McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[chu]

Originally Posted by Mippo

The fact of the matter is that this entire mess was created with the REPUBLICANS in office. The majority of it was with a Republican Congress and a Republican President. Now, the Republicans are yelling for CHANGE?

Somehow these Republicans think we can just ignore the last 8 years and how inept they were in office? The country wants change which means changing the current leadership. If Republicans created this entire mess, why would we want to elect another Republican?

McCain voted with Bush what, 90% of the time? It's more of the same thing, we want something different.

Hey, Obama adds are working I see.

[Jooka]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Wait... I make an off the cuff comment about how everyone likes leggy blondes...and you spend 14 posts attempting to get me to bet you real money Obama will not assfuck said blonde lobbyist in the oval office at any point in the next decade....and I'm the ignorant one?

and I quote:

To be fair who doesn't have a weakness for leggy blonde lobbyists. Give Obama 10 more years in Washington and see how many little blond Afrocasian lobbyist babies are running around town.

at that point I asked for a bet. you want to back that up with $$$?

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Badass

Open book tests are fairly common in law school. Surely, you are not insinuating that those tests are "easy". Those are the type of tests that will have you sweating fucking bullets. I reviewed a few of them and they are legitimately very fucking challenging. Its pretty clear that Prof. Obama is a very very intelligent fella.

Originally Posted by Sharmai

or the exam is about to make you feel pain in ways you didn't know were possible.

That was the part he was referring to.

[Ashes Emberblade]

The internet has taught me that, when it comes down to it, everyone has a little downs baby in them.

Jooka is a case in point.

[emoo]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Here's Deepak Chopra's view on things: Blog: Obama and the Palin Effect | DeepakChopra.com

..

–Rigid stands on guns and abortion — a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.

I'm not interested in the abortion issue, but the guns absolutely can be negotiated, and with guns if necessary.


Edit:
The protectionist socialists want to take away the guns because they think guns kill.
The power-lusting fascists want to take away guns because they know people kill, and guns help a lot.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by chaos

I'm saying that people, specifically conservatives, in this thread have a habit of going off about how Obama has no plan, or promises a lot of shit that he can never do, and they aren't holding McCain to the same standards. The idea that he knows he is full of shit and will compromise (you hope) is not a good thing, imo.

LOL OK, tell me what those standards are that we're not holding McCain up to, then. You've never displayed even the FIRST SIGN of scrutinizing the evidence that Obama holds American Greatness in CONTEMPT, and yet you've never commented on why you're indifferent about the fact that Obama has worked with and CONTINUES to take advice from Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn. Nor that he worked with Rashid Khalidi. Nor that all his campaigns were financed by the worst arab interests in the country. Nor that he has employed two high-ranking Farrakhan acolytes into senior positions on his staff.

Now you're left with "waaaah you don't hold McCain to the same standards".

Well how? What standards on what policies do you want folks to scrutinize McCain on?

I suspect you WON'T list it because you know that we have always mentioned McCain's position if only to contrast how FUCKED UP Obama's policies have always been.

[Gilgamel]

I apologize for whatever role I have apparently played in sending this thread to the brink of the rickshaw. I clearly posted some sort of keyword that, embedded somewhere in Jooka's demented and twisted mind, has triggered a compulsion deep within his psyche to gay up this thread exponentially every time he posts.

As a final attempt to remedy the situation I will use all my extensive life experience to attempt to solve this issue. Luckily I have vast experience dealing with keywords and triggering phrases.

Vendor
Buy
Bank
Guards

Where is the bet?
What is the bet?
Who has the bet?
I will bet.
I wish to bet.
Jemima

I'm tapped out, sorry. God help us all.

[Jooka]

maybe you should look up the word escrow sometime.

[Celebrindal]

You say, 'Hail, Telin Darkforest'

Telin Darkforest looks at you serenely. 'Hello, wanderer.'

You say, 'What are you doing in this forest?

Yes, I was a gay Ranger.

Anyway... Was there any mention of Science during either conventions besides what Bill Clinton said in passing about the Republicans assault against Science?

[Smocca]

Nothing specific really. Democrats say more focus, end war on science. Republicans don't bring it up since half their base think it is voodoo black magic.

Though there is that questionnaire Soriak linked awhile back with Obama's answers to 14 questions on science. McCain's responses to the same are supposed to be given soon (tomorrow?) and honestly his are going to be more interesting to read than Obama's.

Linky if you didn't see it: Barack Obama (Presidential Candidate) - SHARP Network

[Celebrindal]

Thank you, I missed it. I'm trying to catch up on everything.

[Soriak]

The Candidates' Tax Plans: Fuzzy Math - TIME

"The choice in this election is stark and simple," John McCain said at recent Denver event, repeating a phrase that is a staple of his stump speech. "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."

Seems clear enough, right? You already know the old argument: Republicans cut taxes, Democrats raise them. Except it's not true, at least not in the way that it seems. But don't take my word for it. Here is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic policy adviser. "I used to say that Barack Obama raises taxes and John McCain cuts them, and I was convinced," he told me in a phone interview this week. "I stand corrected [about Obama's plans]."

[Sinter1]

Originally Posted by Soriak

The Candidates' Tax Plans: Fuzzy Math - TIME

Quoted for Khorum, I'd give you +nets Soriak but gotta spread the love.

It really sickens me how the republican party just straight out lies about certain things. Not to say the dems don't do similar, but this is a constant point made at the RNC. Because you know raising taxes on the top 3% of the country is really increasing taxes on everyone. Love the logic.

