of as an equal or more.

He is actually only half black and was raised by his white mother though


----------



## Brett (Nov 4, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> Here they mention that the tax cut-off bracket is still roughly $250,000 for tax increases. Where did you find that the number had changed? Can you provide a link or an article stating this?
> 
> Chris



I watched all 4 of the final speeches last night on CNN. McCain and Palin both talked about Obama's tax plan, and how his "definition of the middle class keeps changing". I'll look for a transcription now...


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 4, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > 99% of Black voters are going for Obama. How racist is that?
> ...



Wow, that sounds very racially charged to me. Obama is obviously black, this is only determined by his skin color. Why would you not think of Obama as black? Are we referring to the color of his skin only, or attributes typically associated with people who have black skin? And what exactly is the difference between a civilized and an uncivilized black person? Do you also think of whites (or hispanics, or asians, etc.) as being separated into two groups, as being either civilized or uncivilized?

--edit--
@ Brett : If you do find something please let us know. That would be an incredibly sneaky trick if he really did do that. I like Obama yeah, but if he pulled something like that I would like him a whole lot less :-(
--edit--

Chris


----------



## Crickets (Nov 4, 2008)

Bryan said:


> Yes, all those people who show up at her rally are just mystical. But you know what, I have yet to meet a fan of Biden. Seriously, I don't see anyone saying he's great.



Agreed. Around here nobody likes Biden. Personally Palin is my favorite out of all of them. Just most the media has made her seem like she incapable of possibly running a country. I worry more about how capable Obama is of running a country than Palin.


----------



## Crickets (Nov 4, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > MistArts said:
> ...



Yes. I do think of whites (or hispanics, or asians, etc.) as being separated into two groups. But use common sense, you can tell if somebody is in essence "civilized or uncivilized".


----------



## MistArts (Nov 4, 2008)

Brett said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > 99% of Black voters are going for Obama. How racist is that?
> ...



The main reason that the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party because of slavery. Democrats, of course, supports slavery.


----------



## Brett (Nov 4, 2008)

so? The republicans used to have power in the North/East, but now they're mainly south and west. Views can change, I hope that the 1% of the black people voting McCain aren't doing so because of the democratic views of 150 years ago.


----------



## badmephisto (Nov 4, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > MistArts said:
> ...



What I was trying to convey was that there is too much attention paid to color issues in this election (I guess for obvious reasons though). What I meant is that for me the issue was always of no importance, but admittedly it is a big step for America to elect a "black" president. And no I don't take color of the skin into account when I call people black or white or whatever, but mostly their descent. You can go and have your body tanned - are you brown now? It doesn't make any sense. Are all albino blacks actually white? Shall we start assigning RGB color values to people next? It's ridiculous.
And yes naturally I do separate people into civilized and uncivilized in general.


----------



## pjk (Nov 4, 2008)

Brett said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > Here they mention that the tax cut-off bracket is still roughly $250,000 for tax increases. Where did you find that the number had changed? Can you provide a link or an article stating this?
> ...


Of course McCain and Palin are going to lie about Obama's policy, that is what politics is. It is a tactic to gain voters. If Obama didn't say it, I wouldn't believe it....and therefore, I don't believe it.


----------



## Dene (Nov 4, 2008)

What would it matter anyway? Do we not think $120,000 is enough of an income in the first place? I mean, they don't really need to be getting that little bit more in tax cuts, _really_...

I sure hope American's do what's best for them and don't take into account the colour of anyones skin.

EDIT: Mr. Hughey, well done on the queue entertainment


----------



## CAT13 (Nov 4, 2008)

Dene said:


> I sure hope *American's* do what's best for them and don't take into account the colour of anyones skin.



again


----------



## Athefre (Nov 4, 2008)

They were talking on the local news last night about how even though the numbers look almost impossible for McCain that McCain could still win with Obama having 263 electoral votes and McCain with....something....I don't remember. Anyway, they said that judging by all of the polls, Obama should end up with 7 million more popular votes than McCain but that McCain could still win because there is a good chance that he could win enough states.

