Jump to content

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)


Trae

Next United States President  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick One

    • Barack Obama
      54
    • John McCain
      46
    • Other
      7


Recommended Posts

Sara, Palin CAN'T enforce the rule in her own home, how the Hell can she expect the rest of the country to abstain ???

So that's your big plan? Become the welfare department for the whole friggin' world ? Sure, that will go over like a fart in church.

FYI, people get "stuck in rut" when they know the welfare dept is gonna send that Govt. check on the first and fifthteenth. They have no motivation to go get a job. So, take away their checks and they either get motivated to get a job, or they can get motivated to go live in a van.....down by the river !

Well, its kind of your plan based on your reasoning, keep america safe, all slippery slope ways to protect our country are valid. War welfare programs are valid, so are domestic welfare programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Hypocrisy is a necessary virtue for republican nomination

Don't even try to act like the Republicans and Democrats are different in this regard. Al Gore and his 15 houses burning power day and night while he preaches his crock of ... same damn thing.

I can't figure out why people cling to their party like it is their alma mater's football team or something. Nothing but excuses for their own side when they are in the wrong, but their school's biggest rival can't even read, is responsible for world hunger, and is wrong on everything, ever.

I hate that the parties get in the way of the issues. We should be able to vote on issues and not candidates, since they are nothing but talking heads for the most useless organizations in our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, its kind of your plan based on your reasoning, keep america safe, all slippery slope ways to protect our country are valid. War welfare programs are valid, so are domestic welfare programs.

Then using your Non-Slip Slopes, how is it that we haven't had another attack in 7 years ? Are we just that lucky ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ricco, there is absolutely NO WAY that she could, with a straight face, advocate abstinence. What, with 5 kiddos and a knocked-up 17 year old. What kind of message does that send ? "I can't teach my own daughter to stay away until she is married, so why should your kids listen to me ?"

Ever go against your parents advice?

Also, how does her having five kids prevent her from teaching abstinence? I'm pretty sure she's teaching it before marriage.

Don't even try to act like the Republicans and Democrats are different in this regard. Al Gore and his 15 houses burning power day and night while he preaches his crock of ... same damn thing.

I can't figure out why people cling to their party like it is their alma mater's football team or something. Nothing but excuses for their own side when they are in the wrong, but their school's biggest rival can't even read, is responsible for world hunger, and is wrong on everything, ever.

I hate that the parties get in the way of the issues. We should be able to vote on issues and not candidates, since they are nothing but talking heads for the most useless organizations in our country.

This is pretty much true for the most part.

I think part of the reason people do this is b/c someone makes one mistake, they jump all over them. People don't allow for mistakes and gray areas. I don't know if anyone completely lives by their views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying that at all. We are talking about preemptive defense, and defense spending.

"Preemptive defense" is a euphemism for unprovoked attack. It means starting wars with countries because we like how the wind is blowing.

You say "needless war" , I say necessary to remove an evil dictator who was gonna have to be dealt with at one point or another.

Say whatever you want. Saddam was no threat to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Preemptive defense" is a euphemism for unprovoked attack. It means starting wars with countries because we like how the wind is blowing.

Say whatever you want. Saddam was no threat to us.

Preemptive Defense, as it pertains to Nuclear Weapons, means having an arsenal before needing one. Preemptive Defense means getting them before they get you.

Tojo was no threat to us until he attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler was no threat to Russia, until he invaded Poland. What's your point ? So, using your logic, was Tojo using a "preemptive defense" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preemptive Defense, as it pertains to Nuclear Weapons, means having an arsenal before needing one. Preemptive Defense means getting them before they get you.

Tojo was no threat to us until he attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler was no threat to Russia, until he invaded Poland. What's your point ? So, using your logic, was Tojo using a "preemptive defense" ?

Ah, using World War II as justification for invading Iraq unprovoked. Reliving 2003. Good times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then using your Non-Slip Slopes, how is it that we haven't had another attack in 7 years ? Are we just that lucky ?

I think I said it before, it was my constant farting that save America. Easy huh, No evidence needed to supported it.

But seriously, seems one attack did a pretty good job of turning our surplus into deficit, made us attack another country that had no connection, loss of civil liberties, etc. Maybe they saw that we did a better job at making things worse for ourselves. Maybe that's why there is no need to do another one for a long time. There could be a thousand reasons. Or it could be my constant farting, or Bush's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, using World War II as justification for invading Iraq unprovoked. Reliving 2003. Good times.

Well, let's see we gave Hitler 8 or so chances to prove that he was really a "good guy" and he just wanted a little more land to broaden Germany's horizons, after all their tiny little country was growing and they just needed the room to build the future Autobahn, right ?

