Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
2008 U.S. Presidential Election
Topic Started: Feb 22 2007, 05:49 AM (37,415 Views)
Samwise
Member Avatar

Queenbee
Oct 19 2008, 04:38 PM
Samwise
Oct 19 2008, 04:06 PM
Bill
Oct 19 2008, 02:57 PM
And it is good. When Geoge W. Bush's former Secretary of State, the very man who made the case to the U.N. to go into Iraq, endorses the Democratic candidate, you know something fundamental has failed in the Republican Party.
For someone who is so intelligent, I can't believe you said that. Powell testified what the information (lies) he was given. Anyone who doesn't look up to Colin Powell is.........I can't say uneducated, because YOU are very intelligent. But I won't go along with what you just said.

OBAMA here I come.
Damn right he was lied to, kept out of the loop by Rumsfeld and Cheney, and manipulated into believing that war was necessary when it really wasn't. That's my point. Colin Powell is a genuine conservative who got f*cked by the New Republican Party. He's had first-hand experience with these neoconservative b*stards, and he understands that these people who destroyed his party, his country, and his own reputation, cannot be allowed to remain in power.
Posted Image
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Samwise
Oct 19 2008, 04:06 PM
Bill
Oct 19 2008, 02:57 PM
And it is good. When Geoge W. Bush's former Secretary of State, the very man who made the case to the U.N. to go into Iraq, endorses the Democratic candidate, you know something fundamental has failed in the Republican Party.
If you watch the video, Powell does say that he believes the party has gone too far to the right. I believe he is correct about that. He said that he is also disappointed in the choice of Palin as the vice presidential candidate. He also said that in the face of this economic crisis, McCain has now shown leadership and he felt Obama had.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Samwise
Member Avatar

maccascruff
Oct 19 2008, 07:01 PM
Samwise
Oct 19 2008, 04:06 PM
Bill
Oct 19 2008, 02:57 PM
And it is good. When Geoge W. Bush's former Secretary of State, the very man who made the case to the U.N. to go into Iraq, endorses the Democratic candidate, you know something fundamental has failed in the Republican Party.
If you watch the video, Powell does say that he believes the party has gone too far to the right. I believe he is correct about that. He said that he is also disappointed in the choice of Palin as the vice presidential candidate. He also said that in the face of this economic crisis, McCain has now shown leadership and he felt Obama had.
I have seen the video, that's what I'm saying. I think in a lot of ways people like Powell - oldschool conservatives, not the lunatic fringe - are the ones who should be most angry at the Republican Party right now, because they're the ones who have been lied to the most, whose good faith that the Republican Party would espouse genuine conservative ideals has been betrayed.
Posted Image
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

This may sound odd, but I feel sorry for John McCain, though truthfully he brought what is sure to be his loss on himself. I actually liked the original, unadulterated McCain of 2000, and the way he was actually once a real "maverick." Not to say I would vote for him now if he was like that at present, but at the very least, I would respect the man for being true to himself and his ideals.

He has seemed to sell his soul to the devils of his party who feel the way to win elections is to appeal to the way-far right moral majority, as evidenced by his embarrassingly inappropriate choice of a running mate. He and Palin have made a fatal flaw of concentrating on scare tactics and mudslinging, rather than the economy.

What a shame that McCain been reduced to digging in the dirt to try to win. His party has betrayed him.
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Lisa, I have to say that I agree with you. But I also have to say that this election is not in the bag. There is still a lot to fight. Yes, Gen. Powell's endorsement is a big deal but we all have to contine to fight until Nov. 4th. As Obama supporters we can not rest on our laurels and at the same time McCain supporters can not give up the fight.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I couldn't agree more, Lisa. McCain has been screwed over by his own party twice now.
Edited by Bill, Oct 20 2008, 01:01 AM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Jacaranda
Oct 19 2008, 10:26 PM


What a shame that McCain been reduced to digging in the dirt to try to win. His party has betrayed him.
Yes, Lisa, his party has betrayed him but even sadder than that, he has betrayed himself. :(

I know he has handlers and advisers and needs to gain the support of the party's base, but at the end of the day, it's still his campaign to conduct. His choice of how he has conducted his campaign only reinforces my opinion on how he would surely conduct his presidency. -_-




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Bill
Oct 18 2008, 03:41 PM
Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that John McCain's middle name sounds like a city in a foreign country? How can we be sure that he's not acting for that country and not America? I mean, you wouldn't expect the Prime Minister of New Zealand to be called Helen Los Angeles Clarke, would you? Why can't John McCain have a middle name that sounds like an American city? It makes you wonder if America can really afford to take such a risk.
I wouldn't trust anybody from a country where Sydney's a normal name.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
scottycatt
Oct 19 2008, 02:02 AM
I agreed with much of what Nader represented, then and now, but I have to live with the reality that any vote for a 3rd party candidate is a *wasted* vote. I don't like it, but it's reality. :yes:
As long as people think that you will only have 2 parties. If people actually vote for other parties they'll count.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Oct 20 2008, 02:52 AM
scottycatt
Oct 19 2008, 02:02 AM
I agreed with much of what Nader represented, then and now, but I have to live with the reality that any vote for a 3rd party candidate is a *wasted* vote. I don't like it, but it's reality. :yes:
As long as people think that you will only have 2 parties. If people actually vote for other parties they'll count.
The problem is that with a simple-majority count, the more similar candidates end up working against each other allowing the candidate with the least popular policies to get in with a minority of the vote.

I can't say it enough: preferential voting!!!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
If all the people who never vote voted for the Green candidate she'd win in a landslide.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

True enough, but it comes down to a question of how well the system reflects the will of the people. If the answer is "not very" then you have to work within the system to get the most acceptable result rather than taking a stand on idealism and letting the worst option sneak in.

I don't like that any more than you do. This is why the US electoral system needs a complete overhaul.

I've typed it out so many times that I can't be bothered doing it again, but people should Wiki preferential voting. It give the most accurate reflection of the people's will.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
In America you don't need to win the most votes, just the most states. Other parties could easily do that if people voted for them. They need to get past their lesser of 2 evils approach and vote for who they really want.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Jacaranda
Oct 19 2008, 10:26 PM
This may sound odd, but I feel sorry for John McCain, though truthfully he brought what is sure to be his loss on himself. I actually liked the original, unadulterated McCain of 2000, and the way he was actually once a real "maverick." Not to say I would vote for him now if he was like that at present, but at the very least, I would respect the man for being true to himself and his ideals.

He has seemed to sell his soul to the devils of his party who feel the way to win elections is to appeal to the way-far right moral majority, as evidenced by his embarrassingly inappropriate choice of a running mate. He and Palin have made a fatal flaw of concentrating on scare tactics and mudslinging, rather than the economy.

