Blah Blah Blah Dems vs Repubs.

[Flustrated]

Every other thread in D.C. bashes Obama or McCain, and all of this arguing is completely meaningless. It's the exact same arguments used in Regan vs Carter, Clinton vs Bush, and Bush II vs Gore/Kerry.

So while all of this arguing takes place nothing really gets better for "We the people." The two party system is broken. Both of the candidates have good points sometimes and both make themselves look like idiots at times pandering to constituancies. I really can't believe that the only credible thread as of late has been from Paris Hilton.

How does that make you feel Dems and Repubs?! U both just got WTFPWNT by an airhead slut...LOL.

[Direckshun]

Exactly how would you fix the system so that only nice things are said?

[noa]

I generally agree. I think it sucks how often we side with an issue based on what the party line is.
Still, even without the two-party system, politicians will still be pandering idiots who accomplish very little but talk a big game. Politics is a racket. The politicians have incentive not to accomplish all their goals because they can keep making promises they won't fulfill so long as it gets more money in their campaign accounts and puts them in power longer. The two-party system is a part of the problem, but even a multi-party system wouldn't fix things as long as we have career politicians writing our laws.

[Direckshun]

Still, even without the two-party system, politicians will still be pandering idiots who accomplish very little but talk a big game.
:grr:

[Flustrated]

Exactly how would you fix the system so that only nice things are said?

I don't really care about "nice or Mean" but arguing over inflating tires for 2 weeks is rediculous. It really means nothing, and just wastes time that could be used to solve REAL problems.

[jAZ]

McCain realized the only way to win was to go back on his promise for a respectable campaign and "go negative" on Obama. The change came when he shook up his initial campaign staff and brought in Rove to advise and his proteges to run the campaign.

It was inevitable I guess. Not so much the maverick anymore.

[HonestChieffan]

Seldom do people want to understand an issue. Nor do they try to understand where the issue comes from and have a care about why the proposed solutions do or do not seem to fit.

[HonestChieffan]

McCain realized the only way to win was to go back on his promise for a respectable campaign and "go negative" on Obama. The change came with his shook up his initial campaign staff and brought Rove and his proteges to run the campaign.

It was inevitable I guess. No so much the maverick anymore.



a prime example of jumping from a reasonable question to politicizing it within the framework of a campaign.

[jAZ]

a prime example of jumping from a reasonable question to politicizing it within the framework of a campaign.

The facts are somehow unreasonable now?

The tone of the campaign changed dramatically 2 weeks ago based on McCain's shift. That's just reality.

[Radar Chief]

I don't really care about "nice or Mean" but arguing over inflating tires for 2 weeks is rediculous. It really means nothing, and just wastes time that could be used to solve REAL problems.

:LOL: I’m sorry, I know you’re sincere, but what “real problems” do you think are being solved on a freak’n Internet bulletin board?

[noa]

:LOL: I’m sorry, I know you’re sincere, but what “real problems” do you think are being solved on a freak’n Internet bulletin board?

Our capabilities seem to be limited to problems that can be solved by anti-freeze

[Radar Chief]

The facts are somehow unreasonable now?

The tone of the campaign changed dramatically 2 weeks ago based on McCain's shift. That's just reality.

Do you really think this was a clean campaign until just 2 weeks ago? :bong:

[Flustrated]

The facts are somehow unreasonable now?

The tone of the campaign changed dramatically 2 weeks ago based on McCain's shift. That's just reality.

Facts? What facts? I have yet to see any clear concise plan for the economy or our reliance on foriegn oil from either candidate. That's my point.

[HonestChieffan]

I dont think the thread is in keeping with your post is all. Is it that hard to move away from your bias and the immidiate campaign and deal with the broader question? If you have to frame every discussion in a McCain/bad, Bush/evil, Obama good then discussions of real substance will never take place.

[BucEyedPea]

Every other thread in D.C. bashes Obama or McCain, and all of this arguing is completely meaningless. It's the exact same arguments used in Regan vs Carter, Clinton vs Bush, and Bush II vs Gore/Kerry.

So while all of this arguing takes place nothing really gets better for "We the people." The two party system is broken. Both of the candidates have good points sometimes and both make themselves look like idiots at times pandering to constituancies. I really can't believe that the only credible thread as of late has been from Paris Hilton.

How does that make you feel Dems and Repubs?! U both just got WTFPWNT by an airhead slut...LOL.