Sure, Saddam had nothing to hide, especially after the 13th time your beloved U.N. inspectors were booted out of the country because they were getting to close for comfort. Your right Red, Saddam wasn't trying to take over Kuwait this time, so hey, why not just leave the poor Dictator alone. I'll quote Paul Mooney, "How did Bush and his administration KNOW Saddam had WMDs ? Bush had the recipt in his hands." You guys can claim, "POOR SADDAM!" all you want, it just goes to prove how twisted your thinking is sometimes.

BTW, Red, yes, you are my brother, and you can still come on over for Thanksgiving, even though there will be no Tofu or Arugula, nor will there be any beanpies to eat, you damn hippie you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya right, our defense spending benefits a lot of ppl, like mostly war profiteers, war equipment manufacturers, and the military folks. Only few clueless still buy that slippery slope preemptive 'defense' approach is really helping us, as they continue dishing out the biggest welfare program in history.

You and Red, say "war profiteers" like they are the ones building the guns and bullets by hand themselves. These "war profiteers" keep whole communities alive. Go tell the folks, working at the old Stewart and Stevenson plant where they make the mine sweeping troop transports over in Sealy, that they are all warmongers and profiteers, and see if you can make it out the door. Preemptive defense is what brought the wall down, Preemptive defense is what keeps most other radical countries at bay when they know we are allies with their intended target. Preemptive defense does work, as eveident to your being able to type your feeble minded statements on that little Dell sitting in front of you.

Well answered. I would rather be taxed and the government spend billions on war which employs millions of people from start to finish, than be taxed and the government spend billions trying to win over the hearts of the lazy whom most when given more, will be less likely to return to work. One is more a losing battle than the other.

Are you arguing that we should keep fighting needless wars because they create jobs? You can't think of any other way to create jobs, maybe something that doesn't kill people and waste resources?

Building defense supplies seems to be the only thing we are still required to build domestically - which keeps jobs at home. Perhaps if a certain Democrat hadn't been so insistent on signing the NAFTA bill in 1994, there would still be more domestic industry jobs than those found in Mexico now. Two wrongs don't make a right, but at least one wrong is keeping more people employed, and off welfare.

You are actually trying to pass these slippery slope reasons as valid? How about this one, if we expand our domestic social programs, ppl won't be stuck in a rut, and therefore they won't cooperate with outside terrorists for money and we will end up being safer, therefore let's expand our social programs to keep America safe from bombings.

WAIT, wait wait... are you saying that if we increase the amount of the welfare checks that fewer people will be likely to commit acts of terrorism? This makes no sense. Especially the part where you want to give people on welfare more money, which will make them less likely to return to work. Oh yeah, and the part about buying patriotism with a beefed up welfare check.

Hypocrisy is a necessary virtue for republican nomination

Don't even try to act like the Republicans and Democrats are different in this regard. Al Gore and his 15 houses burning power day and night while he preaches his crock of ... same damn thing.

I can't figure out why people cling to their party like it is their alma mater's football team or something. Nothing but excuses for their own side when they are in the wrong, but their school's biggest rival can't even read, is responsible for world hunger, and is wrong on everything, ever.

I hate that the parties get in the way of the issues. We should be able to vote on issues and not candidates, since they are nothing but talking heads for the most useless organizations in our country.

Thank you. Excellent reply. I have to give Obama credit for his very public respect for other candidates privacy. He's running a clean campaign (notice I said him and not his party/followers) and I admire that. Hard to hate the nice guy..

Say whatever you want. Saddam was no threat to us.

To say that is very foolish and naive. Don't be fooled by the might of the U.S. Military when we invaded Iraq and made Saddam & the Republican Guard look like chumps. They were never brave enough to fight a square fight on their soil, but don't think for a second they would dirty bomb us domestically if the opportunity struck. You forgot what he did to the Kuwaitis and his own people with his SCUD missiles almost 20 years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preemptive Defense, as it pertains to Nuclear Weapons, means having an arsenal before needing one. Preemptive Defense means getting them before they get you.

Right, starting wars.

Tojo was no threat to us until he attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler was no threat to Russia, until he invaded Poland. What's your point ? So, using your logic, was Tojo using a "preemptive defense" ?

Absolutely. And it isn't my logic, it's the Bush Doctrine. Or the Tojo Doctrine, take your pick.

To say that is very foolish and naive. Don't be fooled by the might of the U.S. Military when we invaded Iraq and made Saddam & the Republican Guard look like chumps. They were never brave enough to fight a square fight on their soil, but don't think for a second they would dirty bomb us domestically if the opportunity struck. You forgot what he did to the Kuwaitis and his own people with his SCUD missiles almost 20 years ago?

