Jump to content

Decision 2008: McCain/Obama


editor

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I'd believe anything I heard from an Al-Qaida web site. :rolleyes:

I agree, this is boring, but probably not for the same reasons you think so.

You could make it more interesting by explaining why you support Obama. I understand that you apparently don't think the president should get chilly in the grocery store, but that seems like a rather scurrilous reason for your vote.

Please don't just say, "Obama is not Bush/a neocon/mean" or just use the words "hope" and "change". I could say the same things about McCain, but that's not why I am voting for him.

What POLICIES of Obama's do you support and why? Be specific.

I would be happy to respond in kind and perhaps this wouldn't be so boring, no?

Eminem has endorsed Obama. What more do you need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you have time, here is a very interesting investigative piece on how Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis have basically mismanaged McCain '08.

If anyone has found themselves asking "What happened to John McCain?" (like me), you will find some of the answers in the article. Much of the blame, it seems to me, falls on McCain's choice of Steve Schmidt to run his campaign.

Among other poor strategic decisions, the Palin choice seems to have been solely Schmidt's idea. Can you imagine where we would be if it were McCain-Bloomberg?

McCain should have stuck with Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist who seems to be intelligent and have a conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin's Kids Travel On Government Dime

That Sarah Palin, she sure is a reformer all right.

Compared to the billions of tax dollars wasted by Biden over his almost half-century of "service" in congress, I'm OK with that.

I still prefer "Carribou Barbie." The first time I heard it was when she was on SNL.

At first I was disappointed with her appearance. I was hoping for more. But then I read the Times article about it in Monday's arts section and it really put it into perspective. (But I guess that's what newspapers are for.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone is wondering. Yes, I can still post here, I have just chosen to let it all slide and prepare for your beatings on Nov.4th. MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! MUWAHAHAHA*cough*cough*ACK*cough*cough*cough*.......water.......airrrrrrrrrr....

.... !!!! Ron Paul '2012!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so funny I had to post this even though it was undeniably done by a democrat. I however have no problem with poking fun at both parties and I know all you McCain/Palin haters will love this comparison:

trains.jpg

:lol: LMAO!!!! :lol:

Cant wait when McCain's 'Stright talk express' derails. He has been going the wrong direction for some time now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone is wondering. Yes, I can still post here, I have just chosen to let it all slide and prepare for your beatings on Nov.4th. MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! MUWAHAHAHA*cough*cough*ACK*cough*cough*cough*.......water.......airrrrrrrrrr....

.... !!!! Ron Paul '2012!

Damn. I thought you had peaced out like Disastro.

And I did like Ron Paul. If Ron Paul had won the nomination, he would easily be the Barack Obama of the Republican Party, and this race would be much closer. In 2012 though, I think Ron Paul will be too old. Isn't he the same age as McCain now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so funny I had to post this even though it was undeniably done by a democrat. I however have no problem with poking fun at both parties and I know all you McCain/Palin haters will love this comparison:

trains.jpg

:lol: ... hilarious, and at the same time true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ironic part is that Republican pressure made Bill Clinton pass a third revision of a bill that ended unconditional welfare. Now people are put on welfare time limits from the federal side, and only under certain conditions.

The REAL reason I'm a Republican.

Republican.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ironic part is that Republican pressure made Bill Clinton pass a third revision of a bill that ended unconditional welfare. Now people are put on welfare time limits from the federal side, and only under certain conditions.

And that is a bad thing? 60 months plus available extensions, it's not difficult for someone to stay on the till for 10 years. I don't have a problem helping folks out that are in need. But anything to curb abuse is a welcome thing in my book. All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary from state to state I am sure. And states some states that allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on that note:

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that have McCain/Palin signs in their yards, bumper stickers, or in their HAIF signatures... are you embarrassed yet? Can you honestly look at that sign/sticker/signature and say "Yes. This is a great ticket. We have some real winners on our hands. Even John McCain says that Palin is one of the best VP picks of recent history." Really?

12 more days until daylight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm willing to walk the walk, regarding redistribution of wealth, and I bet a lot of you are too. We do it all the time. Every time we pay taxes, of course (even during these Republican years). And in our daily lives, when we tithe at church or give to charity. I was in the grocery store the other day and the guy in front of me was counting out the money in his wallet. He didn't have enough. He started to sort out the groceries--keep the milk, put the bacon back. I realized what was happening and told him not to pick and choose, I would buy his groceries. I found it so appalling sad to see an older person unable to pay for food (I've been there as a student, but that's different, somehow). A couple of missteps in any of our lives, or a mental illness, or who knows what, and any of us could be there too.