:thumb:

Neither party, as they currently exist, have at least half their ideas that are much good or really take us in another direction. There is too much media conglomeration and control over ideas....which is the only two represented by each party. There is too much difficulty in getting ballot access for other parties. We have a leadership crisis. And not enough ideas are being discussed. There are some things in each party to support but just not enough. Neither of them really stand for Americanism, but two old European systems: Euro Socialism and/or Euro Mercantilism/Fascism.

[mlyonsd]

McCain realized the only way to win was to go back on his promise for a respectable campaign and "go negative" on Obama. The change came when he shook up his initial campaign staff and brought in Rove to advise and his proteges to run the campaign.

It was inevitable I guess. Not so much the maverick anymore.

Actually it was pretty cordial until Obama repeatedly misrepresented what McCain said regarding Iraq and 100 years. I guess the old guy doesn't take kindly to being lied about.

[BucEyedPea]

I thought what Obama said about McCain and Iraq was fair and pretty accurate. Obama could have made it even worse by running the You Tube video on how Mac wanted more wars. Obama, imo, is not hitting Mac hard enough on these points. He needs to act more aggressively instead of playing too nice by trying to be above the old politics. The public follows the line of attack. Unfortunately, that does work.

[mlyonsd]

I thought what Obama said about McCain and Iraq was fair and pretty accurate. Obama could have made it even worse by running the You Tube video on how Mac wanted more wars. Obama, imo, is not hitting Mac hard enough on these points. He needs to act more aggressively instead of playing too nice by trying to be above the old politics. The public follows the line of attack. Unfortunately, that does work.

Well, you'd be flat ass wrong too then.

[Baby Lee]

I thought what Obama said about McCain and Iraq was fair and pretty accurate.
Obama wildy mischaracterized McCain's statement, positing that McCain advocated active warfare in Iraq for the next 100 years.
I was so shocked the first time I saw it alleged that I asked for confirmation.

[HonestChieffan]

So much for a discussion of substance

[Flustrated]

So much for a discussion of substance

I loved Ron Paul's views on our military presence abroad. Not only would that help our economy tremendously, it would also help our image throughout the world.

[HonestChieffan]

Id rather focus on what that image is...and why...and is it even a meaninful issue...not on RP's stand or Obamas opinion, or what McCain thinks.

If we cannot have a discussion on energy without mentioning this candidate or that candidate, we wont ever develop an understanding of the issue itself. That is true on economy, energy, or any other issue of importance.

[mlyonsd]

Id rather focus on what that image is...and why...and is it even a meaninful issue...not on RP's stand or Obamas opinion, or what McCain thinks.

If we cannot have a discussion on energy without mentioning this candidate or that candidate, we wont ever develop an understanding of the issue itself. That is true on economy, energy, or any other issue of importance.

Your answer lives in the brain of Paris Hilton.

[Flustrated]

Id rather focus on what that image is...and why...and is it even a meaninful issue...not on RP's stand or Obamas opinion, or what McCain thinks.

If we cannot have a discussion on energy without mentioning this candidate or that candidate, we wont ever develop an understanding of the issue itself. That is true on economy, energy, or any other issue of importance.

I agree with your premis, but these are our leaders (like it or not) when they have ideas that make sense I like to discuss them. Obama's domestic energy policy is pretty sound as far as investment in new technologies and the use of nuclear energy, but his idea of taxing oil companies is horrible and will only lead to higher costs in the short term.

McCain, as far as I can tell, has no plan other than the status quo which will only deepen our country's financial woes and keep our military in the Middle East for a LooooonG time.

[BucEyedPea]

Obama wildy mischaracterized McCain's statement, positing that McCain advocated active warfare in Iraq for the next 100 years.
I was so shocked the first time I saw it alleged that I asked for confirmation.

He just took his statement alone without further elaboration. He used in a manner which is no different than what the other side does. People still don't want that Korean paradigm either. And when one considers Mac's other "more wars" statement that doesn't exactly show he's not for more active warfare, just elsewhere. So deaths and casualties would continue. Considering these points, Obama's selection of that one statement, still reflects Mac's general views. Depends on how one wants to look at it. But calling it "wildly mischaracterized" is itself a mischaracterization imo.

[Flustrated]

Your answer lives in the brain of Paris Hilton.

Sad isn't it? :shake:

[BucEyedPea]

Well, you'd be flat ass wrong too then.

