PDA

View Full Version : Elections Who are you supporting and why?


jAZ
07-31-2008, 08:08 AM
A poll.

Radar Chief
07-31-2008, 08:32 AM
For POTUS? I'm not, they all suck.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2008, 08:44 AM
no one right now.

Alphaman
07-31-2008, 08:51 AM
I'm supporting Obama and the reason is leadership. Comparing the two I believe (again this is my personal belief, not necessarily fact) that Obama has demonstrated the ability to fully understand and give credence to both sides of an issue. I believe he has demonstrated the intelligence to synthesize information on an issue, listen to arguments on both sides and try to come up with the best solutions. I believe he is the candidate that views individual presidential decisions in light of their impact on the big picture and America's place in the world. In my view, McCain has shown himself to be very myopic, while Obama has shown himself to be a more global thinker.

I like Obama's intelligence and charisma which I believe are important in a leader. I also believe that Obama has managed his campaign and campaign strategy much better than McCain has. To me that is a glimps of what type of White House they would each run.

I have some concerns about Obama, but of the two candidates, he's the guy I support.

Ultra Peanut
07-31-2008, 08:52 AM
It's not often that you get the chance to vote for someone who's brilliant, pragmatic, and has positions that are either in line with yours or still largely preferable to his opponents'.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 09:12 AM
I'm supporting McCain
because he understands that it's bad for our country to voluntarily lose wars,
because he is proud and protective of our national sovereignty to a greater degree than his opponent (I have to qualify that because I'm not sure where he'd go with his global warming position),
because he is the candidate most likely to restrain spending and keep taxes low,
because he is a free trader whose policies will help our business climate instead of pandering to populist notions at the expense of our international competitiveness (again with a big question mark about how his global warming position will play out),
because he will appoint better judges than his opponent, and
because both houses of Congress will have substantial democrat majorities

Rain Man
07-31-2008, 09:31 AM
As a small business owner I have no choice but to vote for the candidate who won't massively increase my taxes and who will allow me to bid on all government contracts regardless of my race.

I wish I had a choice, but I can't cut my own throat.

Sully
07-31-2008, 09:33 AM
I'm voting for Obama because he died on the cross to wipe away all my sins.

... and because he hates white people.

HC_Chief
07-31-2008, 09:40 AM
Write in.

whatsmynameagain
07-31-2008, 09:57 AM
I'm supporting McCain
because he understands that it's bad for our country to voluntarily lose wars,


voluntarily lose wars huh? you must have the bowl in your pipe packed pretty tight.

I not voting mccain because he stands for everything im against.

im voting for obama because I believe he can restore the greatness of america that gwb and company fought so hard to destroy.

I also feel that obama is extremely intelligent vs mccain who is a god damned idiot. this is fact and even the righties know it. id be embarassed to have someone like mccain as my candidate.


Posted via Mobile Device

irishjayhawk
07-31-2008, 10:00 AM
I'm supporting McCain
because he understands that it's bad for our country to voluntarily lose wars, ROFL
because he is proud and protective of our national sovereignty to a greater degree than his opponent (I have to qualify that because I'm not sure where he'd go with his global warming position),
because he is the candidate most likely to restrain spending and keep taxes low, ROFL
because he is a free trader whose policies will help our business climate instead of pandering to populist notions at the expense of our international competitiveness (again with a big question mark about how his global warming position will play out),
because he will appoint better judges than his opponent, and
because both houses of Congress will have substantial democrat majorities

I can't believe that merely a party line determines who voluntarily wants us to lose the war. Wow.

I also can't believe you're actually believing the "restrain spending and keep taxes low" line. How much more could conservatives have spent in their tenure that would have you questioning that line from a conservative?


As for me, I'm not thrilled for either. However, if push comes to shove, it'll be Obama over McCain simply because McCain isn't the McCain I liked back 8 even 5 years ago.

knowmo3
07-31-2008, 10:02 AM
Obama is an empty suit. He doesn't take a stand on anything. And I don't trust him.

acesn8s
07-31-2008, 10:06 AM
A poll.
I don't know anybody from Polland. :shrug:

Baby Lee
07-31-2008, 10:24 AM
I also can't believe you're actually believing the "restrain spending and keep taxes low" line. How much more could conservatives have spent in their tenure that would have you questioning that line from a conservative?
Do you have evidence of McCain's, not a party's, not an 'ideology's,' but McCain's profligate spending?
If you do, I welcome it. I'm not McCain supporter, but if he does get my vote, it'll be for pretty much the reasons, or at least the candidates leaning on said issues, that patteau laid out.

NewChief
07-31-2008, 10:27 AM
Obama. He's got a great smile.

NewChief
07-31-2008, 10:27 AM
I'm voting for Obama because he died on the cross to wipe away all my sins.

... and because he hates white people.

Much better than mine.

Sully
07-31-2008, 10:35 AM
Much better than mine.

By the way, I wanted to thank you.
My wife and I taught a class at church last Saturday about the mixing of religion and government. Our big closer was an article you had posted about a year ago, from a Fayetteville newspaper. I had bookmarked it, because I liked it so much, and it came in real handy for that class. So thanks.

Pitt Gorilla
07-31-2008, 10:35 AM
I've gone from a McCain lean to not knowing what to do.

jAZ
07-31-2008, 10:36 AM
This really was supposed to be a poll, but my internet died during the poll editing. Poll up now.

NewChief
07-31-2008, 10:41 AM
By the way, I wanted to thank you.
My wife and I taught a class at church last Saturday about the mixing of religion and government. Our big closer was an article you had posted about a year ago, from a Fayetteville newspaper. I had bookmarked it, because I liked it so much, and it came in real handy for that class. So thanks.

