McCain?

[jackknife402]

1) The Cold War was a struggle between two first-world superpowers, not "Capitalism vs. Communism: The Final Showdown." The latter is called "propaganda," which, while helpful in rallying countrymen to a singular cause, is no longer viable today. We (the United States) won that war because we had more money to spend on defense, which indeed more than likely came from our capitalistic economy. But that only proves which ideology wins in a fight, not which one works better in everyday life.


5) Why would I call you a racist, when I could just call you an idiot? You look like you haven't looked any further than Fox News to get any facts, and your last statement only exacerbates that with some terrifyingly right-wing paranoia.

Actually the fall of the soviets was due to overtaxing their own resources to the breaking point, or that's what my current Western civilization text book says.

And the news channels I'm most apt to listen to are CNN and my local ABC news. Actually I've never stopped on Fox for more than a few minutes when they're covering a disaster or something. No, these are mostly my own observations and such. And I have been called racist for referring to Obama as a monkey so that's why I said it.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

The Patriot Act is something a Communist would think up if they didn't already live in a snoopy dictatorship.

Or Joe McCarthy.

-- Alex

I believe the phrase to use now would be "Ba-Zing".

 

[TomNook]

If anything, Obama is the one living in the fantasy land. He thinks giving giving people my money for doing absolutely nothing is going to make them want to succeed. Why bother trying when all I need is to get a government check every week. People need to make their own wealth, not take mine because they "deserve" it.

Given that they're both just talking about tax cuts (neither of which I particularly want to actually make its way into law), it's ludicrous to accuse one of trying to redistribute wealth like a communist.

-- Alex

Obama said he wants to cut taxes for the middle class increase them for people making over 250,00. Where do you think the extra cash for his national healthcare system is going to come from?

 

[Johnn Johnston]

If anything, Obama is the one living in the fantasy land. He thinks giving giving people my money for doing absolutely nothing is going to make them want to succeed. Why bother trying when all I need is to get a government check every week. People need to make their own wealth, not take mine because they "deserve" it.

Given that they're both just talking about tax cuts (neither of which I particularly want to actually make its way into law), it's ludicrous to accuse one of trying to redistribute wealth like a communist.

-- Alex

Obama said he wants to cut taxes for the middle class increase them for people making over 250,00. Where do you think the extra cash for his national healthcare system is going to come from?

I'd assume it would be from those that could afford medical insurance.

 

[Alex_P]

Obama said he wants to cut taxes for the middle class increase them for people making over 250,00. Where do you think the extra cash for his national healthcare system is going to come from?

The cash for any government expenditure pretty much comes from tax revenue, saved-up tax revenue from the past (we have none), and deficit spending.

Y'all are acting like income taxes are some novel idea that Obama wants to impose because he's a rabid socialist, rather than a system that America has had for over a hundred years.

Making the wealthiest 1 or 5 percent pay roughly what they were paying back in Clinton's day isn't exactly highway robbery.

-- Alex

 

[JMeganSnow]

The house of lords is a heredatort role . . .

. . . that have been heredtory, and the rest are religious and law lords.

It's "hereditary", you bloody ignorant Brits! If you're going to invade this thread full of colonial yahoos at least spell it correctly! You're letting the side down!

O LOOK ITS SOMEONE WHO CANT UNDERSTAND A PUN!

hereditary is how its spelled.

But 90% of the old house of lords HEREDITARY piers were all TORYS.

PUT IT TOGETHER WADAYEH GET?

Fucking countryside hick.

So how do you explain "heredatort?" And I wasn't aware that you Brits use your gentry for building seaside docking facilities. That seems both harsh and inefficient.

If you could spell, you might be a wit. Without, at best you're a half-wit.

 

[Claytonic3000]

McCain actually has the potential to do something.

Nope, he doesn't.

If elected, McCain will be facing Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Hell, right now there's a good chance that the Democrats could get fillibuster-proof control of both houses.

Recent events have also shown that McCain is likely to have a lot of trouble controlling his own party. Remember that whole thing when he flew to Washington to pass the bail-out and then all the other Republicans decided it was a bad idea? Doesn't bode well for his ability to rally his own party around his legislative agenda.

So, the McCain tax cut and the McCain health plan and the McCain spending freeze are already dead regardless of who wins the election, because the legislature is going to be ridiculously hostile to any of those things.

As the executive, McCain would still have a lot of power over our actions in Iraq. His ability to really "do something" in Iraq is still going to be constrained by Congressional budgets, however.