On which part? Anyhow, that's just your opinion. I happen to teach advertising as one class and the public does follow the line of attack. Being on the defense too much is not a winning strategy. And yes, that is a fact. Works even for Public Relations.


It is also a fact that Mac wants more wars, and I posted a YouTube of him saying as much. His whole life is tied up with the military. That and he has Rude-y's former advisors all of them super hawks wanting to attack Iran, and/or wanting a ww to conquer and restructure the ME. He has the worst of the warmongers all over him. He's bad for America.

[HonestChieffan]

The real issue is that Energy policy is divided into two basic and very fundamental categories.

First is dealing with the current state of global, not just US, dependence on oil for transportation. Like it or not the US is covered up in cars that use gas and diesel. They wont go away soon. And replacing internal cumbustion engines is a huge issue whe one considers the economics of buying new technology( that does not yet exist or exist affordably and on any scale)...and having a replacement for the internal cumustion engine that will do waht ICE's do so well and so cheaply. Even if a new alternative was available today at 5pm, it will take years and years to move to a point where non oil dependent transportation substantially replaces what is on the road today.

For the immidiate term and what impacts Americans today in their pocketbooks is to deal with the supply of oil, the source of that supply, and the impact on trade imbalances and domestic employment. In reality, domestic production is needed and needed at a much higher level than we currently produce. Oil companies, regardless of your hatred for big oil, will be the ones to find the oil, extract it and make it into a useful product...thats why they are called the "oil business". And any increase in US production that reduces dependence on foreign sources and thus reduces trade imbalances is good for the economy and the dollar. Bottom line is we need to get our oil production up for economic as well as strategic stability reasons. The current political climate of using oil production and exploration as a tool to promote a multitude of other unrelated agendas is criminal.

That said, the move to explore and develop domestic oil production should have zero to do with the second fundamental issue of technology development and sourcing other forms of energy in new, novel, clean and renewable ways. This is not a game where we only get to pick one solution. Politics makes the game seem that way and Americans are falling for that line of reasoning like lemmings going over a cliff because the lead lemming does it.

Technology development is part of the issue and using what we already know is the second. The tecnology in nuclear is fundamentally different today than when the early reactors were developed and put on line. No one wants to deal with cleaner new technology becuase it fits the anti nuclear groups better to make people believe the new will be dirty and filled with danger like the old was said to be. Its Hogwash. France developed cleaner nuc's years ago and we dont have any howls of anguish over their nuclear waste disposal...wonder why?

We have clean coal technology and we are awash in available coal in the US. But can we gain approvals to build coal fired clean plants? Ask Gov Sebelius why. She must have some good reason.

We can use solar and it offers huge opportunity. Its well known that solar, properly used can power a great deal of the energy needs we have in many homes today. We have had on grid solar for years. You dont even need to to store it...when its sunny and producing it powers your needs and when production exceeds use, it goes back into the grid (credit applied to the solar owners bill). Solar probably offers the fastest opporunity we have to move off of non renewable sources.

Last is our energy to power vehicles. Its simple to say we can do X by time horizon Y if you are a politician. Fact is politicians do damn little and even less do they do well. A new technology will not be found on the floor of the house. But ask yourself, if it were so easy, why didnt European car makers come up with a fix? They have gas $4 gas and $5 diesel for years when we had sub $1 gas. Wouldnt one think if there were an easy breakthrough we would have it? The profit incentive to displace oil is huge. It would change the face of an economy and the balance of power in the world in a heartbeat. Can we find a way? I believe we can given the focus and time to do it. But in the next 4, 8, or 12 years...not likely. But you have to satrt now and never give up.

To fix this it has to be decoupled from political maneuvering and games in congress and by presidential candidates. If we continue to frame every position in the light of how it impacts our favorite party, candidate, or our pet issue (whales, owls, pandas,raptors, global warming, global cooling, the fate of the bungeefish or name your "thing") we will never break free from our own internally created constraints and will continue to mire deeper into the muck.

[RJ]

Global warming/Climate change

An issue based on science.

Yet everyone I know that has an opinion on the issue lines their opinion up with their political views, then goes looking for some science that validates that opinion.

Crazy stuff. We are a very divided bunch.

[banyon]

So much for a discussion of substance

As if you've not been contributing to the problem?

[jAZ]

Facts? What facts? I have yet to see any clear concise plan for the economy or our reliance on foriegn oil from either candidate. That's my point.