Oh, cool! That was an article by my minister, Lowell Grisham. He's a really interesting guy, and he writes a weekly in the local paper that is well worth reading. He really gets the fundamentalist's panties in a bunch.
Here's the archives on his columns:
http://www.nwarktimes.com/columnist/?paper=nwat&section=Editorial&columnist=Lowell%20Grisham&coltitle=Roots+%26amp%3B+Wings

knowmo3
07-31-2008, 10:41 AM
Obama doesn't have the credentials for the presidency. I have never seen a presidential candidate who is as unqualified as Obama.

Radar Chief
07-31-2008, 10:43 AM
I've gone from a McCain lean to not knowing what to do.

McCain was my least favorite of the republican primary candidates, Hillary and Obama my least favorite of the dem candidates.
Iím voting write in.
Not like it matters, Gramps McAmnesty will get Kansasí whopping 6 electoral votes no matter what I do.

Alphaman
07-31-2008, 10:44 AM
Do you have evidence of McCain's, not a party's, not an 'ideology's,' but McCain's profligate spending?
If you do, I welcome it. I'm not McCain supporter, but if he does get my vote, it'll be for pretty much the reasons, or at least the candidates leaning on said issues, that patteau laid out.

McCain does SEEM to lean that way, but recently said that every option (including raising taxes) is on the table.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 12:18 PM
I can't believe that merely a party line determines who voluntarily wants us to lose the war. Wow.

It doesn't. Joe Lieberman didn't want to lose the war, even when he was still a democrat. And there are other liberals like Christopher Hitchens (not sure he's a democrat though) who have been stalwarts on the issue. What determines who wants to voluntarily lose the war is, not surprisingly, their position on the war, regardless of party or ideology. Please don't mischaracterize my statements.

I also can't believe you're actually believing the "restrain spending and keep taxes low" line. How much more could conservatives have spent in their tenure that would have you questioning that line from a conservative?

How much more? If we go back and look at the political debates surrounding most of the big domestic spending initiatives of the past 8 years, we will find that democrats, at nearly every turn, proposed spending more. That's how much more. If Republicans had spent as much as democrats wanted to spend or, better yet, if democrats had proposed significantly smaller program alternatives, I'd start questioning that line.

Simply Red
07-31-2008, 12:21 PM
not a fan of either. I'm worried about McCain's age, to be honest. I don't really care for Obama either. In a nut shell, I'm not a endorser of either options.

Gaz option?

whatsmynameagain
07-31-2008, 12:21 PM
It doesn't, Joe Lieberman didn't want to lose the war, even when he was still a democrat. And there are other liberals like Christopher Hitchens (not sure he's a democrat though) who have been stalwarts on the issue. What determines who wants to voluntarily lose the war is, not surprisingly, their position on the war, regardless of party or ideology. Please don't mischaracterize my statements.



How much more? If we go back and look at the political debates surrounding most of the big domestic spending initiatives of the past 8 years, we will find that democrats, at nearly every turn, proposed spending more. That's how much more. If Republicans had spent as much as democrats wanted to spend or, better yet, if democrats had proposed significantly smaller program alternatives, I'd start questioning that line.

how much has the iraq war cost?


GAME OVER


Posted via Mobile Device

Carlota69
07-31-2008, 12:31 PM
Obama. He kicks ass on the basketball court, and he works out all the time. I bet he has stellar Abs.
JK

Actually I'm voting for Obama because I believe he is the more intelligent of the two. I also agree with his policies more than I do McCains. Will he do everything he says he will? Of course not. They never do. So I guess I think Obama is less full of shit than McCain

If this was the 2000 McCain, maybe there would be more to think about. However, JM is bending over to the same peeps he used to stand up to. No thanks.

I heard Mccain say "I will not raise your taxes" this morning on CNN. It completely reminded me of Bush Sr's "Read my lips" moment. Nightmare.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 01:10 PM
how much has the iraq war cost?


GAME OVER


Posted via Mobile Device

You're not even in the right game, but I agree that that's the only play you can call on this subject. For me, national security trumps spending restraint and spending restraint trumps tax increases. McCain beats Obama all the way down the line and, as a general rule, Republicans beat democrats all the way down the line.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 01:16 PM
Obama. He kicks ass on the basketball court, and he works out all the time. I bet he has stellar Abs.
JK

Actually I'm voting for Obama because I believe he is the more intelligent of the two. I also agree with his policies more than I do McCains. Will he do everything he says he will? Of course not. They never do. So I guess I think Obama is less full of shit than McCain

If this was the 2000 McCain, maybe there would be more to think about. However, JM is bending over to the same peeps he used to stand up to. No thanks.

I heard Mccain say "I will not raise your taxes" this morning on CNN. It completely reminded me of Bush Sr's "Read my lips" moment. Nightmare.

I keep hearing people talk about the McCain of 2000 versus the McCain of today as if they are dramatically different people. Is there really that much difference between the guy who pandered to those who fear the religious right and the guy who panders to that same religious right today? Does anyone really believe that McCain was ever going to do anything extreme on the issues most closely associated with the religious right (abortion, gay marriage/adoption, escr, etc.) either way? I sure don't. He was pro-choice in 2000 just as he's pro-choice today but it's unlikely that he'd have any significant impact on abortion if he became POTUS. He's basically avoided controversy on most of these subjects by taking a state's rights position that leaves little room for POTUS influence. Is there something I'm missing about McCain circa 2000?

Calcountry
07-31-2008, 01:21 PM
no one right now.Most stupid pic I have ever seen, we have a constitution.

tiptap
07-31-2008, 01:22 PM
I keep hearing people talk about the McCain of 2000 versus the McCain of today as if they are dramatically different people. Is there really that much difference between the guy who pandered to those who fear the religious right and the guy who panders to that same religious right today? Does anyone really believe that McCain was ever going to do anything extreme on the issues most closely associated with the religious right (abortion, gay marriage/adoption, escr, etc.) either way? I sure don't. He was pro-choice in 2000 just as he's pro-choice today but it's unlikely that he'd have any significant impact on abortion if he became POTUS. He's basically avoided controversy on most of these subjects by taking a state's rights position that leaves little room for POTUS influence. Is there something I'm missing about McCain circa 2000?