Saddam had no plans to "dirty bomb" us. He had no WMDs. He wasn't funding terrorism against the US. Don't call me foolish or naive while repeating these lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's see we gave Hitler 8 or so chances to prove that he was really a "good guy" and he just wanted a little more land to broaden Germany's horizons, after all their tiny little country was growing and they just needed the room to build the future Autobahn, right ?

Sure, Saddam had nothing to hide, especially after the 13th time your beloved U.N. inspectors were booted out of the country because they were getting to close for comfort. Your right Red, Saddam wasn't trying to take over Kuwait this time, so hey, why not just leave the poor Dictator alone. I'll quote Paul Mooney, "How did Bush and his administration KNOW Saddam had WMDs ? Bush had the recipt in his hands." You guys can claim, "POOR SADDAM!" all you want, it just goes to prove how twisted your thinking is sometimes.

BTW, Red, yes, you are my brother, and you can still come on over for Thanksgiving, even though there will be no Tofu or Arugula, nor will there be any beanpies to eat, you damn hippie you.

You compare Hitler and Nazi Germany to Saddam Hussein and 2003 Iraq, and actually call OUR thinking twisted...and do it with a straight face?

I guess that is good practice for claiming Obama has no foreign policy experience, then claiming Sarah Palin is a fresh face. I used to think that the P in GOP was Party. Now, I realize it is Polyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam had no plans to "dirty bomb" us. He had no WMDs. He wasn't funding terrorism against the US. Don't call me foolish or naive while repeating these lies.

Here's something worth reading. There are dozens more of examples if you just try looking. Even if Saddam physically didn't have WMD's, do you really think he would not go so far as to have someone else supply them if he provided a trained carrier?

Face it, we're never leaving Iraq. Not until we've neutralized the terroristic threat to the Middle East. I think after 2000 years, with the last 50 being in the nuclear age, it is now impossible to turn a blind eye to that region. Especially as long as we're allies with Israel.

You can believe Obama all you want - but you know the troops are staying. I'm not voting for him because of his social welfare policies and taxation plans though - and not because of Iraq. If he'd make the promise that not another penny would go to welfare, and it would be reformed - then I would cheat and vote twice for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You compare Hitler and Nazi Germany to Saddam Hussein and 2003 Iraq, and actually call OUR thinking twisted...and do it with a straight face?

I guess that is good practice for claiming Obama has no foreign policy experience, then claiming Sarah Palin is a fresh face. I used to think that the P in GOP was Party. Now, I realize it is Polyanna.

I CHALLENGE you to show me where in this forum, or any other, that I support Palin. I will buy your drinks ALL NIGHT, and topshelf stuff even, if you show me where I said she is a "fresh face" for my party.

I am comparing Saddam's actions as a Meglomaniacal Dictator to that of Hitler's, you bet. The difference is we got to stop Saddam before he was really able to get started with his genocide of the Kurds. Perhaps we wouldn't know what to compare Saddam to, if we had done something about Hitler before he got started ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can believe Obama all you want - but you know the troops are staying. I'm not voting for him because of his social welfare policies and taxation plans though - and not because of Iraq. If he'd make the promise that not another penny would go to welfare, and it would be reformed - then I would cheat and vote twice for him.

I suppose this means that you are extremely wealthy, since that is the only group that pays less taxes underMcCain in a study of Obama and McCain tax plans.

I've brought this up before, but you have ignored it, so I'll do it again. Do you know when welfare was reformed? Do you know who did it? Do you know what welfare is? Do you know what effect welfare reform has had? Of course not. It is the nature of Republican apologists to use the vague label of "welfare" without knowing anything about it, its function, its size or the effect of reforms. Since you do not know anything about it, and refuse to even google the first thing about it, I will just point out your complete lack of knowledge about it every time you base your argument...or your vote on it.

There's no voter like an uninformed voter. Congratulations, and welcome to the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been trying to follow this, but I am lost. I actually thought that people could only collect welfare payments for two years?? Didn't Bill Clinton establish this. I remember that he was very proud of getting people off of welfare and into job training. Did something happen to reverse this???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I CHALLENGE you to show me where in this forum, or any other, that I support Palin. I will by your drinks ALL NIGHT, and topshelf stuff even, if you show me where I said she is a "fresh face" for my party.

I am comparing Saddam's actions as a Meglomaniacal Dictator to that of Hitler's, you bet. The difference is we got to stop Saddam before he was really able to get started with his genocide of the Kurds. Perhaps we wouldn't know what to compare Saddam to, if we had done something about Hitler before he got started ?