So, what's left? Foreign relations and Supreme Court justices?

-- Alex

On the flip side of the coin, if Obama has a deomcractic controlled congress, the check and balance system is pretty much gone. The point of having the same amount of people from both sides is that you have to convince enough of them to agree with you before something gets passed. There has been times before, of course, when the congress majority was with the president, but that dosn't mean it's a great idea.

Yeah, things will get done, but democrats arn't the only people in this country, and it isn't fair for them to have that much power over everyone else. Both sides think they know better than the other, they don't. They both extreme opposites of eachother, not because thats how they were created, thats how they became. Republicans and democrats became the opposites of one another out of spite for the opposite side, it's petty rivalry, not actual concern for the public. Both sides think they have all the answers, and that the other side will be the downfall of the United States.

When it comes down to it, if there is little or no opposition in congress, then all the people who don't side with the democrats get screwed. If I come back a read a democrat say 'it's better for America this way, we know better' f-you pal. You don't know better, and neither do the republicans; but the fact that all those people who don't agree with the party in power have little to no say is BS. In fact I'm pretty sure that why the revolution was started.

As a final note here, the fact that there has been 2 party dominance for this long in the United States is sickening. We need more viable parties. Don't even come up to me and tell me your voting third party in this election, the media dosn't pay attention to those people and they will NEVER be elected as a result. Besides the fact that just 3 isn't enough parties. This isn't a game where you pick 'good, evil, or neutral' ala Fable (damn ads getting in my head), it's deciding who is going to lead your damn country. 3 Choices? F-that. I want at least 5 VIABLE choices.

 

[ellimist337]

We can cut the military spending by half and it will still be by far the area where the most money is spent; security isn't an issue.

WHAT?! Have you LOOKED at budget numbers at any point in the past 50 years? *By far* the largest expenditure category is middle-class welfare programs including Social Security and Medicare. Here's the Wikipedia page on the 2008 federal budget. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget] Defense spending (in which I'm including Global War on Terror, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland security) totals $700 billion--$500 billion LESS than the spending JUST on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are special appropriations which are supposed to come to something like $10 billion a month, which still leaves defense spending $380 billion shy of JUST the spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

I'm sure the people working in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 would sure be happy to know that "security isn't an issue".

Sorry for my mistakes, you are right. However, those things you listed that cost more than defense are (and they are listed this way on wikipedia, too, I believe) MANDATORY spending. Military tops DISCRETIONARY spending by far. That's money the government spends at its discretion, or by choice. Much of this ends up being necessary, because we need defense, education, and many of the things that discretionary money is spent on. However, the amount itself is what can be varied. So what I'm saying is that if you put together "The Global War on Terror" and "United States Dept. of Defense", or even if you keep them apart, they FAR outweigh any other category. Granted, some of the spending is very necessary. The military must be maintained and many people were and are (as I tend to be) behind the action in Afghanistan. It's just that there's preposterous amounts of spending there that many don't believe should be.

Notice also, Homeland Security is under an entirely separate heading, and it receives more than $590 BILLION less than "Defense" and "Terror." So, maybe we could take some of the extra and put it there. That security is separate, thus my "not an issue comment." Sorry if that came across wrong; I was not trying to belittle or demean anybody involved with 9/11.

 

[Alex_P]

On the flip side of the coin, if Obama has a deomcractic controlled congress, the check and balance system is pretty much gone. The point of having the same amount of people from both sides is that you have to convince enough of them to agree with you before something gets passed. There has been times before, of course, when the congress majority was with the president, but that dosn't mean it's a great idea.

Yeah, things will get done, but democrats arn't the only people in this country, and it isn't fair for them to have that much power over everyone else. Both sides think they know better than the other, they don't. They both extreme opposites of eachother, not because thats how they were created, thats how they became. Republicans and democrats became the opposites of one another out of spite for the opposite side, it's petty rivalry, not actual concern for the public. Both sides think they have all the answers, and that the other side will be the downfall of the United States.

When it comes down to it, if there is little or no opposition in congress, then all the people who don't side with the democrats get screwed. If I come back a read a democrat say 'it's better for America this way, we know better' f-you pal. You don't know better, and neither do the republicans; but the fact that all those people who don't agree with the party in power have little to no say is BS. In fact I'm pretty sure that why the revolution was started.