8 years older.

Calcountry
07-31-2008, 01:31 PM
not a fan of either. I'm worried about McCain's age, to be honest. I don't really care for Obama either. In a nut shell, I'm not a endorser of either options.

Gaz option?Which is why the Dark Lord needs to select a strong, YOUNG apprentice.

Calcountry
07-31-2008, 01:32 PM
how much has the iraq war cost?


GAME OVER


Posted via Mobile Deviceno no no no, not game over GAME ****! America.

Calcountry
07-31-2008, 01:33 PM
Obama. He kicks ass on the basketball court, and he works out all the time. I bet he has stellar Abs.
JK

Actually I'm voting for Obama because I believe he is the more intelligent of the two. I also agree with his policies more than I do McCains. Will he do everything he says he will? Of course not. They never do. So I guess I think Obama is less full of shit than McCain

If this was the 2000 McCain, maybe there would be more to think about. However, JM is bending over to the same peeps he used to stand up to. No thanks.

I heard Mccain say "I will not raise your taxes" this morning on CNN. It completely reminded me of Bush Sr's "Read my lips" moment. Nightmare.
No, keep it real. You are one of those voters that voted for Gore because of his Rolling Stone pic, right?

Chiefnj2
07-31-2008, 01:36 PM
Bush has done such a fantastic job over the last 8 years how could anyone want to depart from his policies?

penguinz
07-31-2008, 01:54 PM
Obama doesn't have the credentials for the presidency. I have never seen a presidential candidate who is as unqualified as Obama.This is a joke isn't it?

Ebolapox
07-31-2008, 02:16 PM
Write in vote for mickey mouse. fugg the rest of em'.

Carlota69
07-31-2008, 02:30 PM
No, keep it real. You are one of those voters that voted for Gore because of his Rolling Stone pic, right?

No. because he was skinny.

Programmer
07-31-2008, 02:45 PM
It's not often that you get the chance to vote for someone who's brilliant, pragmatic, and has positions that are either in line with yours or still largely preferable to his opponents'.

Too bad that we will not have a chance to vote for that person this year. The person you describe is not running for office.

Baby Lee
07-31-2008, 03:16 PM
how much has the iraq war cost?


GAME OVER


Posted via Mobile Device

If daddy buys a motorcycle, mommy gets a diamond ring


GAME OVER!!!!

BucEyedPea
07-31-2008, 03:25 PM
Most stupid pic I have ever seen, we have a constitution.

Guess you:

• never read the Dec of Independence
• have no sense of satire or humor
• love govt

BucEyedPea
07-31-2008, 03:29 PM
For those doing write ins: I read those won't even be counted.
Not that it matters.

Oh and:

If RR couldn't guarantee conservative SCJ's than McCain can't either.
If Bush Jr had to have his arm twisted to get 2 then McCain will resist any arm twisting.
Mac may not even recognize one to start with.

McCain will raise taxes.

McCain may not lose a war ( and this doesn't apply to Iraq) but he will start new ones.

bigfoot
07-31-2008, 03:29 PM
Reluctanly will vote for McCain:

McCain will do less to the American citizen.
McCain will tax us less.
McCain no earmarks compared to Obama's $98,000,000
McCain administration will run the war more responsibly.
McCain will make better judicial appointments Rather have Alitos than Ginsbergs
Look at associations-Wright, Acorn, Ayers, are very troublesome
I think McCain is more apt to bring his wacky immigration views into line of what Americans believe is acceptable
McCain most likely with better on energy-Nuclear power, Drill now, while we seek better alternative feul-Obama recommends inflating your tires.
Obamas "level the playing field" , fix all social injustices, expand hate crime legislation; makes me nervous

gotta run but that's a few

patteeu
07-31-2008, 03:40 PM
For those doing write ins: I read those won't even be counted.
Not that it matters.

Oh and:

If RR couldn't guarantee conservative SCJ's than McCain can't either.
If Bush Jr had to have his arm twisted to get 2 then McCain will resist any arm twisting.
Mac may not even recognize one to start with.

McCain will raise taxes.

McCain may not lose a war ( and this doesn't apply to Iraq) but he will start new ones.

I can pretty much guarantee you that Obama will bring you liberal SCJ's.

CrazyPhuD
07-31-2008, 03:47 PM
None of the Above...it's the vote for the only honest candidate.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2008, 03:48 PM
I can pretty much guarantee you that Obama will bring you liberal SCJ's.
Well, you're right on that one. Why is it that Rs have so much inconsistency on this?

Garcia Bronco
07-31-2008, 03:53 PM
Obama wants to get involved in African conflicts. It states so on his website. n fact he wants to take money we are spending in Iraq and spend it in Africa.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 08:02 PM
Well, you're right on that one. Why is it that Rs have so much inconsistency on this?

I think it's because it's easier to be a liberal justice than a conservative one. Liberal justices get to rule on a whim and on the basis of what they personally think is good while conservatives are limited by their understanding of a fixed constitution.

Don't tell the liberals around here I said that though or they'll give birth to a cow of indignation.

StcChief
07-31-2008, 08:43 PM
McCain - he's the right man for the job right now. compared to the other choices

irishjayhawk
07-31-2008, 10:08 PM
Do you have evidence of McCain's, not a party's, not an 'ideology's,' but McCain's profligate spending?
If you do, I welcome it. I'm not McCain supporter, but if he does get my vote, it'll be for pretty much the reasons, or at least the candidates leaning on said issues, that patteau laid out.