Given your disgust with both McCain and Palin, one must really question why you are the most ardent supporter of the GOP then, TJ. Look through this thread. NO ONE fights harder and throws more mud than you do. It boggles the mind. I've been where you are. In 2004, I trashed Bush, but I was no fan of Kerry. But, your attack dog stance on this thread belies your stated animosity toward McCain and Palin.

I have been trying to follow this, but I am lost. I actually thought that people could only collect welfare payments for two years?? Didn't Bill Clinton establish this. I remember that he was very proud of getting people off of welfare and into job training. Did something happen to reverse this???

I don't know. Perhaps the welfare expert Jeebus can answer these and other interesting questions.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this means that you are extremely wealthy, since that is the only group that pays less taxes underMcCain in a study of Obama and McCain tax plans.

I've brought this up before, but you have ignored it, so I'll do it again. Do you know when welfare was reformed? Do you know who did it? Do you know what welfare is? Do you know what effect welfare reform has had? Of course not. It is the nature of Republican apologists to use the vague label of "welfare" without knowing anything about it, its function, its size or the effect of reforms. Since you do not know anything about it, and refuse to even google the first thing about it, I will just point out your complete lack of knowledge about it every time you base your argument...or your vote on it.

There's no voter like an uninformed voter. Congratulations, and welcome to the GOP.

Welfare was created by the Democratic FDR administration as part of the "New Deal" after the stock market collapse in 1929 that lead to the great depression where unemployment rates soared as high as 85% in some regions.

EDIT: I typed that out as fast as I could from memory. I'm cross-checking my numbers now. I'm pretty sure though, that I'm not quite the uniformed voter you think I am.

Welfare was created by the Democratic FDR administration as part of the "New Deal" after the stock market collapse in 1929 that lead to the great depression where unemployment rates soared as high as 85% in some regions.

I had read this before, but can't find it now (in the last five minutes of "googling"), so consider that number editorial - but the rest I still stand by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been trying to follow this, but I am lost. I actually thought that people could only collect welfare payments for two years?? Didn't Bill Clinton establish this. I remember that he was very proud of getting people off of welfare and into job training. Did something happen to reverse this???

There's only a limit on unemployment which is set by each state, but there's no limit on food-stamps, or Medicaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this means that you are extremely wealthy, since that is the only group that pays less taxes under McCain in a study of Obama and McCain tax plans.

McCain doesn't want to rape the wealthy like Obama. That gives me hope to being wealthy one day. If Obama wins, passes his tax plan, and taxes the wealthy - then I will officially lose all desire to start my business my wife and I have been discussing for the past two years. McCain wants to give corporations tax cuts, which will spur far more economical development as they won't have to lay off people like they will if they were under Obama's tax plan.

Either way, we all stand to save money with either candidate. I just feel that McCain's tax plan and his stance on social program reform is better for the true middle class - the working class - in this county. McCain's tax plan give those who aspire to make more money (the same people who turn their mom & pop garage businesses into multi-million dollar corporations) the opportunity to do so without being taxed so heavily that they never get their business off the ground.

I'd rather live in a capitalist republic filled with entrepenural hope, than a socialist republic filled with no entrepenural aspirations.

EDIT: FYI, I'm not a GOP Republican. I'm a registered Independent - and have been for all 12 eligible years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gift that keeps on giving:

The Palin Meltdown in Slo-Mo

By Greg Sargent

September 1, 2008, 6:20PM

On the same day that the Republicans were forced to dramatically cut back their convention activities, the Palin Meltdown unfolded with extraordinary speed. It's worth pondering the totality of what happened today, in a mere half day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest welfare system is our slippery slope preemptive wars. It gives money away to empty projects and military jobs does nothing beneficial to the US.

And Jeebus. read in context: If we are to believe that getting dictators will end up protecting us, then we can also believe that social programs will end up protecting us.

I won't be voting for McBush for his neocon confrontational stance on foreign policies, which ends up being one big welfare program for overseas contractors, war profiteers and military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCain doesn't want to rape the wealthy like Obama. That gives me hope to being wealthy one day. If Obama wins, passes his tax plan, and taxes the wealthy - then I will officially lose all desire to start my business my wife and I have been discussing for the past two years. McCain wants to give corporations tax cuts, which will spur far more economical development as they won't have to lay off people like they will if they were under Obama's tax plan.

Either way, we all stand to save money with either candidate. I just feel that McCain's tax plan and his stance on social program reform is better for the true middle class - the working class - in this county. McCain's tax plan give those who aspire to make more money (the same people who turn their mom & pop garage businesses into multi-million dollar corporations) the opportunity to do so without being taxed so heavily that they never get their business off the ground.