What a shame that McCain been reduced to digging in the dirt to try to win. His party has betrayed him.
My sentiments precisely, and when Colin Powell has to point that out, it's as true as it is sad.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Oct 20 2008, 03:18 AM
In America you don't need to win the most votes, just the most states. Other parties could easily do that if people voted for them. They need to get past their lesser of 2 evils approach and vote for who they really want.
You're being naive, Mia. We don't live in a perfect world. We have to work with what we have, which IS voting for the lesser of the evils. One need only look back to 2000, to see that the votes garnered by Ralph Nader had the end effect of putting W in the White House.

There have been other past elections with promising 3rd-party candidates, but the end result is always the same. Close, but no cigar. :no:

Perhaps one day a truly charismatic, transcendent 3rd-party candidate will come along and will capture the hearts, imaginations and votes of the electorate. Until that day, we're left deciding if we're voting 'Democrat' or 'Republican'. ^_^




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Sign where are the signs.
yard signs for presidential candidate John McCain are being stolen
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/sign_70067___article.html/signs_john.html
Edited by Dorfliedot, Oct 20 2008, 04:38 AM.
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
scottycatt
Oct 20 2008, 04:17 AM
Mia Culpa
Oct 20 2008, 03:18 AM
In America you don't need to win the most votes, just the most states. Other parties could easily do that if people voted for them. They need to get past their lesser of 2 evils approach and vote for who they really want.
You're being naive, Mia. We don't live in a perfect world. We have to work with what we have, which IS voting for the lesser of the evils. One need only look back to 2000, to see that the votes garnered by Ralph Nader had the end effect of putting W in the White House.

There have been other past elections with promising 3rd-party candidates, but the end result is always the same. Close, but no cigar. :no:

Perhaps one day a truly charismatic, transcendent 3rd-party candidate will come along and will capture the hearts, imaginations and votes of the electorate. Until that day, we're left deciding if we're voting 'Democrat' or 'Republican'. ^_^
Remember when Ross Perot was a viable 3rd party candidate only to have a private investigator pull a cruel joke on him (and the Republican party) making him a laughing stock of the presidential campaign in 1992? Man, those were the days :giggle: . His major downfall, when he rejoined the race, was his vp candidate - Vice Admiral James Stockton. During the VP debate with Al Gore and Dan Quayle Stockton looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Perot was a viable candidate for the independent Reform Party, that is until he bought the notion that the Republicans had compromising pictures of his daughter and would release them before her wedding day. All this dirty deed did, by his own PI, was make him look like a fool.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wackadoo
Member Avatar

Bill
Oct 18 2008, 03:41 PM
Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that John McCain's middle name sounds like a city in a foreign country? How can we be sure that he's not acting for that country and not America? I mean, you wouldn't expect the Prime Minister of New Zealand to be called Helen Los Angeles Clarke, would you? Why can't John McCain have a middle name that sounds like an American city? It makes you wonder if America can really afford to take such a risk.
Such the funny guy...

Obama himself, in a sense of humor, said that he guessed the person who gave him his middle name didn't expect he'd be running for president. Even he acknowledges the negative connotation his name infers. It was funny.
Posted Image

RIP Steve. I love and miss you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Posted Image
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Click this
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Mia Culpa
Oct 20 2008, 03:18 AM
In America you don't need to win the most votes, just the most states. Other parties could easily do that if people voted for them. They need to get past their lesser of 2 evils approach and vote for who they really want.
It isn't the most states. It is the most electoral votes, which do come from the states. However, it isn't as simple as winning 26 states. If you win the states with the most population, who have the most electoral votes, you don't need 26 states to win the election.

We do have to keep fighting. The race isn't over until it's over.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Monkey Chow
Oct 20 2008, 02:40 PM
Somebody has already posted that video of half-truths and propaganda before.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
JeffLynnesBeard
Oct 20 2008, 04:56 PM
Monkey Chow
Oct 20 2008, 02:40 PM
Somebody has already posted that video of half-truths and propaganda before.
Funny how people agree with any source that supports their positions and call all information in opposition lies and propoganda.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Yes, it's hilarious when that happens.

Seriously, that video misrepresents Barack's position on abortion and that's pretty much the end of that.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Hopefully, this states it more accurately:

Barack Obama on Abortion

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)
We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)
Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)
Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)
GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)

Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive. (Oct 2004)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Did you watch the third Presidential debate and listen to Obama's explanation as to why he voted against banning partial birth abortion?
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
I did.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Jacaranda
Oct 19 2008, 10:26 PM
This may sound odd, but I feel sorry for John McCain, though truthfully he brought what is sure to be his loss on himself. I actually liked the original, unadulterated McCain of 2000, and the way he was actually once a real "maverick." Not to say I would vote for him now if he was like that at present, but at the very least, I would respect the man for being true to himself and his ideals.

He has seemed to sell his soul to the devils of his party who feel the way to win elections is to appeal to the way-far right moral majority, as evidenced by his embarrassingly inappropriate choice of a running mate. He and Palin have made a fatal flaw of concentrating on scare tactics and mudslinging, rather than the economy.

What a shame that McCain been reduced to digging in the dirt to try to win. His party has betrayed him.
Would someone please spell out the differences in what McCain was then vs now?
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
No surprises here... ;)

http://www. blogthings. com/shouldyouvoteformccainor...
Posted Image


When it gets down to it, you tend to best match John McCain.

But he's not the perfect candidate for you, and you may not be sold on him yet.


Obama shares a good number of your views too, so you might want to give him a second look.

It all comes down to which issues matter to you the most.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Monkey Chow
Oct 20 2008, 02:40 PM
Today, 2:56 PM Post #5

MoneyChow
 
" . . . but if one talks about taking away any of my rights, I get rather defensive."





I feel the very same way. -_-




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Monkey Chow
Oct 20 2008, 05:03 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Oct 20 2008, 04:56 PM
Monkey Chow
Oct 20 2008, 02:40 PM
Somebody has already posted that video of half-truths and propaganda before.
Funny how people agree with any source that supports their positions and call all information in opposition lies and propoganda.
It's compelling stuff and obviously such practises are utterly heinous.

But can I just get a reality check here?

Are we to believe that if it were not for Barack Obama, such procedures would not go on?
Are we to believe that this woman was so shocked that she stood by without any protest? Why didn't she resign?
Are we to believe that all she did was to research government voting and then make a video for a website called "No Hussein"?
If birth and death certificates are issued, then they are on the public record. Has anyone seen one?
Are we to believe that such practises would be stopped under a McCain administration? I'd love the answer to be Yes, but it isn't going to happen. If anyone believes it will, then my money is on the table. It's a bet I'd love to lose.

Sorry, but none of this smells right.

The fact is that any organisation that calls itself "no Hussein" forfeits all credibility from the beginning. Racist? I'm just asking!

Finally, I find it rather interesting that this has come up one day after Colin Powell's endorsement dealt a knockout blow to all those talking points about Obama being soft on terrorism, national security and foreign policy. Perhaps that's an unworthy comment, I just find the timing very interesting.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

In answer to your question Heidi, how does McCain differ, here are the main points that concern me the most.

During McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, he became known and popular with the media for his “Straight Talk Express” answering all reporters’ questions and talking frequently all day with them.
However, in July this year, TIME magazine ran an interview with McCain and noted this: “in July, the campaign decided to clamp down on the candidate. Open-ended question time was reduced to almost nothing, and the famously unscripted McCain began heeding his talking points, even as his aides maintained he missed the old informality.”

McCain lost in 2000 to Bush, as we all know, primarily due to the fact that the Christian evangelists supported Bush in North Carolina, and McCain was outspent in political ads that were described by The Arizona Republic “as a low-water mark in presidential campaigns," while The New York Times called it "a painful symbol of the brutality of American politics." Both sides ran very negative ads, but one of the worst features of the campaign was informal.

An anonymous smear campaign began against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, and audience plants. The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his wife Cindy was a drug addict (actually that was true), that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days. The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with the attacks. McCain would say of the rumor spreaders, "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those." According to one report, the South Carolina experience left McCain in a "very dark place."

At the beginning of his current campaign, McCain never wanted to run a campaign on smear tactics, I’m sure realizing what it’s like to be a target of such mudslinging. Unfortunately now his campaign has nearly descended to the level of Bush’s 2000 campaign, with his party’s innuendos that Obama is a terrorist, palls around with terrorists, and is (gasp) a Muslim.

In February 2000, McCain made a speech in Virginia Beach that criticized Christian leaders, including Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, as divisive conservatives.

From his 2000 speech: “Political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”

I was personally bitterly disappointed when in 2006, McCain decided it was time to apologize to Jerry Falwell, and reverse his courageous words in an obvious bid to woo the far right in anticipation for a McCain run for the presidency. On Meet The Press in 2006, McCain told Tim Russert that Falwell was no longer “an agent of intolerance.”

Let's remember, McCain decided this after Falwell gave his famous rant on the 700 Club about 9/11. As Falwell said: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" Fellow evangelist Pat Robertson concurred with his sentiment.



Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 20 2008, 11:19 PM
Jacaranda
Oct 19 2008, 10:26 PM
This may sound odd, but I feel sorry for John McCain, though truthfully he brought what is sure to be his loss on himself. I actually liked the original, unadulterated McCain of 2000, and the way he was actually once a real "maverick." Not to say I would vote for him now if he was like that at present, but at the very least, I would respect the man for being true to himself and his ideals.

He has seemed to sell his soul to the devils of his party who feel the way to win elections is to appeal to the way-far right moral majority, as evidenced by his embarrassingly inappropriate choice of a running mate. He and Palin have made a fatal flaw of concentrating on scare tactics and mudslinging, rather than the economy.

What a shame that McCain been reduced to digging in the dirt to try to win. His party has betrayed him.
Would someone please spell out the differences in what McCain was then vs now?
Could not in good conscience vote for the Bush tax cuts, now wants to make them permanent.

Was against smear campaigns before he was for them.

Claims he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill.

Dismissed religious-right nuts like Robertson, Falwell, et al, as "agents of intolerance," in 2000, then went courting their support in 2008.

Seriously, have you been paying attention?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Lisa, well done! :clap: Back in 2000, his campaign was a clean campaign. He was trying to reach across the gap but allowed Dumbya to run all over him.

Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Lisa,
Thank you for taking the time to clarify what you meant. I appreciate you answering my request. :hug:

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Oct 21 2008, 12:32 AM
Seriously, have you been paying attention?
Excuse me, I'm allowed to ask questions and shouldn't have to be made to feel stupid because I ask someone to explain their statements.

Thanks. -_-
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
You know, feeling stupid is not option. It is a life style. Just ask me. :unsure: :whistle:
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
scottycatt
Oct 20 2008, 04:17 AM
You're being naive, Mia. We don't live in a perfect world. We have to work with what we have, which IS voting for the lesser of the evils. One need only look back to 2000, to see that the votes garnered by Ralph Nader had the end effect of putting W in the White House.

There have been other past elections with promising 3rd-party candidates, but the end result is always the same. Close, but no cigar. :no:

Perhaps one day a truly charismatic, transcendent 3rd-party candidate will come along and will capture the hearts, imaginations and votes of the electorate. Until that day, we're left deciding if we're voting 'Democrat' or 'Republican'. ^_^
As long as you think that way you're doomed to only 2 parties. Many countries have more than 2 and they're far from perfect. Democracy shouldn't be about waiting for somebody to come along and save you. Maybe it's naïve of me to think Americans aren't that naïve.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
maccascruff
Oct 20 2008, 04:36 PM
It isn't the most states. It is the most electoral votes, which do come from the states. However, it isn't as simple as winning 26 states. If you win the states with the most population, who have the most electoral votes, you don't need 26 states to win the election.

We do have to keep fighting. The race isn't over until it's over.
I was talking about the electoral votes from the states. I thought that was understood.

The last paragraph is absolutely true. The worst thing Obamites can do now is assume he's going to win.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 21 2008, 02:45 AM
Bill
Oct 21 2008, 12:32 AM
Seriously, have you been paying attention?
Excuse me, I'm allowed to ask questions and shouldn't have to be made to feel stupid because I ask someone to explain their statements.

Thanks. -_-
I'm sorry if you took it that way. It just kind of intrigues me that someone who has been following the campaigns closely (as I know you have) could not be struck by McCain's profound turnaround in the last two years. And the question is raises is whether a president McCain would be the McCain of 2008 or the McCain of pre-2006.

If it comes to that, I would profoundly hope that it's the latter. Colin Powell couldn't have said it better.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Jacaranda
Oct 21 2008, 12:31 AM
In answer to your question Heidi, how does McCain differ, here are the main points that concern me the most.

During McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, he became known and popular with the media for his “Straight Talk Express” answering all reporters’ questions and talking frequently all day with them.
However, in July this year, TIME magazine ran an interview with McCain and noted this: “in July, the campaign decided to clamp down on the candidate. Open-ended question time was reduced to almost nothing, and the famously unscripted McCain began heeding his talking points, even as his aides maintained he missed the old informality.”

McCain lost in 2000 to Bush, as we all know, primarily due to the fact that the Christian evangelists supported Bush in North Carolina, and McCain was outspent in political ads that were described by The Arizona Republic “as a low-water mark in presidential campaigns," while The New York Times called it "a painful symbol of the brutality of American politics." Both sides ran very negative ads, but one of the worst features of the campaign was informal.

An anonymous smear campaign began against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, and audience plants. The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his wife Cindy was a drug addict (actually that was true), that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days. The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with the attacks. McCain would say of the rumor spreaders, "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those." According to one report, the South Carolina experience left McCain in a "very dark place."

At the beginning of his current campaign, McCain never wanted to run a campaign on smear tactics, I’m sure realizing what it’s like to be a target of such mudslinging. Unfortunately now his campaign has nearly descended to the level of Bush’s 2000 campaign, with his party’s innuendos that Obama is a terrorist, palls around with terrorists, and is (gasp) a Muslim.