I don't have evidence. However, that wasn't really my point. My point was during the Republican tenure we spent a gazillion dollars and our deficit went way up because we cut taxes while spending out the ass.

I can't see how someone can sit there and take the party line of "conservatives spend less" when they certainly haven't over their reign. It just seems odd.

It doesn't. Joe Lieberman didn't want to lose the war, even when he was still a democrat. And there are other liberals like Christopher Hitchens (not sure he's a democrat though) who have been stalwarts on the issue. What determines who wants to voluntarily lose the war is, not surprisingly, their position on the war, regardless of party or ideology. Please don't mischaracterize my statements.

Not trying to mischaracterize your statements. If I did, I apologize. Now, you cite Joe Lieberman who is - truth be told - neither party's claim. And Hitchens isn't a surprise because you love his stance on the war. In fact, you'll only listen to people with his stance on the war when it comes to things like torture being bad.

I don't see how being opposed to the war translates to voluntarily wanting to lose the war. Can you clarify what "voluntarily wanting to lose the war" means and what actions would indicate that position? I don't think anyone actively wants us to "lose".



How much more? If we go back and look at the political debates surrounding most of the big domestic spending initiatives of the past 8 years, we will find that democrats, at nearly every turn, proposed spending more. That's how much more. If Republicans had spent as much as democrats wanted to spend or, better yet, if democrats had proposed significantly smaller program alternatives, I'd start questioning that line.

Whoa whoa, there. But was the spending the democrats wanted justified. Likewise, were the cuts the republicans wanted justified. For example, I contend you'd be for more spending if it was being spent on say, troop armor.

The problem I have with the conservative party line is this: they cut taxes while outspending the cuts. You only bring on debt when you spend more than you take in. That's my major beef with your party's line. Bush spent billions and CUT taxes. That can't happen. But then when someone RAISES taxes and RAISES spending, it some how throws a red flag for people. Hell, what we really need right now is a RAISE in taxes and a CUT in spending to help our dollar get stronger as well as other things. But that, I think, is a pipe dream.

Guru
07-31-2008, 10:11 PM
At this point, I don't support anyone. I like Bob Barr but that is a wasted vote.

Thig Lyfe
07-31-2008, 10:12 PM
Obama, because I'm not a huge fan of running the country into the ground for another 4-8 years.

2bikemike
08-01-2008, 02:22 AM
I think I'm going to vote for Joe Walsh is he running again?

Seriously I am less than pleased with our choices. However I think I will have to vote for McCain. As has been said he will choose the better Supreme Court Justices. And we need a republican to counter balance the other democratic controlled house and senate.

I think both candidates suck ass.

knowmo3
08-01-2008, 04:19 AM
This is a joke isn't it?

No I stand by what i said..... "Obama doesn't have the credentials for the presidency. I have never seen a presidential candidate who is as unqualified as Obama."

Friendo
08-01-2008, 05:41 AM
Way back in the 2000 election, I voted for Gore, but based on what he presented himself as, I thought "maybe this Bush feller won't be so bad. Seems like a Moderate, and not a Party Ideologue, and especially coming off that re-diculous bullsh*t the Cons just took us through, the country needs a "Uniter", and someone who understands the need to heal". Couldn't have been more wrong about the guy and his henchmen. In retrospect, I see peeps blame Bush for the rotten fruits of his administration, but despite this guy violating many so-called fundamental Conservative tenants, they support this fool nonetheless. Taking the wider view, the Republican Party has (since the early nineties/late eighties) become a Party defined mostly by who and what they hate, and unabashedly beholden to big business, at the expense of the entire Country. These back-room planners in fact have contempt for many of the sheep they manipulate/recruit to keep them in power. In that process, I have found myself in debates described as a "Leftie/Lib", when in many ways I consider myself a Moderate. I'm not just voting against Bush/McCain, and for Obama in this election, but nearly everything this modern version of bastardized Republicanism that it has become over the last 25 or so years. Dems aren't perfect by a long stretch, and I wish we had more choices too, but making a choice between these two Parties doesn't require much analysis AT ALL.

SBK
08-01-2008, 06:08 AM
It's a great day for America when these two bums are our best and brightest. Currently I support no one.

***SPRAYER
08-01-2008, 06:14 AM
I think I'm going to vote for Joe Walsh is he running again?



Ever since he sobered up, he hasn't run.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 07:37 AM
I think it's because it's easier to be a liberal justice than a conservative one. Liberal justices get to rule on a whim and on the basis of what they personally think is good while conservatives are limited by their understanding of a fixed constitution.

Don't tell the liberals around here I said that though or they'll give birth to a cow of indignation.

I think this is naive. I think too many of Rs are not really committed small govt types, or even know what that means anymore.
Just look at that quiz and where some Rs on this board scored.

tiptap
08-01-2008, 07:53 AM
No surprise. I like Obama. I like voting for someone who has LITTLE ties to special interests. Not that he is completely clean. But much more than being married, literally, to monied interests WITH a history. I like voting for someone younger. It gets some of the interests and concerns of a different generation involved. It is clear a Democratic Congress in in play. With all the problems we cannot afford a split government.

I am not afraid of higher taxes. Don't like them but compared to Republicans that can't pay for there choices, let someone else do it. Democrats will make the hard choice of raising taxes. Most want see it. I on the other hand will see the rise in taxes both SS and income. But I am confident those funds will address the needs I feel strongly about. And it isn't being militant in the world. It is revamping our own infrastructure to meet the 21st century.

penchief
08-01-2008, 07:57 AM
I'm supporting McCain
because he understands that it's bad for our country to voluntarily lose wars,
because he is proud and protective of our national sovereignty to a greater degree than his opponent (I have to qualify that because I'm not sure where he'd go with his global warming position),
because he is the candidate most likely to restrain spending and keep taxes low,
because he is a free trader whose policies will help our business climate instead of pandering to populist notions at the expense of our international competitiveness (again with a big question mark about how his global warming position will play out),
because he will appoint better judges than his opponent, and
because both houses of Congress will have substantial democrat majorities

How's that worked out for us so far?

penchief
08-01-2008, 08:00 AM
Obama doesn't have the credentials for the presidency. I have never seen a presidential candidate who is as unqualified as Obama.

