McCain vs. Obama

[Adam12]

Good luck with that shit...much easier to impeach a president over blowjobs than this.

[kedwyn]

Originally Posted by Adam12

Good luck with that shit...much easier to impeach a president over blowjobs than this.

Clinton shouldn't have been impeached Neither should Bush. More stupid shit idiots cling to in hopes of socking it to the other guys for the kick in the nuts their guy took.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

By the way, Tiger Woods is a terrorist also.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Erumaron

Because there's really no reason to start another political thread.

Breaking: Kucinich introduces articles of impeachment against Bush
Think Progress » Breaking: Kucinich introduces articles of impeachment against Bush.

Sweet! That fucker should be in jail tossing salad right now.

[Kaio]

He did the same for Dick some time back and nothing came of it.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by whatsamattau

Says the man who knows nothing of Ballot Access requirements.

Actually, I read up on them after Nader complained on the Daily Show, I think it was.

If I recall correctly he talked about access requirements for the Presidential Election. Yes, they require quite a bit of effort to get on the ballot, but if this is a hurdle you can't get over, what exactly are the chances of winning the election?

There is a downside to having requirements set too low, as a ballot with hundreds of names on it would be impractical. The same goes for debates, just look at the early ones in the primary. Hey, 10 people on stage and everyone gets 2 questions, what a waste of time?

It's not like the green party in Germany is going to get one of their guys elected President either.

[Nakilos]

Every time you show those TYT videos, he reminds me of the character Fred Armisen plays on SNL, the guy who reads the newspaper and has nothing relevant to say when they do the Weekend Update.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by kedwyn

I'm a little bundle of sunshine.

I don't have the energy to refute your post in detail but it does matter who we elect for President. The President is the leader of our government. The government will not solve all problems and is not there to provide you with happiness.

If you remember one role of government and one role only; that is that the government ensures the value of our currency, the dollar. When we are borrowing money from other countries to spend irresponsibly like George Bush has done, we increase our national debt. An increase in our national debt lowers the value of our currency. Also, we are in danger of getting to a situation where the revenues taken in by the government are grossly out of proportion with our expenditures. At that point the instability of the dollar will have a direct impact on you and your family. The US is a strong country due to it's resilient economy. The government has a basic function to ensure the stability of our currency which ensures the stability of our economy.

You are lucky that you do not need a government safety net and no one in your family is not one of the 30,000 soldiers that have been killed or maimed in Iraq. You have the luxury of an easy life but at some point in your life think about your fellow Americans who do not have it so easy.

[Burf]

You know, I think Obama might be a pretty good President. I don't think he's a bad guy. But here's what scares me: The Democrats have been worked into such a frenzy over the past 8 years that if/when Obama is elected, it's going to be like Boston winning their first World Series in 86 years. There will be parades, confetti, boobs flashing, etc....

Now, all that is fine, but once the initial parade is over, the Democrats are going to feel as though a giant weight is lifted off their shoulders and that they can do anything they want (and, with control of Congress, they very well may be able to). Thus, the pendulum will swing completely to the other side. I can envision all sorts of new feel-good social programs and spending initiatives that will eventually dwarf the Iraq spending.
I wouldn't be surprised if things turn so liberal that people are shooting heroine in the halls of Congress.

In my opinion, having the pendulum somewhere close to the middle is good. Right now, it's on one side. I just worry that's it going to swing back so far to the left that it's going to wreck the country even more.

Maybe I'm wrong (and I hope I am), but I don't think this idea is all that far out there.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

I don't have the energy to refute your post.

.

[kedwyn]

[quote=I'm Rich Bitch;1099591]
If you remember one role of government and one role only; that is that the government ensures the value of our currency, the dollar. When we are borrowing money from other countries to spend irresponsibly like George Bush has done, we increase our national debt. An increase in our national debt lowers the value of our currency. Also, we are in danger of getting to a situation where the revenues taken in by the government are grossly out of proportion with our expenditures. At that point the instability of the dollar will have a direct impact on you and your family. The US is a strong country due to it's resilient economy. The government has a basic function to ensure the stability of our currency which ensures the stability of our economy.

