Obama or McCain or Beemerboy?

[crispy]

I was gonna write a novel to show you obama supporters that you're just voting for him because of what you've seen on TV and just how uninformed you are. "We need change" and stuff like that is just stupid. What are we gonna change to? I think that has already been brought up.

 

I will vote for McCain because he is not a socialist. He will not have socialized medicine and will not pull out of Iraq. I can understand why yall don't like us being in iraq but it would be a complete douchebag move on our part if we just left the country now. Isn't it much safer over there now tho? Maybe we're almost done there.

 

Much safer in Iraq? I'd go as far as saying as it was much safer in Iraq before we invaded. To say we're almost done there is an absurd statement. What have we done? What are we doing? What have we accomplished in the many years we have occupied that country?

 

You should know why we were sold the war. We were told a) Iraq was involved with 9/11 b) they had connections with Al Qaeda, and c) they had weapons of mass destruction. None of that is true.

 

And please sense my sarcasm when I say... it's a good thing we did invade Iraq. Halliburton received all of the contracts to rebuild and liberate this nation, and that's where the moneys at. Not money we will see, however, but money that will line the pockets of the rich and corrupt, like Dick Cheney himself. It's a shame, however, some people still don't realize.

 

And now, because of the policies, and immoral war, started by our current president, we have one of the worst economies in the history of the US. We are in a recession, the value of the dollar is plummeting, gas prices are skyrocketing, and a depression like we have never seen before is looming over us. Picture a future where you will have to roll wheelbarrows full of money to buy a gallon of milk, and a gallon of gas costs over $10. This is a very real not so distant future.

 

And I prelude all of that to say McCain is more of the same. His answer to the oil crisis is to drill for more oil even though that will do more harm than good, and any miniscule effect it has on prices will not be seen for over a decade. Funny, he's willing to sell out the marine environment to keep with the oil-guzzling status quo. He's another corporate wh*re, willing to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes... for all of the wrong reasons.

 

First, on McCain, have you ever read his history, and some of the things he;'s about

 

Even now he disagree's with his own party on global warming and is pushing for cleaner alternatives, that does not exclude drilling to help ease the current situation as we move forward

 

Now on to Iraq

 

Iraq was ruled my a murderious dictator who, duiring his rule killed hundreds of thousand of people.

 

Although the intelligence that started the war was incorrect, everyone who voted for the war should share equal blame if you hate it so much

 

In the end, the U.S. should do the honorable thing and leave Iraq in a state where it truely can stand on its own, we did destroy the infstructure of the country, now we need to put it back together and give it back to the peope of Iraq.

 

Now onto the current economic situation

 

How you can link the War to the current credit crisis is beyond me, either its just mad hatred of Bush, or you are choosing to ignore the fact that the war is pumping billions into our own economy

 

The current economic situation was caused by two thing

 

crude oil futures going through the roof, thanks to forcasters who were wrong, so all those wonderful allies in the middle east just made a boat load of money

 

Fannie Mae and Freddie mac, and the adjustable mortage, these companies were giving away loans to people who should not have them, and the whole country is now paying the price, kinda like the dot com bust, do you remember that, Clinton was blamed for that, but in reality the president has very little true power over the economy.

 

And if you think this is some of the worst economic times, you must be pretty young, gas crunch of the 70's, stock market crash 1987, dot com bust, they were all bad times, and not significantly worse of better than our current situation

[Team Thriller]

 

Much safer in Iraq? I'd go as far as saying as it was much safer in Iraq before we invaded. To say we're almost done there is an absurd statement. What have we done? What are we doing? What have we accomplished in the many years we have occupied that country?

 

You should know why we were sold the war. We were told a) Iraq was involved with 9/11 b) they had connections with Al Qaeda, and c) they had weapons of mass destruction. None of that is true.

 

Okay, first off, I've been a Military brat since I was born. I can tell you that YES, almost all those little things you mentioned are in a way true.

 

1.) If someone who had a record of killing people threated to kill you, would you just ignore it. We didn't.

2.) Your ignorant remarks really makes me mad because I've had friends parents die over in Iraq, and your complaining because you think we are over there for no reason. Saddam Hussain killed innocent people, we went in to help.

You are basing your facts over what you hear in the media, which isn't the best choice in the world because of course they want to report interesting news, which is usually the bad side of every situation.

 

Before you make ignorant remarks, why don't you talk to people who are actually over in Iraq that have reported seeing factories that...OMFG! make weapons.

 

I'm sorry to come of rude and mean, but my whole life revolves around the military. And when people like you say we are doing all this for no reason, it really pisses the hell out of me.

 

--James "ignorant people make me mad and your whole post puts you in that catergory" Flint

[cfc]

This is a friendly warning. For the most part, this thread has remained remarkably civil considering its topic. But the tone is starting to change.