A candidate needs 270 electoral votes right? They said on the nightly news with Brian Williams that judging the polls for each state Obama was for sure at 260 electoral votes and McCain with 170, with the rest of the states being so close they could distributed either way.


----------



## MistArts (Nov 4, 2008)

Fun fact!

Only one candidate that won DC since it was in the elections actually won the whole election.


----------



## Dene (Nov 4, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > I sure hope *American's* do what's best for them and don't take into account the colour of anyones skin.
> ...



Yea I never learn


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 4, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Most important: For those in the USA who are voting today, the lines WILL be long. So be SURE to bring your cube!
> 
> I did 5 BLD solves (behind my back; 2 DNFs, the other 3 were rather slow but successful) and about 50 speedsolves.
> 
> The pollworkers seemed to thoroughly enjoy it.



There were absolutely no lines for me, but thats probably because I voted on campus. I was voter 487.



Dene said:


> I sure hope American's do what's best for them and *don't take into account the colour of anyones skin*.



*LOL!!!* well I guess there's nothing wrong with hoping...



Athefre said:


> They were talking on the local news last night about how even though the numbers look almost impossible for McCain that McCain could still win with Obama having 263 electoral votes and McCain with....something....I don't remember. Anyway, they said that judging by all of the polls, *Obama should end up with 7 million more popular votes than McCain but that McCain could still win *because there is a good chance that he could win enough states.



and thats why the electoral college is soooo stupid.


----------



## pjk (Nov 4, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> Athefre said:
> 
> 
> > They were talking on the local news last night about how even though the numbers look almost impossible for McCain that McCain could still win with Obama having 263 electoral votes and McCain with....something....I don't remember. Anyway, they said that judging by all of the polls, *Obama should end up with 7 million more popular votes than McCain but that McCain could still win *because there is a good chance that he could win enough states.
> ...


I agree. I hate the electoral college system.


----------



## Dene (Nov 4, 2008)

Thirded. I vote for a referendum!


----------



## qqwref (Nov 4, 2008)

Yeah. The electoral college makes no sense at all if you consider that everyone in America _expects_ the candidate who gets more votes to win. Every time the electoral and popular vote are different there's a scandal of some type. There's no reason not to change it, the way I see it...


----------



## Kian (Nov 4, 2008)

no, the electoral college isn't stupid. it's constitutionally obligated because it makes sense for our republic. We are not a democracy. I repeat: WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. i don't know how clear i have to be. our constitution was founded as a confederation of states, in which each state has a stake in the presidency. by suggesting we have a directly democratic election, you are asking for the ultimate destruction of federalism. 

a tyranny of the majority is no better than a tyranny of one man. 51% of people, or even 70% of people, or 90%, shouldn't be ruling unchecked over everyone else. This is why we have individual rights and state's rights.


----------



## Kian (Nov 4, 2008)

and in a thankful twist of irony, even if you do believe direct democracy for the presidency is a good idea, you'll never get the support of 3/4's of the states required to amend the constitution. in the end, state's rights will exist because of, well, state's rights. brilliant.


----------



## Kyorinkai (Nov 4, 2008)

Athefre said:


> They were talking on the local news last night about how even though the numbers look almost impossible for McCain that McCain could still win with Obama having 263 electoral votes and McCain with....something....I don't remember. Anyway, they said that judging by all of the polls, Obama should end up with 7 million more popular votes than McCain but that McCain could still win because there is a good chance that he could win enough states.
> 
> A candidate needs 270 electoral votes right? They said on the nightly news with Brian Williams that judging the polls for each state Obama was for sure at 260 electoral votes and McCain with 170, with the rest of the states being so close they could distributed either way.