John McCain, his advisors and his surrogates here all tried this week to ridicule his Obama and get the public to believe that Obama's energy plan is nothing but tire guage.

This is Obama's energy policy.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Barack Obama’s Plan

Reduce the Burden of Rising Gas Prices on Working Families

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Barack Obama has called on the President to enact a second round of economic stimulus to immediately put tax rebates in the pockets of American families to pay for rising energy prices. As president, Obama will enact a tax fairness agenda that provides 150 million workers a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of $500 per person or $1,000 per working family.
Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation

Fully Close the “Enron Loophole”. One of the reasons our energy market is particularly vulnerable to excessive speculation is the so-called “Enron Loophole” which prevents the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from fully overseeing the oil futures market. As president, Barack Obama will fully close the Enron loophole by requiring that U.S. energy futures trade on regulated exchange to crack down on any excessive speculation in the energy market.
Ensure That U.S. Energy Futures Cannot be Traded on Unregulated Offshore Exchanges. Barack Obama will limit the price impacts of excessive speculation by preventing traders of U.S. crude oil from routing their transactions through off-shore markets in order to evade speculation limits and also impose reporting requirements.
Work with Other Countries to Coordinate Regulation of Oil Futures Markets. Barack Obama believes we must work with our other countries to establish uniform approaches to avoiding excessive speculation in commodities futures markets. This effort will help ensure that as the U.S. strengthens oversight and transparency in U.S. exchanges, these efforts are not undermined by overseas trading subject to lax regulations.
Call on the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to Vigorously Investigate Market Manipulation in Oil Futures. Barack Obama does not believe we cannot afford to wait weeks and months more to vigorously investigate whether energy traders and oil companies manipulating the market at the expense of consumers. He is calling on the FTC to immediately expedite its investigation into market manipulation, including in the oil futures markets.Enact a Windfall Profits Tax on the Top Grossing Oil Companies and Ease the Burden on American Families: The oil industry has profited greatly—over $150 billion in 2007—due to global instability fueled by conflict in Iraq, failing domestic fiscal policies that have weakened the U.S. dollar and skyrocketing global demand resulting from a lack of investment in alternatives. Barack Obama supports imposing a windfall profits penalty on oil selling at or over $80 per barrel. Revenue from the proposal will be invested in a number of measures to reduce the burden of rising prices on families.
Require Oil Companies to Use Existing Drilling Leases: The 68 million acres of stockpiled leases have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production. The Obama plan would force oil and gas companies to either produce or pay a fee on unused federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling.
End Oil and Gas Industry Tax Breaks: Obama has called for repealing the oil and gas industry tax breaks that President Bush himself has said himself are unnecessary given today’s strong market incentive for expanding exploration and production.
Cooperate with Oil Importing Nations to Reduce Demand: As new large oil importing nations come on the market, the United States is at the mercy of an ever more volatile oil market. Obama believes we should use existing organizations, like NATO, to make energy security a shared global goal. We should take steps to engage the largest new consumers, China and India, including by inviting them to join the International Energy Agency.
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050


Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.Invest in a Clean Energy Future


Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.Support Next Generation Biofuels


Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.Set America on Path to Oil Independence

Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030


Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storageRestore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change


Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.

[HonestChieffan]

God knows cutting and pasing the positions of either candidate is not developing a dialog on the fundamental issue

[jAZ]

Actually it was pretty cordial until Obama repeatedly misrepresented what McCain said regarding Iraq and 100 years. I guess the old guy doesn't take kindly to being lied about.

It was equally cordial until 2 weeks ago.

[SHTSPRAYER]

God knows cutting and pasing the positions of either candidate is not developing a dialog on the fundamental issue


Geez, are the O-bots still doing that?

:doh!:

[banyon]

God knows cutting and pasing the positions of either candidate is not developing a dialog on the fundamental issue

Threads begun by "Honest" Chieffan just in the last week:


Obama's Muslim Outreach Coord quits


HuffingtonPost Story..not good for Obama ( 1 2 3 4)


Phoney-O now says he did play race card ( 1 2 3 4 5)

Health Care Obama Style


Obama wont do the Town Halls with McCain Now ( 1 2 3 4)

What is scarey is Obama actually believes ... ( 1 2)

[HonestChieffan]

While ammusing to you, perhaps you would return into the thread and invest some effort to understand the thread you are posting in. It may be to much to ask but its worth asking nonetheless

[Chief Henry]

Threads begun by "Honest" Chieffan just in the last week:


Obama's Muslim Outreach Coord quits


HuffingtonPost Story..not good for Obama ( 1 2 3 4)


Phoney-O now says he did play race card ( 1 2 3 4 5)

Health Care Obama Style


Obama wont do the Town Halls with McCain Now ( 1 2 3 4)

What is scarey is Obama actually believes ... ( 1 2)



He's still about 2 million threads behind Jiz.