Uh, George W. Bush comes to mind.

penchief
08-01-2008, 08:03 AM
Reluctanly will vote for McCain:

McCain will do less to the American citizen.
McCain will tax us less.
McCain no earmarks compared to Obama's $98,000,000
McCain administration will run the war more responsibly.
McCain will make better judicial appointments Rather have Alitos than Ginsbergs
Look at associations-Wright, Acorn, Ayers, are very troublesome
I think McCain is more apt to bring his wacky immigration views into line of what Americans believe is acceptable
McCain most likely with better on energy-Nuclear power, Drill now, while we seek better alternative feul-Obama recommends inflating your tires.
Obamas "level the playing field" , fix all social injustices, expand hate crime legislation; makes me nervous

gotta run but that's a few

I suppose you like what has happened over the last eight years, too? The same promises will yield the same results. Make way for more corporate fascism coming down the pike.

penchief
08-01-2008, 08:05 AM
No I stand by what i said..... "Obama doesn't have the credentials for the presidency. I have never seen a presidential candidate who is as unqualified as Obama."

Uh, except George W. Bush.

penchief
08-01-2008, 08:07 AM
Way back in the 2000 election, I voted for Gore, but based on what he presented himself as, I thought "maybe this Bush feller won't be so bad. Seems like a Moderate, and not a Party Ideologue, and especially coming off that re-diculous bullsh*t the Cons just took us through, the country needs a "Uniter", and someone who understands the need to heal". Couldn't have been more wrong about the guy and his henchmen. In retrospect, I see peeps blame Bush for the rotten fruits of his administration, but despite this guy violating many so-called fundamental Conservative tenants, they support this fool nonetheless. Taking the wider view, the Republican Party has (since the early nineties/late eighties) become a Party defined mostly by who and what they hate, and unabashedly beholden to big business, at the expense of the entire Country. These back-room planners in fact have contempt for many of the sheep they manipulate/recruit to keep them in power. In that process, I have found myself in debates described as a "Leftie/Lib", when in many ways I consider myself a Moderate. I'm not just voting against Bush/McCain, and for Obama in this election, but nearly everything this modern version of bastardized Republicanism that it has become over the last 25 or so years. Dems aren't perfect by a long stretch, and I wish we had more choices too, but making a choice between these two Parties doesn't require much analysis AT ALL.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Amazing how people will vote against their own interests even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

knowmo3
08-01-2008, 08:43 AM
Uh, except George W. Bush.

Bush was the governor of Texas for I don't know how long. And his father happened to be president. He has/had much more experience in politics than Obama does.

Its funny.... Everybody loved Bush when he took such a hard stance after September 11th... He even got reelected.... What changed your minds? The liberal media??:hmmm:

irishjayhawk
08-01-2008, 08:54 AM
No surprise. I like Obama. I like voting for someone who has LITTLE ties to special interests. Not that he is completely clean. But much more than being married, literally, to monied interests WITH a history. I like voting for someone younger. It gets some of the interests and concerns of a different generation involved. It is clear a Democratic Congress in in play. With all the problems we cannot afford a split government.

I am not afraid of higher taxes. Don't like them but compared to Republicans that can't pay for there choices, let someone else do it. Democrats will make the hard choice of raising taxes. Most want see it. I on the other hand will see the rise in taxes both SS and income. But I am confident those funds will address the needs I feel strongly about. And it isn't being militant in the world. It is revamping our own infrastructure to meet the 21st century.

That's one of my biggest issues too.

Bush was the governor of Texas for I don't know how long. And his father happened to be president. He has/had much more experience in politics than Obama does.

Its funny.... Everybody loved Bush when he took such a hard stance after September 11th... He even got reelected.... What changed your minds? The liberal media??:hmmm:

Everybody turned to Bush after 9/11 because he was the leader. He betrayed the unity to pursue Iraq. That's where the dislike comes in.

And the reelected part, well, how can 59,000,000 be so dumb? Oh, and you'll likely find a contingent that will tell you the election was stolen for the second time. I'll leave the proof up to them.

penchief
08-01-2008, 08:55 AM
Bush was the governor of Texas for I don't know how long. And his father happened to be president. He has/had much more experience in politics than Obama does.

Its funny.... Everybody loved Bush when he took such a hard stance after September 11th... He even got reelected.... What changed your minds? The liberal media??:hmmm:

The governor of Texas is pretty weak to begin with. And he only got it for the same reason he got every other opportunity in life (his daddy's name). He was a failure at just about everything he did. He was an alcoholic and a cocaine addict, he silver-spooned his way out of Viet Nam only to evade his Guard service like some self-entitled ingrate.

If he had been a democrat he would have been the worst candidate in history. But since he is a republican he is now the worst president in history.

Everyone was already sick of Bush before 9/11. His presidency was quickly becoming a joke like everything else he had ever touched. The general public disagreed with his ideology and policies. His approval ratings were rock bottom. He did a good job at Ground Zero but that is where it stopped. He took all of the international good will and pissed it away. And he used the WOT as a political tool to impose the very policies that were unpopular before 9/11.

But for those of you who want more of the same destructive policies of the Bush Administration, by all means vote for John McCain. Unfortunately, I don't think the country can take another four years of running it into the ground.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 08:56 AM
Bush was the governor of Texas for I don't know how long. And his father happened to be president. He has/had much more experience in politics than Obama does.