I'd rather live in a capitalist republic filled with entrepenural hope, than a socialist republic filled with no entrepenural aspirations.

EDIT: FYI, I'm not a GOP Republican. I'm a registered Independent - and have been for all 12 eligible years now.

FYI: There is no registration for Independents in Texas. Not sure what you signed up for, but it wasn't political independency.

I'll talk about your other points later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest welfare system is our slippery slope preemptive wars. It gives money away to projects and military jobs does nothing beneficial to the US.

And Jeebus. read in context: If we are to believe that getting dictators will end up protecting us, then we can also believe that social programs will end up protecting us.

Welfare is when you give money away to those who have none. How is paying millions of Americans a salary to work a job a type of welfare?

Answer this in context: Social programs will protect us from what? Ourselves?

FYI: There is no registration for Independents in Texas. Not sure what you signed up for, but it wasn't political independency.

You are 100% correct. I guess I've just been doing so in spririt. I was first eligble to vote in Louisiana, where you can register you party affilation.

See Box 9..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare is when you give money away to those who have none. How is paying millions of Americans a salary to work a job a type of welfare?

Answer this in context: Social programs will protect us from what? Ourselves?

You are talking about empty jobs and projects that does nothing productive for the US. That's a type of welfare.

Since you are thinking of doing business. That's would be like you hiring a bunch of ppl to do a job like staring at the desk, or basically anything tasks that doesn't bring productivity to your business. Would you be so nice as to give away your money like that unless its to provide some sort of welfare for his or her family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking about empty jobs that does nothing productive for the US. That's a type of welfare.
How do any of the jobs created and sustained by defense, the military, or war not benefit the U.S.?

Are those jobs not being sent south of the border or across the Pacific? The money is staying domestically, which is the same as welfare would, except all the people are productively working, instead of sitting at home collecting a check. Also, how many people do you know use their welfare check to create a product that the civilian sector will purchase also, creating new sources of revenue.

"Defense welfare" as you may call it, makes money and bolsters the economy far more that the unemployed ever could spending their checks on food & electronics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How any of the jobs created and sustained by defense, the military, or war no benefit the U.S.?

Are those jobs not being sent south of the border or across the Pacific? The money is staying domestically, which is the same as welfare would, except all the people are productively working, instead of sitting at home collecting a check.

And just like your business example, your employees will be productively working on staring at their desks, but it doesn't do anything overall for your company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the electoral college graph. It takes out the "leaning" states (less than 5% margins that are statistical ties):

ec_graph-2008-solid.png

For comparison, here's 2004:

ec_graph-2004-solid.png

This year is pretty stable. Out of CO, NV, MT, SD, ND, NH, OH, VA, NC, and FL, Obama needs 9 electoral votes to win (too close right now). That's pretty impressive. John McCain would need 94 more votes to win.

That's where the race basically stands at right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just like your business example, your employees will be productively working on staring at their desks, but it doesn't do anything overall for your company.

No, your example of my business would be akin to giving welfare checks to those who do no work (i.e. sitting at a desk staring at a wall).

You keep saying that defense contracts etc etc are "empty jobs" that are basically the same as paying people to sit at home. I disagree with you because I can almost guarantee that no one is sitting at home using their welfare check to create a product that can also be sold to the civilian sector, outside of just being used or consumed by the military.

Sporting rifles, clothing, tactical gear for law enforcement, etc etc are all funded via our tax dollars. The difference, again, is that when the government gives these people (in the forms of corporate redistribution via employment compensation) money, they're encouraging economic growth through private sector sales.

Tell me again how giving people on welfare their checks helps to create any new economic development? Them spending their check on good and services doesn't count as they are simple replacing the same taxed amount of money back into the economy, where the war contract companies create new revenue streams by using the money the government gives them to create ways for more money to be injected into the economy through private sales of the same goods they've been paid to create for the war effort.

They then take that money that the private sector spends on their excess goods and create more good, which means buying more supply from more distributers, and hiring more people to build said good. It means that the retailers who sale their goods will make more money and do the same - hire more people.

So tell me again how giving someone a welfare a check is going to cause more money to be spent that what has been given to them, as well as create more jobs? Furthermore, where do you propose the thousands if not millions of people who are somehow involved in the war effort, would work if there was no war? You watch.. if Obama ends this war, unemployment will go up, and tax cuts will go down.

Please someone, debunk this one for me. Ethical arguments about war being good, bad, needed, or unnecessary need not apply - this is strictly economics right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...