According to CNN's Poll of Polls, Obama "has" 291 electoral votes, while McCain "has" 157, with all the remaining electoral votes pretty much on the edge. This is a problem for McCain because not only does he need to receive all the other "battleground" states, but he has to find a state where Obama is ahead in the polls, and bring it over to his side. It's still possible, but I believe he needed to do something drastic to turn everything in his favor, and nothing like that has been done. But polls don't mean anything in the end, all that matters is people actually going out and casting their vote. All the "undecided" people at this point may not vote at all, and McCain would need basically every single one of them to vote for him to prevail. So now we wait.

P.S. OBAMA '08!


----------



## Claesson (Nov 4, 2008)

I SAY CARROT!


----------



## Dene (Nov 4, 2008)

Kian said:


> a tyranny of the majority is no better than a tyranny of one man. 51% of people, or even 70% of people, or 90%, shouldn't be ruling unchecked over everyone else. This is why we have individual rights and state's rights.



Of course, but the president doesn't have that much power anyway, so why not just make the president the one who gets the most votes instead of having some complicated system? In the end, the president can't do that much anyway...


----------



## ExoCorsair (Nov 4, 2008)

I can't wait until the election's over.

I don't need to any more about it; just want it to be over.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Nov 4, 2008)

Dene said:


> Of course, but the president doesn't have that much power anyway, so why not just make the president the one who gets the most votes instead of having some complicated system? In the end, the president can't do that much anyway...



Um, after George W. Bush came into power, there was a huge increase in power of the president.

With Obama in the White House and with a Democratic-controlled Congress, we'll see even more power in this particular president.


----------



## Kurzeja (Nov 4, 2008)

Dene said:


> What would it matter anyway? Do we not think $120,000 is enough of an income in the first place? I mean, they don't really need to be getting that little bit more in tax cuts, _really_...
> 
> I sure hope American's do what's best for them and don't take into account the colour of anyones skin.
> 
> EDIT: Mr. Hughey, well done on the queue entertainment



Who's to say that $120,000 is enough?

If I worked hard enough to make that much, I sure wouldn't want someone to come and take it.


----------



## Dene (Nov 4, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > What would it matter anyway? Do we not think $120,000 is enough of an income in the first place? I mean, they don't really need to be getting that little bit more in tax cuts, _really_...
> ...



The idea being that the taxes aren't going up, they are going down. So people earning over that amount won't be losing more money.


----------



## Fusty (Nov 4, 2008)

I hope our country can redeem itself in the future and polish the tarnished face as we are a bit of a disappointing super power.


----------



## Andreaillest (Nov 5, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> I can't wait until the election's over.
> 
> I don't need to any more about it; just want it to be over.



Agreed. I hate hearing people debate time after time as I'm not really in to politics. The day people stop complaining will be a good day.


----------



## MistArts (Nov 5, 2008)

Barr is getting 1% in some states so far!


----------



## qqwref (Nov 5, 2008)

Kian said:


> no, the electoral college isn't stupid. it's constitutionally obligated because it makes sense for our republic. We are not a democracy. I repeat: WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. i don't know how clear i have to be. our constitution was founded as a confederation of states, in which each state has a stake in the presidency. by suggesting we have a directly democratic election, you are asking for the ultimate destruction of federalism.
> 
> a tyranny of the majority is no better than a tyranny of one man. 51% of people, or even 70% of people, or 90%, shouldn't be ruling unchecked over everyone else. This is why we have individual rights and state's rights.



We're definitely not a democracy in the sense that laws and national decisions are decided by popular vote, but we're not talking about that anyway and nobody here has urged that we do that (also, don't say things in capitals or double-post, it's rude and it feels like you're yelling at us). What we're talking about right now is voting in elected officials by popular vote. That change really would not make a very big difference, especially since (as we've noted) electoral vote and popular vote reach the same decision over 90% of the time.