Its funny.... Everybody loved Bush when he took such a hard stance after September 11th... He even got reelected.... What changed your minds? The liberal media??:hmmm:

I'm a conservative who rarely watches liberal msm and it was:
Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, doing it based on false intel either out of corruption or incompetence ( doesn't matter), his liberal spending, his needing his arm twisted to nominate relatively conservative SCJ's, unconstitutional actions, massive use of Keynesian economics reducing the value of the dollar to fund his war un-doing his tax cuts, excessive secrecy, making terrorism worse, and lack of results in Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden.


All that with past experience too. Does anyone need to say anymore?

irishjayhawk
08-01-2008, 08:57 AM
I'm a conservative who rarely watches liberal msm and it was:
Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, doing based on false intel either out of corruption or incompetence ( doesn't matter), his liberal spending, his needing his arm twisted to nominate relatively conservartive SCJ's, unconstitutional actions, massive use of Keynesian economics reducing the value of the dollar to fund his war un-doing his tax cuts, excessive secrecy, making terrorism worse, and lack of results in Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden.


Does anyone need to say anymore?

Grasp on the English language?

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 08:58 AM
I edited. I edit after I post not in preview mode.

Now quit being an ass.

knowmo3
08-01-2008, 09:07 AM
Weapons of mass destruction or not... Going to Iraq was the right thing to do. We are just setting up a killing zone over there, so they don't come over here. And the plan has worked. How many attacks have we had on American soil since 911? We need to stay in Iraq until we kill every single one of those towel heads.

Obama knows this.... He just does not say it.

The only thing Obama will do, is raise taxes.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 09:13 AM
Weapons of mass destruction or not... Going to Iraq was the right thing to do. We are just setting up a killing zone over there, so they don't come over here. And the plan has worked. How many attacks have we had on American soil since 911? We need to stay in Iraq until we kill every single one of those towel heads.

Obama knows this.... He just does not say it.

The only thing Obama will do, is raise taxes.

That's a load of propaganda that we've been through here over and over.
The plan has not worked, since binLaden/AQ is stronger than ever as it has regrouped and are in the Pakistani border area.
That and Iraq was a red herring from the get go; was a hijack from seeking the guilty perpetrators of 9/11.

You're just another Kool-Aid drinker.

penchief
08-01-2008, 09:18 AM
That's a load of propaganda that we've been through here over and over.
The plan has not worked, since binLaden/AQ is stronger than ever as it has regrouped and are in the Pakistani border area.
That and Iraq was a red herring from the get go; was a hijack from seeking the guilty perpetrators of 9/11.

You're just another Kool-Aid drinker.

I'll let you handle this one.

mlyonsd
08-01-2008, 09:38 AM
That's a load of propaganda that we've been through here over and over.
The plan has not worked, since binLaden/AQ is stronger than ever as it has regrouped and are in the Pakistani border area.
That and Iraq was a red herring from the get go; was a hijack from seeking the guilty perpetrators of 9/11.

You're just another Kool-Aid drinker.

Stronger than ever? Would you like grape or cherry?

***SPRAYER
08-01-2008, 09:42 AM
Stronger than ever? Would you like grape or cherry?

http://theimaginaryworld.com/pac01.jpg

whatsmynameagain
08-01-2008, 09:46 AM
Stronger than ever? Would you like grape or cherry?

hey pot, how's the kettle?


Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 09:51 AM
Stronger than ever? Would you like grape or cherry?

Those are the facts per Michael Scheuer the former head of the binLaden counter terrorism unit and expert on the ME. Since he's been correct so far about everything including the lack of wmd, I'll continue to rely on his data since the Bush administration's data as all turned out wrong. That's what is meant by drinking the Kool-Aid. Continuing to believe despite what was said earlier.

AQ has regrouped in Pakistan...the Taliban is making a comeback. Oh and the AQ in Iraq is not the same as the original one. They pledged to it later. We've been through this all before.

Anyone who thinks that making Iraq's borders porous bringing in foreign fighters who just want to kill Americans has worked is living in the Matrix and thinks it's real. Controlling that damage is what we've had to do. That's not victory...which was never defined and has had its goal posts moved repeatedly.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 09:55 AM
http://theimaginaryworld.com/pac01.jpg

Has binLaden and his top right-hand man been caught or have they surrendered? No. Is AQ and their heads in safe haven in Pakistan? Yes.

They were located in Central Asia during 9/11. They weren't in Iraq and they're not in Iran either. We did Iran a favor getting them out of Afghanistan. Iran hates AQ. But that's the next battleground?

Have another glass of that Kool-Aid!

mlyonsd
08-01-2008, 10:06 AM
Those are the facts per Michael Scheuer the former head of the binLaden counter terrorism unit and expert on the ME. Since he's been correct so far about everything including the lack of wmd, I'll continue to rely on his data since the Bush administration's data as all turned out wrong. That's what is meant by drinking the Kool-Aid. Continuing to believe despite what was said earlier.

AQ has regrouped in Pakistan...the Taliban is making a comeback. Oh and the AQ in Iraq is not the same as the original one. They pledged to it later. We've been through this all before.

Anyone who thinks that making Iraq's borders porous bringing in foreign fighters who just want to kill Americans has worked is living in the Matrix and thinks it's real. Controlling that damage is what we've had to do. That's not victory...which was never defined and has had its goal posts moved repeatedly.

Regroup doesn't mean they are stronger. If they were they'd have control of Afghanistan. I'm not doubting they are stronger than 2002, it's just you make them sound like they're about ready to take over Afghanistan.