/QUOTE]


You do realize Congress holds the purse strings to the country don't you? You also realize the nationalized health care or whatever bastardized title they are calling it is going to dramatically increase the size of expense column should Obama get it pass which I doubt he'll be able to. Why not though it will spiral us into bankruptcy that much faster.


Regardless of who is in power both parties usually spend like drunken sailors. Thats how they've been buying votes for years now.

Republicans are just as guilty of it as Democrats and vice versa. I'm not blinded by party line bull shit they both suck and thats why Washington needs an enema.

Sitting here and pretending Obama is some savior just because he isn't Bush is fucking idiotic.

[AngryGerbil]

If this election isn't Nixon vs Kennedy all over again, I don't know what is. You could even make a relatively safe assumption that the young democrat will beat the stuffy old replublican, get all fucked up in foreign policy, and get himself shot in front of his pretty wife.

That said, Mr. IRB:

I am a liberal who supports Obama. You, and people like you, do more harm to the American liberal cause than Hannity could ever wet-dream about.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by kedwyn

Clinton shouldn't have been impeached Neither should Bush. More stupid shit idiots cling to in hopes of socking it to the other guys for the kick in the nuts their guy took.

Are you out of your fucking mind? Every single reason Kucinich listed is a legitimate abrogation to the power of Congress. Secret Energy Task Force? Uh, that's Congresses job, and against the law.

The one man who's doing his fucking job and upholding the Constitution as a Congressman, and you call him stupid? What the fuck. This isn't some partisan posturing, this is making sure our country is still as awesome as everyone says it is.

[Bristlebane]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

The President is the leader of our government.

The government without leaders is like a foot without a big toe. And Shrub isn't always gonna be here to be that big toe for us.

[whatsamattau]

Sigh, where to start.

I may hate Bush but I also am realistic in realizing that he had no power to change anything except Iraq which was voted on by both parties in overwhelming favor.

As has already been stated, Bush was going to start that war no matter what congress thought of it. This has been independantly verified by Richard Clarke, Scott McClellan, and George Tenet. It matters who the President is.

We also put the fighting on the ground with Al qeda and to say that hasn't had a major impact on them is foolish IMO.

I couldn't agree more. There has never been a recruitment tool this powerful for Osama Bin Laden.
Iraq War Helped l-Qaeda recruit
Iraq War fuels Global Jihad
War Helps Recruit Terrorists

They should be opening drilling in our own country to buffer some of the long term affects coming but they aren't thats a congressional thing, blame them.

They could do that (There's not an ounce of evidence it would help the average American, but they could do it), and Bush would sign it. Or, there could be a serious large scale alternative energy bill, and Bush would veto it. Either way, it matters who the President is.

Housing Crisis - Certainly not Bush's fault.

Not entirely, though he has been the leader of the party that promotes deregulation. Lack of regulations is exactly how this was allowed to happen. If we had a president who supported regulating this sector, it could have been avoided. Yes, congress writes the laws, and the republicans controlled that branch of government from 1994 to 2006 and the Presidency since 2000. If by some miracle a sweeping regulation package over home-lenders had been passed, you don't think he would have veto'd it? It matters who the president is.

Tax cuts- If you didn't benefit from the capital gains cuts its your own fault. ... the middle class benefited and anyone smart enough to use investments for their future.

The fact is that any member of the middle class who is investing in the stock market is almost certainly doing so under a 401k plan. 401k's are taxed as *INCOME* when they are cashed out, and therefor capital gains tax laws do not apply. John McCain is lying when he says that a capital gains tax increase would raise the taxes of 100 million americans. In fact, and you can verify from the article I linked because this is already getting to wall-o-text size, only 16.2 million taxpayers payed any capital gains taxes at all in 2005, and of those 80% made 200K or more (ie the top 2.5%). It's a rich person's tax cut, don't kid yourself.

In summary, it matters who the president is. You posted a lot of misconceptions there, and I hope I've cleared them up for you.