In February 2000, McCain made a speech in Virginia Beach that criticized Christian leaders, including Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, as divisive conservatives.

From his 2000 speech: “Political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”

I was personally bitterly disappointed when in 2006, McCain decided it was time to apologize to Jerry Falwell, and reverse his courageous words in an obvious bid to woo the far right in anticipation for a McCain run for the presidency. On Meet The Press in 2006, McCain told Tim Russert that Falwell was no longer “an agent of intolerance.”

Let's remember, McCain decided this after Falwell gave his famous rant on the 700 Club about 9/11. As Falwell said: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" Fellow evangelist Pat Robertson concurred with his sentiment.



Nicely stated. Bill is also correct with his usual degree of conciseness and sarcasm. :P
Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Monkey Chow
Oct 20 2008, 07:03 PM
I did.
Then why, given Obama's explanation, did you still present that information in its rawest state? If you knew that it isn't that Obama isn't against partial birth abortions, its that that particular bill did not make guarantees about the safety of the mother, isn't it dishonest not to give all of the information instead of painting Obama as some kind of baby killer?
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
JeffLynnesBeard
Oct 21 2008, 08:14 AM
Monkey Chow
Oct 20 2008, 07:03 PM
I did.
Then why, given Obama's explanation, did you still present that information in its rawest state? If you knew that it isn't that Obama isn't against partial birth abortions, its that that particular bill did not make guarantees about the safety of the mother, isn't it dishonest not to give all of the information instead of painting Obama as some kind of baby killer?
I used to think abortion was a bs issue used to cloud other bigger issues until law school. I have read every Supreme Court case on abortion going back to Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade was a joke, legally. You are supposed to use legal precedent to argue your position. They relied in part on what the Roman Empire did. Since Roe, there has arisen constitutional case law that supports the proposition that no state law regarding abortion can be upheld unless there are protections for the health of the mother. Sounds very civilized. Obama is a constitutional scholar and a constitutional law professor. He knows that, I am sure. He could have voted in favor of the ban knowing the law could be struck down on a constitutional challenge or he could have worked to have it rewritten to pass constitutional muster. He obviously didn't. His record is 100% pro choice. Meanwhile, 50,000,000 people have been killed through abortion, much of it state paid, with an incredibly high proportion being minorities. They can't argue their case.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Oct 21 2008, 04:24 AM
scottycatt
Oct 20 2008, 04:17 AM
You're being naive, Mia. We don't live in a perfect world. We have to work with what we have, which IS voting for the lesser of the evils. One need only look back to 2000, to see that the votes garnered by Ralph Nader had the end effect of putting W in the White House.

There have been other past elections with promising 3rd-party candidates, but the end result is always the same. Close, but no cigar. :no:

Perhaps one day a truly charismatic, transcendent 3rd-party candidate will come along and will capture the hearts, imaginations and votes of the electorate. Until that day, we're left deciding if we're voting 'Democrat' or 'Republican'. ^_^
As long as you think that way you're doomed to only 2 parties. Many countries have more than 2 and they're far from perfect. Democracy shouldn't be about waiting for somebody to come along and save you. Maybe it's naïve of me to think Americans aren't that naïve.
Thanks for educating me on the American political party system, Mia. I'm sure if you came to our poor, backward country and dispensed your wisdom, you could teach all of us poor naive people just how democracy should work. Maybe YOU are the *somebody* we're waiting for to come along and save us. :bemused:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wackadoo
Member Avatar

scottycatt
Oct 21 2008, 11:28 AM
Mia Culpa
Oct 21 2008, 04:24 AM
scottycatt
Oct 20 2008, 04:17 AM
You're being naive, Mia. We don't live in a perfect world. We have to work with what we have, which IS voting for the lesser of the evils. One need only look back to 2000, to see that the votes garnered by Ralph Nader had the end effect of putting W in the White House.

There have been other past elections with promising 3rd-party candidates, but the end result is always the same. Close, but no cigar. :no:

Perhaps one day a truly charismatic, transcendent 3rd-party candidate will come along and will capture the hearts, imaginations and votes of the electorate. Until that day, we're left deciding if we're voting 'Democrat' or 'Republican'. ^_^
As long as you think that way you're doomed to only 2 parties. Many countries have more than 2 and they're far from perfect. Democracy shouldn't be about waiting for somebody to come along and save you. Maybe it's naïve of me to think Americans aren't that naïve.
Thanks for educating me on the American political party system, Mia. I'm sure if you came to our poor, backward country and dispensed your wisdom, you could teach all of us poor naive people just how democracy should work. Maybe YOU are the *somebody* we're waiting for to come along and save us. :bemused:
I see what Mia is saying, Bev. If we don't like the system, then do what we can to change it rather than be docile and accept a system that we don't really like. We should not expect the system to do our thinking for us.

I think this election is about who has the most money to spend on their campaign. Since Obama is spending approximately 3 times the money McCain is on his campaign, he is in our face more with adds, commercials, his own television channel, video game pop-ups, etc. so he is slightly ahead on the polls. Imagine if it is only a slight lead with that much more advertisement, how well McCain would be doing with the same amount of money on his campaign.
Posted Image

RIP Steve. I love and miss you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

It's always been about the money. That's nothing new.

Obama has more money to spend because he has more donors. That's campaigning in a free market economy.

I agree that it would be interesting to see how each candidate could each spend an equal budget, but wouldn't that be (gasp!) socialism? ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Quite honestly, I don't think the amount of money spent on the campaign will actually have anything to do with the result.

Advertising a product is essential - however, if that product isn't what people want, you can throw as much advertising at is as you like, it won't be successful in the long term.

The only things which will win Obama the election are his policies and his personality.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Monkey Chow
Oct 21 2008, 08:48 AM
JeffLynnesBeard
Oct 21 2008, 08:14 AM
Monkey Chow
Oct 20 2008, 07:03 PM
I did.
Then why, given Obama's explanation, did you still present that information in its rawest state? If you knew that it isn't that Obama isn't against partial birth abortions, its that that particular bill did not make guarantees about the safety of the mother, isn't it dishonest not to give all of the information instead of painting Obama as some kind of baby killer?
I used to think abortion was a bs issue used to cloud other bigger issues until law school. I have read every Supreme Court case on abortion going back to Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade was a joke, legally. You are supposed to use legal precedent to argue your position. They relied in part on what the Roman Empire did. Since Roe, there has arisen constitutional case law that supports the proposition that no state law regarding abortion can be upheld unless there are protections for the health of the mother. Sounds very civilized. Obama is a constitutional scholar and a constitutional law professor. He knows that, I am sure. He could have voted in favor of the ban knowing the law could be struck down on a constitutional challenge or he could have worked to have it rewritten to pass constitutional muster. He obviously didn't. His record is 100% pro choice. Meanwhile, 50,000,000 people have been killed through abortion, much of it state paid, with an incredibly high proportion being minorities. They can't argue their case.
I notice that you used the word 'could' rather than 'would'. I think that backs up Obama's decision, even if he was fully aware that a constitutional challenge could have set the preconditions he wanted to pass the bill, unless it was a certainty then he did right.