[brekk]

Frankly I thought the O'Reilly speech was quite good. He did not come off as nearly as much of a biased pundit as his normal show portrays him. I'm not gonna lie, it definately raised my respect for him. (from zero to a tiny amount)



I swear he makes it so hard for me sometimes. At my core I am a total libertarian/true republican. It so difficult that the entire party no longer follows what its supposed to stand for.

For me I side with the democrats, because they seem to hold more closely to the seperation of church and state which I would say is the most core value of being a Libertarian. It's absurd enough if my country tells me what to do if its best for the nation, it's more absurd if they tell me what to do, because its someone elses religious beliefs.

I don't agree with a multitude of social programs. Welfare is a crock, it has nothing built into it to motivate people to succeed its breeds people dependent on the system who have children who become dependent on the system. Now I also have friends who grew up in welfare families, their parents worked hard to push them to be good student's and succeed. One of them is still in highschool, the other is now going to a private university (i assume mostly on subsidized government loans) if we accept that welfare can't fix someones problems it needs to be changed to motivate those people to be good parents and break their children from that cycle of dependance.

Social security is equally stupid. In a good system anyone should be able to earn enough through their life to have the savings to live a retirement lifestyle equal to what they lived throughout their lives. Not more, not less.

Death Penalty is A+ in my book. Murder, Rape, Incest, etc. any crime at that level is absolutely justification for death. I can see cases where there is come question, where the murder weapon was never found, or something of that sort. In those cases obviously life in prison is the correct answer. But in cases of absolute assurance I don't think there should be any other penalty but death.

Abortion and Gay marriage. I frankly don't give a shit what other's do. If you feel so strongly that what they are doing is wrong. Then feel good in the fact that they will not go to "your heaven" they will go to "your hell" As has been mentioned about 20 pages back a system banning abortion after a certain time period is absolutely the correct answer. I think abortions during the third trimester are tantamount to murder. Not for religious reasons, but for the biological reasons that at this late of a stage premature births can survive. Now this comes with the caveat of medical complications and situations arrising where a late term abortion may be necesary for the safety of the mother. I'd rather an aborted fetus, then a dead mother and fetus.

Sorry for going on a long semi off topic rant, but I'm honestly interested in Khorum's views on what I said.


Edit: I should say until his choice of Palin I was leaning towards McCain over Obama. I personally have major issues with Obama's partisanship, and the hype surrounding him. My mother for example gets truly enraged at the mention of Bush, and is voting for Obama solely because she depises Bush. I don't think McCain is another Bush, as I have said before his history in congress is one of bipartisanship and willingness to work with both sides. This has not been so true in the past 8 years, but that is because of the recent severe polarization of the parties.

In my mind I could believe him the republican to bring us back towards what republicans truly stood for, but the rhetoric, and religious stance of Palin is completely opposite to that view.

Sell me Khorum, sell me on why the current republican's who have so closely associated themselves with religious rhetoric, and have shifted away from the small government, small spending are the correct choice for a Libertarian over the democrats.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Sinter1

Quoted for Khorum, I'd give you +nets Soriak but gotta spread the love.

It really sickens me how the republican party just straight out lies about certain things. Not to say the dems don't do similar, but this is a constant point made at the RNC. Because you know raising taxes on the top 3% of the country is really increasing taxes on everyone. Love the logic.

Read the article dumbfuck. It really SICKENS you huh? It should SICKEN you that lemmings will jump to the same conclusions without reading the fucking article. Obama's Tax Plan REMAINS a fantastical attempt at redistributing the wealth of people who have eluded every level of meaningful taxation for decades. That article was about how opportunistic soundbytes hook uncritical twats like you:

Originally Posted by Time

The people who run campaigns know you only have so much time to think about this stuff, so they want to make it easy for you. They translate complex economic projections into aphorisms. They turn tax plans that must be read with lawyers' help into sentences a third-grader can understand. The details? Bah. That's politically foolish, even if voters claim that's what they really want to hear about.

"They are better off speaking in sound bites and generalities," says Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center, who recently did the unthinkable with some colleagues: he tried to figure out what the two candidates' tax plans would actually mean. It wasn't easy. "One challenge facing anyone who wants to estimate the effects of candidates' tax plans is that no one — not even inside the campaigns — knows exactly what the proposals are," reads an early conclusion of the resulting report. "In a sense, we have done them some harm here by saying we want to pin you down on what you mean," Williams explains.
.....

So what is a concerned voter to do? One good way to measure the fiscal responsibility of a candidate's plan is to compare the total amount of government revenue from taxes they plan to raise against the gross domestic product, which is the sum total of the nation's economic activity. According to congressional accountants, the Federal Government spent about 20% of the GDP in 2007, while taking in 18.8% of the GDP in taxes. The difference between spending and tax receipts — about $162 billion — was the budget deficit.

According to the Tax Policy Center, neither Obama nor McCain has laid out plans to close the budget deficit over the next 10 years under current spending regimes. Not counting health proposals, the McCain plan would collect about 17.9% of GDP through taxes. The Obama plan would collect about 18.4%. For comparison, congressional accountants predict that, under current law, the Federal Government is projected to spend about 19.7% of GDP in the same time period, meaning both McCain and Obama would run deficits — 1.8% and 1.3% of GDP, respectively — without significant cuts in federal spending or surprising growth in the economy.

What the article doesn't mention is that McCain has ACTUALLY participated in pro-active legislation to curtail the tax loopholes that allow the rich to elude taxation while at the same time selecting the low-capital-gains tax strategies that will not only retain investment activity within the US Economy, but will keep attracting foreign investment for years to come.

Obama promotes protectionist bubblegum solutions and ridiculuous notions on "limited taxation on poor seniors"---when was the last time we even taxed decently-off pensioners? We don't even apply sales taxes to food stamps.