 

Please refrain from any name calling or flaming. And if you're going to make any blanket claims regarding one side or the other, it would behoove you to provide some documentation to back it up.

 

Thank you,

 

Chuck

[Team Thriller]

^

Sorry about that. I just really needed to get that off my chest.

I just found it kind of offensive that cherrydrink was bad mouthing people who gave their life for the country and saying it was for no reason.

I'll try and not make it so harsh next time.

 

--James

[carolinacaniac]

I plan to vote for Obama, although I will say there are a few things I disagree with that he stands for, gun control being the biggest. I married into a family that has more guns in their house than people, and if I thought along the lines I used to think a few years back, I would have been horrified about the idea. There was someone who mentioned before the idea of Law Abiding citizens not being able to protect theirselves and loved ones from those who obtain guns illegally. Melissa's dad and step-mom are bother very responsible with the guns they own, and use them for hunting and personal protection.

 

Now why would I vote for him? I believe it was Wes who earlier said that he is kind of like a breath of fresh air or something like that. I feel that it would be great to have someone who has not been corrupted by lobbyists and the such, which was a reason I did not support Hillary, since a good portion of her campaign was covered by major Health Care industry companies.

 

I also like the sense of personal responsibility that he speaks of. He gave a speech at one point where he said that there are too many young men who father children, and insted of being responsible, they run so that they can continue to be like boys. He also tells anyone that he has a meeting with that anything he says can be on the record, that nothing has to be held as secretive.

 

As for McCain, I don't personally know how much I trust a guy that claims to be great in foriegn policy when he constanly mixes up different groups of people in the Middle East, or refers to Vladimir Putin as "The President of Germany" (For those who may not know, Putin is the President of Russia). I also don't care for how he dodges questions that may seem minor to some, but could pose a major problem to others.

 

He was asked by a reporter a question about his vote on what I believe was medicaid, for an issue that pertained to the lack of coverage birth control, while it does cover Viagra. His response was something along the lines of "Uh.......well, I would rather not get into that one." When the reporter asked why he voted against the coverage of birth control,he simply said "I do not recal that particular vote." I see a problem with this response as it shows his lack of willingness to disscuss the issue.

 

Last thing I want to mention on this post is in regards to Mike Huckabee. He was the one Republican who caught my interest. He spoke of an idea for helping stimulate the economy was to add a lane each way on I-95. Someone on here before mentioned what the benefits of this would be, which included the added jobs for those doing the construction work, the possible new businesses that might open near by. Those construction workers would also eat lunch, so some of them may go to near by resturants for their meals. There are other benefits that could go along with this as well. I know that being a frequent user of I-95, it would be nice to have another lane of travel so that there would be some lower spots of congestion.

 

Where Huckabee lost me was his Fair Tax Plan. While I am not sure where I stand on what kind of balance to have on progressive vs. regressive taxes, I know Huckabee's plan isn't it. What he was calling for was to eliminate the IRS and the income tax, and replace it with a 20-25% sales tax. He tried to sell the idea by saying that you wouldn't have to deal with the IRS anymore, and that you were not punished for making more money, an so on. But let us look at what would be the results of this plan. Say you want to buy a bottle of Coke, priced at $1.50. Add in the Fair Plan Sales tax (we'll say 20%) and it is now a $1.80 bottle of Coke. Cool, that isn't a big difference. Say you get a $300 game system, it is now $360 with the Fair Tax. Now say you want to buy a $20,000 car, under the fair tax it is now a $24,000. If you want to buy a $230,000 home, it becomes a $276,000 house. You also would pay more interest for the extra $46,000 to cover the taxes

 

With the Fair Tax Plan, you are not "punished" for earning money, but rather "punished" for spending it. It also would make it much easier to put the Federal Government into a financial Crisis if people stop spending money.

 

 

Personally, I am all for a National Monorail Network!!!!!!

 

-Gary "was anyone else reminded of Mr Rogers when Huckabee talked?" T.

[Jew]

BeemerBoy:

 

what is your stance on crime? Being that you are a Miami fan, I am led to believe that you are not tough on crime. Please elaborate.

[ParkTrips]

^ LOL, but don't forget FSU

 

Not really my area, sorry. I remember reading that France pays physicians quite poorly and also that Canada does pretty well in compensation. I think I read that the UK does well also.

When you compare cost of living and pay I fully believe the US is near the top! I think you said it best..

 

All I know is we have to take several thousand foreign medical graduates each year to fill all the primary care residency seats.

Why are so many skilled physicians from the east coming to the US? maybe because its a free market system that pays really well on average?