I don't think you are thinking realistically when you talk about a "tyranny of the majority". Attitudes change. Tyranny would be if a government chose a specific 70% of people and made a law saying they will always be the Privileged Majority Class. However, in a theoretical democracy where the law becomes whatever a majority of the people want, in real life, not only would this majority not always the same people (there is no one party that always wins the Presidency for instance), but people would change their minds many times over the course of a generation, so the majority would not always have the same opinion on controversial topics. Besides, do you really think the majority (in America) would tyrannize the minority, given that, even though the majority of American public, elected officials, etc. is still white, minorities have been gaining more and more equality over the years?


----------



## Dene (Nov 5, 2008)

Lol, a commentator on tv here just said that after Hillary Clinton said that she appealed to white voters, Obama was able to come across as "colour neutral".


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 5, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> What I was trying to convey was that there is too much attention paid to color issues in this election (I guess for obvious reasons though). What I meant is that for me the issue was always of no importance, but admittedly it is a big step for America to elect a "black" president. And no I don't take color of the skin into account when I call people black or white or whatever, but mostly their descent. You can go and have your body tanned - are you brown now? It doesn't make any sense. Are all albino blacks actually white? Shall we start assigning RGB color values to people next? It's ridiculous.
> And yes naturally I do separate people into civilized and uncivilized in general.



*puts foot in mouth*

Sorry badmephisto, I just misread your statement it sounds like. I do think race has been a factor for the election, at least in certain areas. The fact that a large percentage of African Americans are voting for Obama is one thing. Also, I live in the south so I do hear a lot of "I'll never vote for a black man". I guess I've learned to get my spurs up too soon, and I apologize if I came across gruff, it wasn't my intention. I personally am incredibly excited that we might actually elect a non-white-guy president for the first time!

Chris


----------



## pjk (Nov 5, 2008)

Obama has been elected.


----------



## JBCM627 (Nov 5, 2008)

pjk said:


> Obama has been elected.



Well... projected to be elected.


----------



## pjk (Nov 5, 2008)

JBCM627 said:


> pjk said:
> 
> 
> > Obama has been elected.
> ...


Well, it's not official, but it is 284 solid EV's right now, solid meaning it is not close, and leftover votes won't change the color.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Nov 5, 2008)

Besides the decriminalization of weed in Massachusetts and the keeping of abortion legal in Nebraska, everything that happened today was horrible.


----------



## toast (Nov 5, 2008)

OBAMA WON 2:1 wow, landslidddddeeeee! yay!


----------



## Dene (Nov 5, 2008)

Well done _Americans_!! (I got it right this time  ).


----------



## qqwref (Nov 5, 2008)

Don't worry Dene, you spelled it right! E befoer R, that's the way!

I'm kind of glad Obama made his way into the White House. But I'm more glad Palin didn't


----------



## Kurzeja (Nov 5, 2008)

[deleted]


----------



## ExoCorsair (Nov 5, 2008)

Be glad that the Republicans managed to get 40 seats in the Senate, all ye who fear Obama t3h socialist.


----------



## KJiptner (Nov 5, 2008)

The "Obama the socialist" or like some people even coined "communist" thing is kind of bizarre propaganda demonstrating no insight in political education at all or conscious manipulation whatsoever.


----------



## Escher (Nov 5, 2008)

thank you kai.


----------



## pjk (Nov 5, 2008)

KJiptner said:


> The "Obama the socialist" or like some people even coined "communist" thing is kind of bizarre propaganda demonstrating no insight in political education at all or conscious manipulation whatsoever.


Exactly. I couldn't agree more.


----------



## brunson (Nov 5, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, but the president doesn't have that much power anyway, so why not just make the president the one who gets the most votes instead of having some complicated system? In the end, the president can't do that much anyway...
> ...


Actually, then tendency towards passing "Exectutive Orders" willy-nilly was started by Slick Willy himself (Bill Clinton, for those who don't know the nickname). Clinton used it more for personal gain and to help his political cronies, but he really abused the precedent.


----------