Besides which, having a 100% record as a pro-choice Senator is, in my eyes, a good thing. I realise that not everybody is going to agree with that, but that is a difference of opinion which I'm happy to accept.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 21 2008, 02:41 AM
Lisa,
Thank you for taking the time to clarify what you meant. I appreciate you answering my request. :hug:

You're welcome Heidi. :hug: I'm glad you asked.

I researched my comments -- among other things, I watched the whole Tim Russert interview of McCain where he backpedaled on his criticism of Falwell.

The quote from McCain is from a transcript of his 2000 speech given in Lynchburg Va.

I want to repeat this quote again because I feel it is excellent, heartfelt, and should be where everyone can see it.

"Political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”


John McCain, speaking during his 2000 campaign for the presidency
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
JeffLynnesBeard
Oct 21 2008, 04:00 PM


Besides which, having a 100% record as a pro-choice Senator is, in my eyes, a good thing. I realise that not everybody is going to agree with that, but that is a difference of opinion which I'm happy to accept.
I definitely want a president who is pro-choice, which is not pro-abortion.

Obama has the money because of people like me--who are donating $10, $25, etc. at a time. He speaks to the people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Oct 21 2008, 04:35 AM
Bag O' Nails
Oct 21 2008, 02:45 AM
Bill
Oct 21 2008, 12:32 AM
Seriously, have you been paying attention?
Excuse me, I'm allowed to ask questions and shouldn't have to be made to feel stupid because I ask someone to explain their statements.

Thanks. -_-
I'm sorry if you took it that way. It just kind of intrigues me that someone who has been following the campaigns closely (as I know you have) could not be struck by McCain's profound turnaround in the last two years. And the question is raises is whether a president McCain would be the McCain of 2008 or the McCain of pre-2006.

If it comes to that, I would profoundly hope that it's the latter. Colin Powell couldn't have said it better.
You're right when you say the written word can often be misconstrued...I was feeling somewhat sensitive yesterday about things... :-/

In thinking about this old vs new McCain, and reading what Lisa wrote during his 2000 campaign, I think I liked the "old" McCain, too...and I come from an evangelical Christian background. But what's fair is fair; and I like what he said in 2000.

To address this:
Quote:
 
And the question is raises is whether a president McCain would be the McCain of 2008 or the McCain of pre-2006.

I would hope that it would be more of the pre-06, too. My guess would be that he "changed" some of his thinking to try and get the religious right vote to come out and vote rather than being upset with the choice of candidates and not voting at all.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Obama lead widens to eight points

The Mayor of London, the Conservative Boris Johnson, has endorsed Barack Obama - mainly because he's black! I don't know whether to laugh or cry! :duh:

Daily Telegraph Article
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Jacaranda
Oct 21 2008, 04:12 PM
Bag O' Nails
Oct 21 2008, 02:41 AM
Lisa,
Thank you for taking the time to clarify what you meant. I appreciate you answering my request. :hug:

You're welcome Heidi. :hug: I'm glad you asked.

I researched my comments -- among other things, I watched the whole Tim Russert interview of McCain where he backpedaled on his criticism of Falwell.

The quote from McCain is from a transcript of his 2000 speech given in Lynchburg Va.

I want to repeat this quote again because I feel it is excellent, heartfelt, and should be where everyone can see it.

"Political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”


John McCain, speaking during his 2000 campaign for the presidency
Muslim McCain Fans Confront Intolerance At Rally (3:09)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Powerful even if you're not Catholic.

The Catholic Vote
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
LapisLee
Oct 21 2008, 08:15 PM
You know, it's these kinds of things that incite hatred. When I read about this incident, AOL news reported there were only THREE people who were behind this! THREE. -_- And it was heavily condemned by the McCain camp.

Remember how everyone jumped on the bandwagon to condemn the Repubs about the "let's kill Obama" threat and it wound up not even being true??!!! :huh:

So let's keep things in perspective here. Like I've said a million times before, there are radicals in every camp!
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bag O' Nails
Oct 21 2008, 09:05 PM
LapisLee
Oct 21 2008, 08:15 PM
You know, it's these kinds of things that incite hatred. When I read about this incident, AOL news reported there were only THREE people who were behind this! THREE. -_- And it was heavily condemned by the McCain camp.

Remember how everyone jumped on the bandwagon to condemn the Repubs about the "let's kill Obama" threat and it wound up not even being true??!!! :huh:

So let's keep things in perspective here. Like I've said a million times before, there are radicals in every camp!
I agree. It's a very small minority of McCain suppporters that are completely ignorant racists.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 21 2008, 09:05 PM
LapisLee
Oct 21 2008, 08:15 PM
You know, it's these kinds of things that incite hatred. When I read about this incident, AOL news reported there were only THREE people who were behind this! THREE. -_- And it was heavily condemned by the McCain camp.

Remember how everyone jumped on the bandwagon to condemn the Repubs about the "let's kill Obama" threat and it wound up not even being true??!!! :huh:

So let's keep things in perspective here. Like I've said a million times before, there are radicals in every camp!
I'm still waiting to see this kind of behavior at an Obama rally. ^_^


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrExRHZnm0&feature=related




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

LapisLee
Oct 21 2008, 10:17 PM
I agree. It's a very small minority of McCain suppporters that are completely ignorant racists.
It's just that some of them have radio shows. :whistle:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 21 2008, 04:55 PM
You're right when you say the written word can often be misconstrued...I was feeling somewhat sensitive yesterday about things... :-/

In thinking about this old vs new McCain, and reading what Lisa wrote during his 2000 campaign, I think I liked the "old" McCain, too...and I come from an evangelical Christian background. But what's fair is fair; and I like what he said in 2000.

To address this:
Quote:
 
And the question is raises is whether a president McCain would be the McCain of 2008 or the McCain of pre-2006.

I would hope that it would be more of the pre-06, too. My guess would be that he "changed" some of his thinking to try and get the religious right vote to come out and vote rather than being upset with the choice of candidates and not voting at all.
No, I deserved what you said. I could and should have been gentler. :flower:

McCain's biggest problem is that he's running both for and against the Republican party. He knows he's sunk if he runs on the Bush legacy but he needs the votes of the 20% of people who still think Bush has done a good job.

I suspect he had hope that, "I am not President Bush," was going to be his, "You're no Jack Kennedy," moment, but it was too little too late. The record shows that from taxation to torture, for all his rhetorical opposition, he ended up rolling over for the Bush administration (just like a lot of Democrats, it has to be said!)

He was a Maverick in 2000. In 2008, he's just a cartoon Republican and that saddens me. Like Lisa, I feel sorry for him because he's better than this and he deserves better than this.

One thing I still agree with him on: character is destiny.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Bill
Oct 21 2008, 02:47 PM
It's always been about the money. That's nothing new.