I'm not saying I believe in a welfare state. But I think this "redistribution of wealth" statement is getting blown way out of proportion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could make it more interesting by explaining why you support Obama. I understand that you apparently don't think the president should get chilly in the grocery store, but that seems like a rather scurrilous reason for your vote.

Please don't just say, "Obama is not Bush/a neocon/mean" or just use the words "hope" and "change". I could say the same things about McCain, but that's not why I am voting for him.

What POLICIES of Obama's do you support and why? Be specific.

I would be happy to respond in kind and perhaps this wouldn't be so boring, no?

PMJI. It's not only Obama's policies (many of which are largely swayed by the party he represents anyway), but more so the temperament of his character. He's not a hot-head. He's not a loose cannon. But let's take a look at why I'm NOT voting for his opponent.

I wonder what life would be like today if McCain were president during the Cuban missile crisis, with all the hawks screaming "Invade now!", unaware of the island's tactical nukes. Thankfully, a cool JFK was instead on watch. And I wonder about the Korean War, when MacArthur wanted to chase the Chinese into China with nuclear weapons. Imagine if Dubya were president then, a man unable to control his hawks. Fortunately, a much stronger executive had a handle on his brilliant yet narrow minded "maverick", and we did not end up in a much larger conflict.

I don't fault McCain for voting to attack Iraq. Attack is what hawks do. Avoiding war in the first place is a (competent) president's job, and something that Obama clearly would have done, of course. Unfortunately, we had a weak executive at the time and the hawks flew the coup. I don't fault Obama for voting against the surge. He is not a military man, and would be no more good at advising the nuts and bolts of conflict than a hawk like McCain could in avoiding such conflict in the first place. I expect the executive to keep us out, like Obama would have, not run the ground war.

McCain said in the debates that he would fight in Iraq for the honor of those service persons who have died there, so their deaths were not in vain. This is typical hawkish simpleton black and white view that can only see the end of his beak and not the larger picture or even why we fight. McCain is wrong. There is no way to die in vain in service to the USA. Military action sends a clear message to anyone wanting to steal America's freedom to think again, regardless of the overall military success of the conflict. McCain's doctrine of no deaths unavenged is nonsense, otherwise we would reinvade the Korean peninsula and reengage in Indochina. McCain just doesn't get it. Only a McCain, or perhaps a Klingon, could possibly think its possible to die in vain in service to your country. This doctrine of his is a recipe for future, more protracted wars.

John McCain's impulsive, simplistic manor was on full display during the debates, with the simpleton cure to spending to just freeze it and veto everything. Thats a laser-beam narrow minded hawk focus for you, devoid of the bigger picture. Obama wants measured cuts based upon our morals and needs. A McCain weight loss program would be a feeding freeze; an Obama plan a healthy diet and exercise.

Also in-line with his narrow, laser beam, simpleton view is that of Americans in general, across all classes. He believes only the top 5% can create jobs, and tax cuts to these people will take care of the apparently unwashed 95% of Americans. This is an ancient, worn out, failed notion. Those 5% at one time were among the 95%. A break for the middle class would engage a huge number of Americans, innovative, creative Americans, not to mention increase consumer spending.

McCain also wants to put us on a collision course with Russia by rushing former satellites into NATO ASAP. This is reckless; all things have their moment an now is not the moment to be pushing the Russians further. Hawks, by their nature, always think the time is NOW, just like McCain running off to Washington. That was no political stunt; that was John McCain. Hardly cool, executive material.

McCain said throughout the debates that Obama just didn't understand. Its the other way around. McCain believes we are not fostering a second cold war through our incompetent foreign policy. But then again, this is a man that didn't even see the train wreck of the economy burning in front of him.

Hawks like McCain, seeing only the target immediately in front of them, see only the small picture, usually in cross hairs. That's what makes a great military man, a great warrior, and we need such magnificent individuals to carry out the will of the executive. But we do not need such individual as the executive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCain best choice for uncertain times

The Detroit News

The 21st century is not even a decade old and yet already the hope for an era of peace and prosperity that greeted its dawning has been squandered. It is a challenge and opportunity for the man who succeeds President Bush.

Financial markets that rose to incredible heights without an ethical foundation have brought the economy to the brink of collapse. Tyrants emboldened by the often heavy-handed and inept foreign policy of the Bush administration have established rogue regimes in every corner of the world to threaten U.S. interests and security.