Also, they were spanked pretty handily in Iraq. Not the same fighters true, but those committed to the cause. The combination of Iraqi's standing up to them with our backing shows they can be beaten. Stronger than ever? Naw.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 10:13 AM
Regroup doesn't mean they are stronger. If they were they'd have control of Afghanistan. I'm not doubting they are stronger than 2002, it's just you make them sound like they're about ready to take over Afghanistan.
That wasn't my intention...but the Taliban is in resurgence for sure. I think if we had done what we had to a result there, instead of doing Iraq that we could more rightly claim some victory.

Also, they were spanked pretty handily in Iraq. Not the same fighters true, but those committed to the cause. The combination of Iraqi's standing up to them with our backing shows they can be beaten. Stronger than ever? Naw.
So what? If they're not the same and wouldn't have gotten in there without our making the borders porous first. That's where the illogic is.

My point is having the need to do that was all extra, and unecessary activity. Very inefficient. Wasteful in dollars, oil and human life for us and Iraqis. It violates Just War doctrine. It selects the wrong target. Like getting a flat tire and kicking a nuisance dog. It's been nearly 7 years now. So to think it was necessary is drinking the Kool Aid. But we've been through this whole debate on this board endlessly before.

tiptap
08-01-2008, 01:24 PM
Weapons of mass destruction or not... Going to Iraq was the right thing to do. We are just setting up a killing zone over there, so they don't come over here. And the plan has worked. How many attacks have we had on American soil since 911? We need to stay in Iraq until we kill every single one of those towel heads.

Obama knows this.... He just does not say it.

The only thing Obama will do, is raise taxes.

9/11 were Saudis and Egyptian. They had been trained in Afganistan. We were about were we are now in Iraq at a billion a year. And you invade Iraq at the cost of 12 billion per month at a cost of a trillion dollars. Lost of thousands of additional Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

IT IS A DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN.

Chiefnj2
08-01-2008, 01:27 PM
9/11 were Saudis and Egyptian. They had been trained in Afganistan. We were about were we are now in Iraq at a billion a year. And you invade Iraq at the cost of 12 billion per month at a cost of a trillion dollars. Lost of thousands of additional Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

IT IS A DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN.

Didn't you hear? If McCain is president he knows exactly how to get Bin Laden, he just doens't want to tell anyone what the plan is yet so he catches Bin Laden off guard. It's like KC's vanilla offense in preseason.

penchief
08-01-2008, 01:36 PM
Didn't you hear? If McCain is president he knows exactly how to get Bin Laden, he just doens't want to tell anyone what the plan is yet so he catches Bin Laden off guard. It's like KC's vanilla offense in preseason.

Yeah, I saw that. That was another stellar McCain moment. Lord help us.

patteeu
08-01-2008, 01:39 PM
Not trying to mischaracterize your statements. If I did, I apologize. Now, you cite Joe Lieberman who is - truth be told - neither party's claim. And Hitchens isn't a surprise because you love his stance on the war. In fact, you'll only listen to people with his stance on the war when it comes to things like torture being bad.

I don't see how being opposed to the war translates to voluntarily wanting to lose the war. Can you clarify what "voluntarily wanting to lose the war" means and what actions would indicate that position? I don't think anyone actively wants us to "lose".

Sure. If you want to retreat from the war while we are losing instead of trying to win it, you are voluntarily choosing to lose the war. Obama clearly falls into this category as do most of our nationally elected democrats, some conservatives (e.g. Ron Paul) and many of the people in this forum. The only caveat I'd add to that is that some of the people in this forum might be able to plead ignorance as to the natural results of the actions they endorse.

Whoa whoa, there. But was the spending the democrats wanted justified. Likewise, were the cuts the republicans wanted justified. For example, I contend you'd be for more spending if it was being spent on say, troop armor.

The problem I have with the conservative party line is this: they cut taxes while outspending the cuts. You only bring on debt when you spend more than you take in. That's my major beef with your party's line. Bush spent billions and CUT taxes. That can't happen. But then when someone RAISES taxes and RAISES spending, it some how throws a red flag for people. Hell, what we really need right now is a RAISE in taxes and a CUT in spending to help our dollar get stronger as well as other things. But that, I think, is a pipe dream.

The spending I'm talking about is spending for things like No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug entitlement. In both cases and in many others, democrats argued for spending even more than the crazy amounts that Bush proposed. The only thing I can think of that some democrats wanted to spend less on, or nothing at all, was funding for the troops in the combat zones of Iraq.

patteeu
08-01-2008, 01:50 PM
I think this is naive. I think too many of Rs are not really committed small govt types, or even know what that means anymore.
Just look at that quiz and where some Rs on this board scored.

You must be reading something into my post that wasn't there. I'm not saying that every R is a committed small govt type, but surely you don't think that liberal justices and disappointingly inconsistent justices like Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, O'Conner, Blackmun, Burger & Warren are/were there because the Rs who nominated them secretly wanted a more liberal court? Maybe in a few cases, they were looking for something more moderate than a Bork, Thomas, or Scalia, but not a Souter. Surely Ronald Reagan's hopes for Kennedy and O'Conner were not fulfilled.

My explanation for this type of disappointment is that once on the court, a Justice can give in to the easier, ego-stroking path of liberal jurisprudence rather than sticking it out as a conservative. Indeed, some of them may not have been all that conservative to begin with, but it's hard to tell what a judge from a lower court (who is bound by the rulings of superior courts) will do when he has a free hand to interpret the constitution on his own.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 02:07 PM
I went back and re-read my post. I just thought it was naive to think it was easier to be a liberal. Now that I've had coffee and food throughout my day, I guess it is easier to make it up as you go.

Still, what I should have said, is that I don't think it's that simple a reason with a conservative being chosen. I mean Rs think the Heller case was a big deal and it really wasn't.

bigfoot
08-01-2008, 05:36 PM
I suppose you like what has happened over the last eight years, too? The same promises will yield the same results. Make way for more corporate fascism coming down the pike.