As a final note here, the fact that there has been 2 party dominance for this long in the United States is sickening. We need more viable parties. Don't even come up to me and tell me your voting third party in this election, the media dosn't pay attention to those people and they will NEVER be elected as a result. Besides the fact that just 3 isn't enough parties. This isn't a game where you pick 'good, evil, or neutral' ala Fable (damn ads getting in my head), it's deciding who is going to lead your damn country. 3 Choices? F-that. I want at least 5 VIABLE choices.

I'm far less threatened by a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress because, at the moment, the Democrats aren't the party of ideological purity. It's possible to disagree with the party line and still be a modern Democrat. Hell, you can be a party turncoat who swings to the center/right on almost every issue and endorses McCain and you still get to caucus with the Democrats.

Likewise, after years of a Republican president backed by a compliant Republican-majority Congress, I don't feel that bad about a few years of the reverse. If they fuck it up there'll be a huge backlash in two years.

Simply put, the party that gave us Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Phil Gramm, and the politics of fear deserves some time in the political wilderness.

-- Alex

 

[ShyWinter]

McCain = crazy
Palin = corrupt and power hungry

No way would I like to see either of them in office.

 

[Vigormortis]

I had a lot to say and quite a few posts to respond to, but JMeganSnow beat me to the punch and pretty much explained everything I was going to and then some. Very well said Megan.

As for my extra 2 cents, in response to shywinter:

Obama = so far left, doesn't even know there's a right. makes nothing but empty promises.
McCain = moronic tool. likes to be a maverick, but doesn't seem to know what he's doing
Biden = a malleable, easily dissuaded, lunatic that would likely stab a friend in the back
Palin = seemingly close-minded zealot. has experience, but the wrong views and ideals.

Lastly, Alex you can't honestly tell me that congress isn't in a worse state then it used to be since Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and the rest of her cronies have taken over.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Spoiler: This particular slip-up is my favourite McCain moment so far.

You know, I tend to vote conservative, and I STILL think that's hilarious.

My political position as of now is that McCain is a horrible choice, while Obama is a slightly more horrible choice. God bless America. What would I do without the freedom to choose between a turd sandwich and a giant-...

Well, you get the idea.

 

[Alex_P]

Lastly, Alex you can't honestly tell me that congress isn't in a worse state then it used to be since Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and the rest of her cronies have taken over.

Worse than a Republican Congress under Bush? Fuck no. Equally bad, at worst.

-- Alex

 

[Badabinski]

Fuck it, I'm voting independent.

 

[Claytonic3000]

Thing is, Alex, when you annex the party, you annex the people too. Your punishing the entire base of support for the mistakes of a handful of people.

What happens is a republican comes along and says "I have a really bad idea!" and then a democrat steps up and says "And I know how to make it even worse!"

- Lewis Black

 

[Alex_P]

Thing is, Alex, when you annex the party, you annex the people too. Your punishing the entire base of support for the mistakes of a handful of people.

"Annex"?

The Republican base could use a short time-out from politics, too. I was hoping their fear would die down by now, but it hasn't. Their fear damages our culture. Their fear endangers the people who are real targets.

-- Alex

 

[Claytonic3000]

Thing is, Alex, when you annex the party, you annex the people too. Your punishing the entire base of support for the mistakes of a handful of people.

"Annex"?

The Republican base could use a short time-out from politics, too. I was hoping their fear would die down by now, but it hasn't. Their fear damages our culture. Their fear endangers the people who are real targets.

-- Alex

Wrong word, sorry, but you got what I meant.

Their fear? So it's okay to completely dismiss peoples concerns because they are afraid of something? Even if they have concerns that have absolutely nothing to do with the object of said fear? You basically just said their opinions don't matter because they are afraid of something. No, you don't do that.

 

[Alex_P]

Their fear? So it's okay to completely dismiss peoples concerns because they are afraid of something? Even if they have concerns that have absolutely nothing to do with the object of said fear? You basically just said their opinions don't matter because they are afraid of something. No, you don't do that.

Yes, they need to cool their heels.

The political pendelum swung very far to the right just as the right was losing both its mind and its heart. Kicking it back over to the left for a short while isn't going to ruin everything. What's the worst that's going to happen? Are Democrats going to use their power to introduce MEGA-ABORTIONS or something?

What would you suggest? I vote for more failed policies just because some guy somewhere else has his hopes and dreams pinned to them?

-- Alex

 

[Claytonic3000]

No Alex, I'm not suggesting you do anything of that sort. What I am suggesting is that in a democractic process you cannot in any way discriminate against a voter, which you seem to be okay with. We have laws against that sort of thing for a reason. You vote how you want, thats what everyone does, and no one has any right to disvalue anyone elses vote.