 

no med school isn't cheap, nor is it easy, and its certainly not the profession you want to go into if you want to make a ton of money without doing a ton of work (this is why I'm not looking to practice medicine, I'm lazy).. but its still a solid career

 

 

Aussie medical practitioners get paid an average of $171,312 AUD per year..or about $150,000 USD per year

(Keep in mind, to get a medical degree costs far less here $50,000-$60,000 AUD)

which is probably about average in the US, maybe a little better than average if just limiting it to general physicians.. but how does your cost of living compare?

 

But what if the money went towards better things on home soil, like roads, industrial equipment, new technology etc...you'd create jobs for the people building/manufacturing these things, but at the same time you'd get another round of jobs created and greater profitability for existing businesses, because these things help with efficiency , expand productive capacity and so on.

road construction is already a huge industry, just ask residents of Pennsylvania, I don't think we need much more of that

 

but you are right, especially in the sense that those are more long-term, sustained industries.. but thats not to say the war is a downturn for the economy, its just lost potential. Sure we could find other ways to spend the money, but its already money that we don't even really have hence the deficit. The government spends to much money.

 

 

Where Huckabee lost me was his Fair Tax Plan.

to be fair, I believe he only supported it because someone told him to. He became a baffled idiot anytime someone questioned him about it. Huckabee was grossly uninformed and not ready to take the issue to the national level.

 

While I am not sure where I stand on what kind of balance to have on progressive vs. regressive taxes, I know Huckabee's plan isn't it. What he was calling for was to eliminate the IRS and the income tax, and replace it with a 20-25% sales tax. He tried to sell the idea by saying that you wouldn't have to deal with the IRS anymore, and that you were not punished for making more money, an so on. But let us look at what would be the results of this plan.

 

Say you want to buy a bottle of Coke, priced at $1.50. Add in the Fair Plan Sales tax (we'll say 20%) and it is now a $1.80 bottle of Coke. Cool, that isn't a big difference. Say you get a $300 game system, it is now $360 with the Fair Tax. Now say you want to buy a $20,000 car, under the fair tax it is now a $24,000. If you want to buy a $230,000 home, it becomes a $276,000 house.

but that bottle of Coke would go down in price. Every bottle you buy has Coca-Cola's corporate taxed embedded in them. Sure, they could keep the price where it was and rake in huge profits, but all it takes is one producer with the Wal-Mart mentality of selling more for less to realize they can drop the price to where they maintain their pre-Fair Tax levels of profit margin. They would increase sales since they would be 20%+ cheaper than everyone else.. thus making even more money until the competition also comes down in price.

 

Your $1.50 Coke would likely settle right back at $1.50 after the Fair Tax were approved, and thats the price you would pay (pricing would be similar to European VAT in that the tax would be included in the price you see)

 

Also the tax only applies to new goods, so pre-existing homes and used cars wouldn't be subject to the tax!

 

It also would make it much easier to put the Federal Government into a financial Crisis if people stop spending money.

Which does not, nor will not, happen.

[gisco]

In a interview this weekend Obama pretty much summed up why I'm not for him. He was asked his views on abortion, he is pro abortion. It was what was said after that gives me the reason why I won't vote for him or most Democrats. He said the the government needs to do more to combat teen pregnancy. That's funny, I thought that would be a parental issue. What happened to personal responsibility?

 

For me that is what differentiates the two parties, the Democrats feal that the federal government is their savior. The federal government can solve everyones problems, retirement, health care, education, etc. These issues really should be solved at the local level.

 

For the record, neither party is doing a bang up job in Washington.

[california screamin]

I'd like to throw in my two cents here.

 

I am currently studying to become a marine biologist, and the environment is one of my biggest concerns. I feel that protecting the environment is the most important thing we humans can do for the world. That is why I am voting for Obama in the 2008 elections.

 

I am against the republicans for many reasons — from denying California a routine waiver to institute stronger automobile emissions rules to the EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gases, to Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol, and most importantly, Bush's horrendous overhaul of the endangered species act of 1973.

 

(Read more about Bush's overhaul of the ESA here - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1832164,00.html - It's a very short and well written article so I'd suggest that republicans and democrats who care about the earth's future read it.)

 

I feel that with less than six months in office remaining, the Bush administration is trying to destroy as many established environmental protections while it still has the chance. The damage could take years to repair, and a republican in office certainly would not help.

 

This is why I encourage everyone I can to vote for Barack Obama.

[Kalepi_Konei]

^ I recognized that too, it seems like the Busch administration is trying to fix things at last minute, and its destroying alot of hard work and effort that actually made a difference.

 

Honestly as long as the president is worried about OUR country and fixing up things like Katrina and any other issues that may reek havoc on us, instead of worrying about things like North Korea then I'm fine with him.