I like lower taxes, the appointment of Alito and Roberts to the SP, like some aspects of the war on terror. I don't like goverment spending like a dunken sailor, the way immigration is handled or mishandled, Ramos and Compean being in prison. I hate the way the administration keeps kissing Saudi butt.

If we can get enough true statesmen/women in congress the prez will be less relevant.

And I think Obama's ideology is closer to that of Farakkhan than Jefferson or Lincoln.

penchief
08-01-2008, 06:02 PM
I like lower taxes, the appointment of Alito and Roberts to the SP, like some aspects of the war on terror. I don't like goverment spending like a dunken sailor, the way immigration is handled or mishandled, Ramos and Compean being in prison. I hate the way the administration keeps kissing Saudi butt.

If we can get enough true statesmen/women in congress the prez will be less relevant.

What is more important is what the government spends its money on. I'm as much a fiscal conservative as any liberal you'll see. However, I believe there is a benefit to investing in our infrastructure, health care, education, and jobs. I think that the government can do a good job preserving the infrastructure and the commons without having to spend excessive amounts of money. As a society, we can expect a return on that investment.

Where we run into real trouble is when we start throwing money away on things that yield no return for the common good. For example, huge tax loopholes for corporations that contribute as little as they can back to the system that provides them the opportunity to pursue unlimited wealth. Whether that contribution be in taxes, jobs, or responsible behavior.

Another example is throwing money away for things like the Medicare drug benefit that was designed only to funnel great gobs of taxpayer money into the hands of private insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies (in other words corporate welfare). Medicare was an example of a program that was doing exactly what it was supposed to do on half the budget until Wall Street saw a way to get rich off the taxpayers. Corporate welfare is far more expensive than public welfare.

Another good example is the endless occupation of Iraq. It is nothing but a boondoggle for the oil companies and the war profiteers on the taxpayer's dime.

The problem isn't so much all the rhetoric about "tax and spend" as much as it is about the reality of "borrow and spend." The righties are spending more than the lefties ever did and they're leaving the burden for your children and grandchildren to bear. And they are doing so in an intentional effort to funnel taxpayer money to huge corporations while starving the people's government so that the people's government is so weakened that it is incapable of representing the people's will.

patteeu
08-01-2008, 06:13 PM
Those are the facts per Michael Scheuer the former head of the binLaden counter terrorism unit and expert on the ME. Since he's been correct so far about everything ...

Is he right that we need to start killing jihadists more ruthlessly and in higher volumes too? Something tells me that your heroes are only selectively "correct... about everything".

irishjayhawk
08-01-2008, 09:06 PM
Sure. If you want to retreat from the war while we are losing instead of trying to win it, you are voluntarily choosing to lose the war. Obama clearly falls into this category as do most of our nationally elected democrats, some conservatives (e.g. Ron Paul) and many of the people in this forum. The only caveat I'd add to that is that some of the people in this forum might be able to plead ignorance as to the natural results of the actions they endorse.

CAn you define "win" then? It seems as though leaving is automatically losing. Even if they don't want us there.



The spending I'm talking about is spending for things like No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug entitlement. In both cases and in many others, democrats argued for spending even more than the crazy amounts that Bush proposed. The only thing I can think of that some democrats wanted to spend less on, or nothing at all, was funding for the troops in the combat zones of Iraq.

And funding education is something you don't like? (And I HATE NCLB)

I just have a beef with the REpublican party line: spend and cut. At least the Democrat line is spend and raise. It at least makes fiscal sense.

Ultra Peanut
08-01-2008, 09:20 PM
Weapons of mass destruction or not... Going to Iraq was the right thing to do. We are just setting up a killing zone over there, so they don't come over here. And the plan has worked.
http://i36.tinypic.com/2r3b2mw.gif

bigfoot
08-02-2008, 12:29 PM
Well put by Thomas Sowell

"Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain."

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 03:24 PM
Well put by Thomas Sowell

"Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain."


Says it all, really.

HonestChieffan
08-02-2008, 03:33 PM
Obama is like a hollow chocolate easter bunny....nothing more than just a thin shell with no substance.

penchief
08-02-2008, 06:14 PM
Obama is like a hollow chocolate easter bunny....nothing more than just a thin shell with no substance.

Uh, he's shown a lot more substance than anything the republican party has put up in years.

RJ
08-02-2008, 06:29 PM
Obama is like a hollow chocolate easter bunny....nothing more than just a thin shell with no substance.



Damn, it's tempting to go all Redrum with that, but I'll resist.

SBK
08-03-2008, 04:16 PM
Uh, he's shown a lot more substance than anything the republican party has put up in years.

LMAO, Penchief pwns.

Iowanian
08-03-2008, 04:26 PM
I'll hold my nose and vote McCain.

He's at least a little conservative, has served his country for a long time, has significant experience in the senate and having been a POW, I believe he would be responsible with military use of force.

I don't dislike Obama. I extremely dislike his politics. He is limited in experience partly due to tenure and age, but due to the amount of time running for office. I very much dislike his tax related thinking, I dislike his association with a racist church, I dislike his views on gun control, and I disapprove of his willingness to chat up abberjabbercrombie in iran.

He's just not my guy.

Hydrae
08-03-2008, 04:42 PM
Write in for the only man I think can fix things in this country, Ron Paul.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 04:44 PM
I'll hold my nose and vote McCain.

He's at least a little conservative, has served his country for a long time, has significant experience in the senate and having been a POW, I believe he would be responsible with military use of force.

I don't dislike Obama. I extremely dislike his politics. He is limited in experience partly due to tenure and age, but due to the amount of time running for office. I very much dislike his tax related thinking, I dislike his association with a racist church, I dislike his views on gun control, and I disapprove of his willingness to chat up abberjabbercrombie in iran.

He's just not my guy.

In other words, you're a raythitht.