During these perilous times, the nation needs an experienced, proven leader in the White House. Sen. John McCain is best equipped for the job.

...

McCain may lack the inspirational qualities of his opponent, but if this were a blind audition judged solely on the resumes of the two candidates, he would win decisively.

John McCain has what it takes to lead America in these very uncertain times

link to article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm willing to walk the walk, regarding redistribution of wealth, and I bet a lot of you are too. We do it all the time. Every time we pay taxes, of course (even during these Republican years). And in our daily lives, when we tithe at church or give to charity. I was in the grocery store the other day and the guy in front of me was counting out the money in his wallet. He didn't have enough. He started to sort out the groceries--keep the milk, put the bacon back. I realized what was happening and told him not to pick and choose, I would buy his groceries. I found it so appalling sad to see an older person unable to pay for food (I've been there as a student, but that's different, somehow). A couple of missteps in any of our lives, or a mental illness, or who knows what, and any of us could be there too.

I'm not saying I believe in a welfare state. But I think this "redistribution of wealth" statement is getting blown way out of proportion.

I dig your posts. As they say, "better a bleeding heart than no heart at all."

And, I love that it is folks from the Red States that complain about the "redistribution of wealth." Do you really want to go there? After all, Red States are the biggest welfare states. People in Bama, Wyoming, and Idaho love getting money from California, Massachusetts, and Illinois to pay for their bling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm admittedly probably the only Palin fan on HAIF. It would be an easier decision if it was a Obama/Palin ticket. I'm just tired of old men running things. Somehow Biden ruins the Democratic ticket for me in that fashion. I know McCain should too, but for some reason McCain seems less old Teddy Kennedy insider same old same old than Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin vs. Clinton in 2012

Would be among the first eliminated in the Republican primaries... Clinton won't re-emerge until 2016... after an 8 year Obama/Democratic Congress... She'll then run the country for 8 years... 16 years of non-Republican control... A welcomed relief that would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so funny I had to post this even though it was undeniably done by a democrat. I however have no problem with poking fun at both parties and I know all you McCain/Palin haters will love this comparison:
Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is a bad thing? 60 months plus available extensions, it's not difficult for someone to stay on the till for 10 years. I don't have a problem helping folks out that are in need. But anything to curb abuse is a welcome thing in my book. All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary from state to state I am sure. And states some states that allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not difficult? Considering that the welfare rolls are fraction of their size 10 years ago, and have been for5 years or more, the numbers would seem to suggest that it is incredibly difficult to stay on welfare for 10 years.

Not with Obama in power, everyone on welfare will get a "raise".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With early voting underway, you can now demonstrate that you have voted.

The following HAIF profile badges are available:

Decision2008_Generic.png

Decision2008_ObamaBiden.png

Decision2008_McCainPalin.png

Decision2008_Libertarian.png

So you can show your pride in your candidate, or if it's nobody's business you can use the generic one to just show that you participated in the electoral process.

Once you've voted, click on My Controls, then Edit Profile Information to show how you went.

Oh, and TJones didn't vote yet (to my knowledge). I just used his account for testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With early voting underway, you can now demonstrate that you have voted.

The following HAIF profile badges are available:

Decision2008_Generic.png

Decision2008_ObamaBiden.png

Decision2008_McCainPalin.png

Decision2008_Libertarian.png

So you can show your pride in your candidate, or if it's nobody's business you can use the generic one to just show that you participated in the electoral process.

Once you've voted, click on My Controls, then Edit Profile Information to show how you went.

Oh, and TJones didn't vote yet (to my knowledge). I just used his account for testing.

Uh HUH, and I just sent you a message about that. LOL! Make me a Ron Paul one, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not with Obama in power, everyone on welfare will get a "raise".

I have actually seen virtually no appeals to the poor in Obama's campaign, only promises to the middle class. If you have any claims by Obama to the contrary (as opposed to bloggers giving their opinions), I'd be more than happt to read it. Not that I'd be offended, but I'd like to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have actually seen virtually no appeals to the poor in Obama's campaign, only promises to the middle class. If you have any claims by Obama to the contrary (as opposed to bloggers giving their opinions), I'd be more than happt to read it. Not that I'd be offended, but I'd like to read it.