Obama has more money to spend because he has more donors. That's campaigning in a free market economy.

I agree that it would be interesting to see how each candidate could each spend an equal budget, but wouldn't that be (gasp!) socialism? ;)
You're right, it would be socialism. I long for the good old days when Republicans had money...
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
JeffLynnesBeard
Oct 21 2008, 05:33 PM
Obama lead widens to eight points

The Mayor of London, the Conservative Boris Johnson, has endorsed Barack Obama - mainly because he's black! I don't know whether to laugh or cry! :duh:

Daily Telegraph Article
Endorsing anybody just because of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and whatnot is sad. Just plain sad. Given a person's record should show their worth. Unfortunately I have heard of some young first time voters that will not vote for Obama BECAUSE he is half black. Doesn't matter if he did everything right, his skin is African. That is sad.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

That would be back in the day when they were worth giving money to. ;)
See what happens when you let the market decide?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Bill
Oct 22 2008, 12:49 AM
That would be back in the day when they were worth giving money to. ;)
See what happens when you let the market decide?
Republicans are suffering for having the right message and the wrong torchbearer. That's why I am announcing my candidacy for...
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~LovelyRita~

Bill
Oct 22 2008, 12:34 AM
Bag O' Nails
Oct 21 2008, 04:55 PM
You're right when you say the written word can often be misconstrued...I was feeling somewhat sensitive yesterday about things... :-/

In thinking about this old vs new McCain, and reading what Lisa wrote during his 2000 campaign, I think I liked the "old" McCain, too...and I come from an evangelical Christian background. But what's fair is fair; and I like what he said in 2000.

To address this:
Quote:
 
And the question is raises is whether a president McCain would be the McCain of 2008 or the McCain of pre-2006.

I would hope that it would be more of the pre-06, too. My guess would be that he "changed" some of his thinking to try and get the religious right vote to come out and vote rather than being upset with the choice of candidates and not voting at all.
No, I deserved what you said. I could and should have been gentler. :flower:

McCain's biggest problem is that he's running both for and against the Republican party. He knows he's sunk if he runs on the Bush legacy but he needs the votes of the 20% of people who still think Bush has done a good job.

I suspect he had hope that, "I am not President Bush," was going to be his, "You're no Jack Kennedy," moment, but it was too little too late. The record shows that from taxation to torture, for all his rhetorical opposition, he ended up rolling over for the Bush administration (just like a lot of Democrats, it has to be said!)

He was a Maverick in 2000. In 2008, he's just a cartoon Republican and that saddens me. Like Lisa, I feel sorry for him because he's better than this and he deserves better than this.

One thing I still agree with him on: character is destiny.
I completely agree with that perspective of McCain, Bill. He sold his soul to the republican party, from choosing to support Bush's tax policy that he initially disagreed with to selecting someone like Palin for VP. If he had stuck to his true beliefs I would have seriously considered voting for him, he has the experience Obama lacks. I can't for the life of my figure out why he decided to appeal to the far right rather than the center, that never works!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
scottycatt
Oct 21 2008, 11:10 PM
Bag O' Nails
Oct 21 2008, 09:05 PM
LapisLee
Oct 21 2008, 08:15 PM
You know, it's these kinds of things that incite hatred. When I read about this incident, AOL news reported there were only THREE people who were behind this! THREE. -_- And it was heavily condemned by the McCain camp.

Remember how everyone jumped on the bandwagon to condemn the Repubs about the "let's kill Obama" threat and it wound up not even being true??!!! :huh:

So let's keep things in perspective here. Like I've said a million times before, there are radicals in every camp!
I'm still waiting to see this kind of behavior at an Obama rally. ^_^


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrExRHZnm0&feature=related
Here is a good answer to that video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9y78WNllao

Unfortunately there are many that still believe he is a Muslim, not that anything is wrong with that - I would still vote for him if he were!

BTW-an Ann Coulter alert!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNWsQGlbU-A
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
This is a pretty good video on 5 reasons why Obama should not be President:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-9oC5Hb3_c
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
I love reading this thread you all are so funny when comes to politics. :lol: :D
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14776.html
:roll: :blink:


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14797.html
:roll: :blink:



Just curious . . . is this what any of you Republicans here think of us non-Republicans? :-/

What is a *true* or *real* American, anyway? :ponder:





Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
scottycatt
Oct 21 2008, 11:28 AM
Thanks for educating me on the American political party system, Mia. I'm sure if you came to our poor, backward country and dispensed your wisdom, you could teach all of us poor naive people just how democracy should work. Maybe YOU are the *somebody* we're waiting for to come along and save us. :bemused:
You're welcome, but I don't want to save you. I think in a democracy people should save themselves.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Oct 22 2008, 03:43 AM
scottycatt
Oct 21 2008, 11:28 AM
Thanks for educating me on the American political party system, Mia. I'm sure if you came to our poor, backward country and dispensed your wisdom, you could teach all of us poor naive people just how democracy should work. Maybe YOU are the *somebody* we're waiting for to come along and save us. :bemused:
You're welcome, but I don't want to save you. I think in a democracy people should save themselves.
I think we're doing OK . . . we're still here some 232 years later. -_-




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
As an aside, I've never called anybody here naïve, stupid, wrong, an idiot, but when I'm called such things I calmly ask questions without hostility and others become defensive and insulting. My feeling is that if you can't state your opinion without insults then you probably don't have much confidence in your own opinion.

My main argument in this thread has always been that the focus should be on the issues and not the usual attacks. Sadly this election has been just like all the others. What's the point in having a discussion if all one wants to do is attack people, or only listen to people with the same view?
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThirdHarmony
Member Avatar

Yesterday's Daily Show had an interesting clip from the 2000-version-of-MCain's reaction to the word "socialism".

The flashback begins 2 minutes in...

McCain says the S-word

And for those interested in the full transcript of that exchange, here ya go... (boldface emphasis mine)

Quote:
 
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Hi. Since I've been studying politics, I've had this question that I've never fully understand. Why is it that someone like my father, who goes to school for 13 years, gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor? Why is that -- why does he have to pay higher taxes than everybody else, just because he makes more money? Why -- how is that fair?"

MCCAIN: "I think your question -- questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat, across-the-board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years, beginning with John F. Kennedy, reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous. But I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view... "

MATTHEWS: "How many -- how many people here believe that the people who made the highest level of incomes in this country should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes? Miss, do you want to follow up? Miss, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up? Go ahead."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "I still don't see how the -- how that's fair. Isn't the definition of slavery basically where you work and all your money goes? I'm not saying this is slavery, I'm saying that isn't the defin -- are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff, when you have -- you have some people paying 60 percent overall in a year of their money to taxes. That's their money, not the government's. How is that fair? I haven't understood it."