[banyon]

While ammusing to you, perhaps you would return into the thread and invest some effort to understand the thread you are posting in. It may be to much to ask but its worth asking nonetheless

What is it you think I don't "understand" about this thread?

[Chief Henry]

It was equally cordial until 2 weeks ago.


Barry is a rock star, No ? The news media portrayed him to be this rock star
in Germany, No ? I can't beleave how the looney left has there panites in a wad because of a TV add comparing there messiah to Paris Hilton. They must fear the truth in the add.

Hopeadope for a change good people...

[HonestChieffan]

What is it you think I don't "understand" about this thread?

Most of it.

[banyon]

Most of it.

Based on what?

[StcChief]

Our capabilities seem to be limited to problems that can be solved by anti-freezeso cat extinction and keeping cars from overheating... that's a start :D

[ROYC75]

Getting 10,000 politicians to think alike is just as impossible as getting 40 million Americans to air up their tires.

Each one has their own opinions, they treasure it, value it to the point they won't budge in their beliefs.

Thus , To each his own ..........

[BucEyedPea]

Getting 10,000 politicians to think alike is just as impossible as getting 40 million Americans to air up their tires.

Each one has their own opinions, they treasure it, value it to the point they won't budge in their beliefs.

Thus , To each his own ..........

Another reason for govt to stay small and limited....it makes our world less contentious simply by disallowing the political classes into too many areas of our lives.

[HonestChieffan]

Based on what?

Maybe its fruitless to do this and you are just baiting me. But for the sake of fun Ill explain...

It seemed the originator of the thread was stating that usually the conversation here seems to degrade into "my guy" vs "your guy" or "my preconcieved notion of you as a poster makes anything you say irrelevent or brilliant". And in the process discussion on issues becomes silly and irrelevent.

That was supported in short fashion by jaz who immidiately made it an Obama vs McCain thread...in a manner attempting to ignore the original intent and bring his spin into play making it a candiate issue.

A few attempts were made to try to make it an issues discussion and to move it away from your guys position or my guys position.

You came in rather late in the game and made a not so subtle attempt to make some point regarding a point I had made and had clearly not read the thread or attempted to add anything of real substance other than a silly statement regarding one post I had made followed by listing some posts from other threads that had nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

Now I have fallen for the bait you threw.

But the point remains, when we can discuss issues that are not then framed by positions one candidate has vs another, and truely focus on an issue, then there may be merit in a discussion. But when the discussion is watered down with silly references to demean the points made by any one poster and and are not focused on the issue in play, it just becomes the same old same old.

Its not a problem if substance and discussion is to be avoided. We are all proven to be good at that. But if a discussion of substance is taking place then either attempt to add to it and plus the discussion or keep you comments in threads where they are more fitting.

[banyon]

You came in rather late in the game and made a not so subtle attempt to make some point regarding a point I had made and had clearly not read the thread or attempted to add anything of real substance other than a silly statement regarding one post I had made followed by listing some posts from other threads that had nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

.

ROFL

I'm always game for a level-headed discussion. I just don't know that I've ever seen you participate in one.

[HonestChieffan]

ROFL

I'm always game for a level-headed discussion. I just don't know that I've ever seen you participate in one.

Thats a side of you I have yet to observe

[bunnytrdr]

Every other thread in D.C. bashes Obama or McCain, and all of this arguing is completely meaningless. It's the exact same arguments used in Regan vs Carter, Clinton vs Bush, and Bush II vs Gore/Kerry.

So while all of this arguing takes place nothing really gets better for "We the people." The two party system is broken. Both of the candidates have good points sometimes and both make themselves look like idiots at times pandering to constituancies. I really can't believe that the only credible thread as of late has been from Paris Hilton.

How does that make you feel Dems and Repubs?! U both just got WTFPWNT by an airhead slut...LOL.
Change the constitution or shut up.