Sure thing bro.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/081002/issues.html?.v=1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219103035...=googlenews_wsj

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you by chance, just for a minute, consider that just maybe, just maybe, there was that much dead weight on the till? I know the months I spent up in West Virginia, I personally witnessed a bunch that is still dead weight. Bunch of white trash that just wants to sit on their porches, pop Oxycontin, and drink cheap beer. While there kids run around in dirty diapers in the front yard full of junk. When I go back in a few months I will get you some pictures. Trying to get any of them to work was a worthless waste of time. Offering them $20/hr for unskilled labor to lay plastic gas pipe. They look at you and laugh. I am not talking one or two cases, I am talking about whole neighborhoods of them. Up until the changes Clinton made, the system was basically ask and ye shall receive. I have no issue with someone having to meet certain requirements or conditions. But if you have a kid, you are pretty much straight in with most states. The more the merrier, and that I have an issue with. Once you are on the till, and you continue to keep having kids, fully aware you have no means to support them, it should be no increase in benefits. The state will give you contraceptives for free.

This could go on forever, lets save it for the proper thread, and just agree to disagree on some points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for proving my point. Virtually all of those proposals are aimed at the working poor, sometimes known as the middle class. From the article...

For one of those credits, dependent and child care, you don't even have to have a job. You can simply be looking for one. Taking college courses (and agreeing to 100 hours of community service) qualifies you for the "American opportunity credit."

Even that credit requires one to be actively seeking employment. In other words, like the welfare reform that cut over 60% of recipients from the rolls, people must be attempting to improve their economic situation to receive benefits. Likewise, the $4,000 college tuition credit gives benefits to those seeking to educate themselves out of poverty.

Are those not the people we should be assisting? Isn't the goal to push the chronically poor into self-sufficiency through education and employment? Wasn't that the whole point of the Republican led welfare reform that Clinton claimed as his idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The college tuition credit isn't supposed to be designed for those who DON'T put into the system Red, and Obama's plan does just that, you know this. Those currently on welfare will keep doing what they have always been doing, having more and more kids just to take advantage of the system. The college credit thing is good in theory, but the ones who don't work aren't going to VOLUNTEER 100 hours of community service, get real. The whole point of the Republican tax reform, was to take away the abuse of the system and force alot more welfare roaches to get off the porch and go get a job.

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The college tuition credit isn't supposed to be designed for those who DON'T put into the system Red, and Obama's plan does just that, you know this. Those currently on welfare will keep doing what they have always been doing, having more and more kids just to take advantage of the system. The college credit thing is good in theory, but the ones who don't work aren't going to VOLUNTEER 100 hours of community service, get real. The whole point of the Republican tax reform, was to take away the abuse of the system and force alot more welfare roaches to get off the porch and go get a job.

No, I do not know this. Can you point out the legislation or law that says the tuition credit must be as you say it must be? Can you point me to the "welfare" law. Can you document how you know that those on this "welfare" will keep on doing what they have always been doing? In other words, talk is cheap. Can you point to an actual study or survey or legislation that proves what you claim as fact?

It seems to me that if the goal is to make non-productive citizens productive, we should make self-improvement part of any program. If the goal is to punish poor people for being poor, then I recommend throwing them a few crumbs...just enough to subsist...so that we may continue to complain about what a drag on society they are. I am convinced that there are many citizens who actually prefer this approach.

I am glad that you believe that a college tuition credit is good in theory, though. That suggests that there may be merit to this plan, if your other concerns can be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize people were STILL blaming welfare mothers in 2008.

Seriously? In the very same month we bailed out Wall Street by over a TRILLION dollars? On the very same day that GREENSPAN admitted he was wrong about deregulation? When we're spending 10 billion a month in Iraq?

Absurd.

I am simply amazed that white men (largely) have this notion of women of color (largely) popping out kids infront of their flatscreens while their baby daddy of the month goes and collects the welfare check so they can buy spinners for their Escalade.

As a former social worker who helped young mothers with WIC programs, I can tell you that isn't even close to how it works no matter how many times some millionaire on talk radio tells you it's so.

Edited by KinkaidAlum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've asked several times for statistics on the number of people on the welfare rolls from posters who still live in 1996. Not because I haven't seen them, but because I have. Some people do not want to know what is going on outside their neighborhood. It is much easier to gripe if you can dehumanize the opponent. Hopefully, for one election cycle at least, they are in the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the goal is to punish poor people for being poor, then I recommend throwing them a few crumbs...just enough to subsist...so that we may continue to complain about what a drag on society they are. I am convinced that there are many citizens who actually prefer this approach.

By "poor" are you talking about those who make less than $250k/yr? Admittedly, I have quite a few friends who think this way. Yeah they might be douches, but what can ya do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...