MCCAIN: "Could I point out, one of the fundamentals of a town hall meeting is, we respect the views of others, and let them speak. So, look, here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. But at the same time, that shouldn't be totally out of proportion. There's some countries such as Sweden where it doesn't pay anything to work more than six months a year. That's probably the extreme. But I think the debate in this country is more about tax cuts rather than anything else. And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they're the ones that I would support tax cuts for first."


That bit about Sweden - not only is it "extreme" - it is utterly ludicrous and false. Yes, we have high taxes here, but nowhere near the kind of economy-crippling level that McCain's comment either ignorantly or maliciously assumes. And if it were true - oh man - I guess I should've taken a longer holiday then!

And the very last bit... sounds like it comes straight out of Obama's speech notes. ^_^
Edited by ThirdHarmony, Oct 22 2008, 06:00 PM.
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
It's not Obama's tax plan that makes me think he's a socialist, it's his comments to Joe the Plumber about wealth distribution. There is, and has been as long as I know, a graduated tax in the US. To me it's a matter of degrees. It is my understanding that the European countries that have all the social benefits also have zero economic growth. Nobody has ever clarified if that is corporate or personal tax over $250k. This scares me about whether either side understands what they are doing. I'm also trying to figure out how greed on Wall St. has anything to do with this financial crisis. I thought it was about high energy costs, economic slowdown, and a lot of loans gone bad. I've dealt with a lot of small business tax issues and most small businesses are either sub s corporations or llcs taxed as partnerships. First, (this is simplistic, I know)there is a business return that then has net income that passes through to the personal return. Very few even pay corporate tax. If it is personal, I would venture to say not many small business people make $250k per year.

I'm monkeychow and I approved this message.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThirdHarmony
Member Avatar

Monkey Chow
Oct 22 2008, 06:22 PM
It is my understanding that the European countries that have all the social benefits also have zero economic growth.


Would you care to expound on this?

We are all in slowdown times, as you note. As for Sweden, in 2007 we had a real GDP growth rate of 2.7% (GDP $338.5 billion, $37,500 per capita). Furthermore, the inflation rate was 2.2%.

The EU as a whole has a larger GDP and real GDP growth then the US

As of 2007, the EU as a whole had roughly a 3% real GDP growth rate. (combined GDP (PPP): $14.43 trillion).

For comparisons with other countries and regions, I suggest for instance the CIA World Factbook
Edited by ThirdHarmony, Oct 22 2008, 07:38 PM.
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Obama-Biden Tax Calculator

Barack Obama's Tax Plan: Short Version

Barack Obama's Comprehensise Tax Plan
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Posted Image
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
"I Didn't Vote For Obama" by kentuckyscott
Monday, October 20, 2008

I'm a middle-class white guy living in Jacksonville, Florida. I've got a wife and two kids. Because the kids had no school today, I took a vacation day from work, and took the kids downtown to vote early. Fifty-nine minutes later, two smiling children and I proudly sported "I Voted" stickers. But I didn't vote for Obama.

I voted for my ancestors, who believed in the promise of this country and came with with nothing as immigrants. I voted for my parents, who taught in the public schools for decades. I voted for Steve, an
acquaintance of mine from Kentucky . (Killed by an IED two years ago in Iraq ). I voted for Shawn, another who's been to Iraq twice, and
Afghanistan once, and who'll be going back to Afghanistan again soon-- and whose family earned eleven bucks a month too much to qualify for food stamps when the war started. I voted for April, the only African-American girl in my high school -- it was years before it occurred to me how different her experience of our school must have been. I voted for my college friends who are Christian, Jewish,
Mormon, and yes -- Muslim. I voted for my grandfathers, who worked hard in factories and died too young. I voted for the plumber who worked on my house, because I want him to get a REAL tax break. I voted for four little angels from Birmingham. I voted for a bunch of dead white men who, although personally flawed, were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, and used a time of
great crisis to expand freedom rather than suspend it. I voted for all those people and more, and I voted for all of you, too.

But mostly, I voted selfishly: I voted for two little kids, one who has ballet in an hour, and one who has baseball practice at the same time. I voted for a world where they can be confident that their
government will represent the best that is in this country, and that will in turn demand the best of them. I voted for a government that will be respected in the world. I voted for an economy that will reward work above guile. I voted for everything I believe in. Sure, I filled in the circle next to the name Obama, but it wasn't him I was voting for -- it was every single one of us, and those I love most of all."

Link to source:
http://kentuckyscott.dailykos.com/

This pretty much sums up my vote, too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
SNL strikes again. They are doing 2 Weekend Update specials on Thursdays until the election. The first one was last night and here is the opening skit, very good:

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-thursday-bush-endorsement/783981/

Nice to meet you Mr. President. I see you on tv - good line!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
maccascruff
Oct 24 2008, 06:08 PM
"I Didn't Vote For Obama" by kentuckyscott
Monday, October 20, 2008

I'm a middle-class white guy living in Jacksonville, Florida. I've got a wife and two kids. Because the kids had no school today, I took a vacation day from work, and took the kids downtown to vote early. Fifty-nine minutes later, two smiling children and I proudly sported "I Voted" stickers. But I didn't vote for Obama.

I voted for my ancestors, who believed in the promise of this country and came with with nothing as immigrants. I voted for my parents, who taught in the public schools for decades. I voted for Steve, an
acquaintance of mine from Kentucky . (Killed by an IED two years ago in Iraq ). I voted for Shawn, another who's been to Iraq twice, and
Afghanistan once, and who'll be going back to Afghanistan again soon-- and whose family earned eleven bucks a month too much to qualify for food stamps when the war started. I voted for April, the only African-American girl in my high school -- it was years before it occurred to me how different her experience of our school must have been. I voted for my college friends who are Christian, Jewish,
Mormon, and yes -- Muslim. I voted for my grandfathers, who worked hard in factories and died too young. I voted for the plumber who worked on my house, because I want him to get a REAL tax break. I voted for four little angels from Birmingham. I voted for a bunch of dead white men who, although personally flawed, were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, and used a time of
great crisis to expand freedom rather than suspend it. I voted for all those people and more, and I voted for all of you, too.

But mostly, I voted selfishly: I voted for two little kids, one who has ballet in an hour, and one who has baseball practice at the same time. I voted for a world where they can be confident that their
government will represent the best that is in this country, and that will in turn demand the best of them. I voted for a government that will be respected in the world. I voted for an economy that will reward work above guile. I voted for everything I believe in. Sure, I filled in the circle next to the name Obama, but it wasn't him I was voting for -- it was every single one of us, and those I love most of all."

Link to source:
http://kentuckyscott.dailykos.com/

This pretty much sums up my vote, too.
Nicely said! :clap:
Edited by beatlechick, Oct 25 2008, 12:07 AM.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I wish I had the talent to write like that. That does say why I have voted for Obama.

The part about the high school really hits home. I went to a very racist high school, but, of course, did not recognize it at the time. In our student center, we had four corners where we gathered. This makes me very sad. We had the sophomore corner, the junior corner, the senior corner (with couches) and the black corner. :blush:

No wonder my black classmates hated us and we had riots and walk-outs.
Edited by maccascruff, Oct 25 2008, 12:06 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adilah
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Oct 22 2008, 03:59 AM
As an aside, I've never called anybody here naïve, stupid, wrong, an idiot, but when I'm called such things I calmly ask questions without hostility and others become defensive and insulting. My feeling is that if you can't state your opinion without insults then you probably don't have much confidence in your own opinion.

My main argument in this thread has always been that the focus should be on the issues and not the usual attacks. Sadly this election has been just like all the others. What's the point in having a discussion if all one wants to do is attack people, or only listen to people with the same view?
This is why I rarely say anything here. I have opinions, but I can do without the anger. I think too many people cannot distinguish between a discussion and an argument. When the insults begin, I lose all interest in talking to such a person.
"We call 10 American deaths a catastrophe. One hundred European deaths are a tragedy. One thousand Asian deaths are a shame. And 10,000 African deaths we call a Monday." - Lissa (1981-2007) السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adilah
Member Avatar

maccascruff
Oct 25 2008, 12:04 AM
I wish I had the talent to write like that. That does say why I have voted for Obama.

The part about the high school really hits home. I went to a very racist high school, but, of course, did not recognize it at the time. In our student center, we had four corners where we gathered. This makes me very sad. We had the sophomore corner, the junior corner, the senior corner (with couches) and the black corner. :blush:

No wonder my black classmates hated us and we had riots and walk-outs.
One does not need a large vocabulary and clever metaphors to speak with passion. Speak from your heart and it will resonate far better than the most eloquent prose.
"We call 10 American deaths a catastrophe. One hundred European deaths are a tragedy. One thousand Asian deaths are a shame. And 10,000 African deaths we call a Monday." - Lissa (1981-2007) السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Adilah
Oct 25 2008, 03:27 AM
maccascruff
Oct 25 2008, 12:04 AM
I wish I had the talent to write like that. That does say why I have voted for Obama.

The part about the high school really hits home. I went to a very racist high school, but, of course, did not recognize it at the time. In our student center, we had four corners where we gathered. This makes me very sad. We had the sophomore corner, the junior corner, the senior corner (with couches) and the black corner. :blush:

No wonder my black classmates hated us and we had riots and walk-outs.
One does not need a large vocabulary and clever metaphors to speak with passion. Speak from your heart and it will resonate far better than the most eloquent prose.
So true and wise what you said Adilah.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Should You Be Allowed to Vote?


You Should Be Allowed to Vote

Posted Image

You got 15/15 questions correct.
Generally speaking, you're very well informed.

If you vote this election, you'll know exactly who (and what) you'll be voting for.
You're likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up.

If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Ditto.
Although, the answer Question 11 isn't quite correct. The answer they list as correct does directly influence the real answer, but the one they offer is misleading.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
You Should Be Allowed to Vote

Posted Image

You got 14/15 questions correct.
Generally speaking, you're very well informed.

If you vote this election, you'll know exactly who (and what) you'll be voting for.
You're likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up.

Should You Be Allowed to Vote?

And I don't know which one I missed. :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
You Should Be Allowed to Vote

Posted Image

You got 14/15 questions correct.
Generally speaking, you're very well informed.

If you vote this election, you'll know exactly who (and what) you'll be voting for.
You're likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up.

Should You Be Allowed to Vote?
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose
Member Avatar
Well, here's another clue for you all, the Walrus was Paul...
You Should Be Allowed to Vote

Posted Image

You got 12/15 questions correct.
Generally speaking, you're very well informed.

If you vote this election, you'll know exactly who (and what) you'll be voting for.
You're likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up.

Should You Be Allowed to Vote?

Posted Image Posted Image

"I'm in awe of McCartney. He's about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he's never let up... He's just so damn effortless." ~ Bob Dylan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Glad we can all vote! Now vote the correct way! Voting for Obama was my nephew's birthday present to me. It doesn't take much to make me happy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Adilah
Oct 25 2008, 03:25 AM
Mia Culpa
Oct 22 2008, 03:59 AM
As an aside, I've never called anybody here naïve, stupid, wrong, an idiot, but when I'm called such things I calmly ask questions without hostility and others become defensive and insulting. My feeling is that if you can't state your opinion without insults then you probably don't have much confidence in your own opinion.

My main argument in this thread has always been that the focus should be on the issues and not the usual attacks. Sadly this election has been just like all the others. What's the point in having a discussion if all one wants to do is attack people, or only listen to people with the same view?
This is why I rarely say anything here. I have opinions, but I can do without the anger. I think too many people cannot distinguish between a discussion and an argument. When the insults begin, I lose all interest in talking to such a person.

As do I. :yes:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

You Should Be Allowed to Vote

Posted Image

You got 15/15 questions correct.
Generally speaking, you're very well informed.

If you vote this election, you'll know exactly who (and what) you'll be voting for.
You're likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up.

Should You Be Allowed to Vote?




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
You Should Not Be Allowed to Vote

Posted Image

You got 3/15 questions correct.
Jeez, let's hope you're not actually American.

You don't know much about what's going on in the world.
Do everyone a favor. Stay home!

Should You Be Allowed to Vote? :pinch: :duh: :unsure:
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

You Should Be Allowed to Vote

Posted Image

You got 12/15 questions correct.
Generally speaking, you're very well informed.

If you vote this election, you'll know exactly who (and what) you'll be voting for.
You're likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up.

Should You Be Allowed to Vote?
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

You Should Be Allowed to Vote

You got 14/15 questions correct.
Generally speaking, you're very well informed.

If you vote this election, you'll know exactly who (and what) you'll be voting for.
You're likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Only one US citizen with a perfect score so far while all the foreigners got 15.

I know that could be added to the Correlation ≠ Cause thread, but I'm just sayin'.... :whistle: :tomato:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
I just re-took the test and the one question that I knew I had a problem with, and questioned, I got right this time. My score ended up 15/15. It was the David Gates question that I got wrong the first time and knew I got wrong.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Bill
Oct 26 2008, 07:27 AM
Only one US citizen with a perfect score so far while all the foreigners got 15.

I know that could be added to the Correlation ≠ Cause thread, but I'm just sayin'.... :whistle: :tomato:
I did NOT vote for 'W'!!!! :nono: :nono:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Did anyone else see this? I was just watching SNL. Coldplay was performing and at the end of their second number, Chris Martin blurts out "Barack Obama". :ponder:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
No I didn't see it. I turned it off after that lame opening skit. I guess while Tina Fey is gone it will return to not being funny anymore.

Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

scottycatt
Oct 26 2008, 07:53 AM
Bill
Oct 26 2008, 07:27 AM
Only one US citizen with a perfect score so far while all the foreigners got 15.

I know that could be added to the Correlation ≠ Cause thread, but I'm just sayin'.... :whistle: :tomato:
I did NOT vote for 'W'!!!! :nono: :nono:
I don't get it. :unsure:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"