[ginzo]

It was what was said after that gives me the reason why I won't vote for him or most Democrats. He said the the government needs to do more to combat teen pregnancy. That's funny, I thought that would be a parental issue. What happened to personal responsibility?

 

Bush has been trying to combat teen pregnancy by funding abstinence education at the federal level. So, I don't really think this example illustrates a distinct difference between the parties.

[Gav]

why don't you talk to people who are actually over in Iraq that have reported seeing factories that...OMFG! make weapons.

Are there any weapon factories in the US?

 

but how does your cost of living compare?

It's pretty much the same as the US, perhaps slightly more expensive, but still significantly lower than Europe etc.

 

Now, with the issue of a flat tax rate for all...I'm sort of drawing on what I learnt in yr12 economics...not university level stuff, but I do understand stuff.

 

Most governments pursue the economic goal of equity in income distribution....Now, this is not to say everyone gets an equal income, because that's communism, rather it's just evening things out to a chosen extent, because at the end of the day there is only a set amount of money and resources in the economy.

There is no doubt that people should be rewarded for hard work.

But the issue occurs when things become too inequitable....the crime rate increases, slums start forming, people cant afford to meet their basic needs etc.

 

A progressive tax system helps even this out...those without much money to begin with pay less tax, receive government handouts (In Australia, the only way to claim unemployment benefits is to prove you are looking for a job/ be undertaking education of some sort) and can access subsidised/free government services that are the equivalent of extra income.

Those on higher incomes pay more tax because they can afford it, and don't really use government provided services as much.

 

Dunno, maybe if someone was trying to sell progressive taxation, say the people in the highest tax bracket pay the normal amount, and the low income earners are getting a discount

 

If you have a flat tax system (everyone pays the same % of their income) you're not doing much to address inequity. Its also is a bit difficult to manage things that way. If the chosen tax rate is too high then some people will be left with very little...if you made it low enough for everyone to be able to pay the Government wouldn't be able to collect enough money to do what it needs to do.

 

As for that sales tax thing proposed, yeah we've got a 10% GST on everything we buy (Except for fresh foods/basic foods, education, health services.

Some things became cheaper, some became more expensive, a bit hard to gauge though because when it came in it replaced a large number of other taxes and state taxes.

It has it's pros and cons...it can help keep inflation under control because its directly levied on spending.

 

It can be regressive though. Say a rich person and a poor person both buy their weekly groceries...they would have to buy the same base line amount in order to feed themselves, and as such would both end up paying about the same amount of tax. For the poor person a greater portion of their income is therefore going as tax (Because buying groceries represents a larger portion of income for poor people)

You can get around this buy not taxing certain things (as outlined above)

But at the end of the day its still going to target people who have less leftover money after making ends meet.

[ParkTrips]

^ I don't know how it is in other nations, but the Fair Tax bill which has been put in front of Congress calls for everyone to get a monthly check to cover the tax that would be used to buy essential items like food. It's based on family size, not income or anything else. I would get $200 a month, a family of four would get more than $500 a month. fairtax.org has a ton of info if you are interested since what I've said here is only a fraction of the idea

 

It's not an income tax, its a consumption tax. The more you buy, the more you pay, but at the same sales tax rate. Now, the wealthy are of course going to spend more (afterall you can never have too many sports cars), and still be filling the treasury more than anyone else.

 

from denying California a routine waiver to institute stronger automobile emissions..

California wants even tougher emissions standards? They already have the toughest in the world!

 

instead of worrying about things like North Korea then I'm fine with him.

you can't just be a pacifist either.. no I'm not saying that war is good, and that we need to lob missiles at Pyongyang, but if nobody keeps them in check, they could become a huge problem. Look at how World War II started.. appeasement of German actions just escalated a couple minor problems into a huge war

[ginzo]

appeasement

 

Ha. I can't hear that word without thinking of this gem:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMklhX74_w

[Moose]

It was what was said after that gives me the reason why I won't vote for him or most Democrats. He said the the government needs to do more to combat teen pregnancy. That's funny, I thought that would be a parental issue. What happened to personal responsibility?

 

Bush has been trying to combat teen pregnancy by funding abstinence education at the federal level. So, I don't really think this example illustrates a distinct difference between the parties.

 

The key difference is that the dems tend to support more than just abstinence education. It is a far more realistic approach. Notice I said MORE THAN. Meaning abstinence is still the goal, but it also gives kids information on what to do when they decide to have sex. It helps limit pregnancy and spread of std's. Neither of which is doing all that well under the current abstinenece only education.

 

Also, it would be great for parents to teach their kids this, but that isn't working so well. Many parents tend not to do it at all or will give kids flat out wrong information.

[cfc]

^"Abstinence-only" policies represent yet another "foolish consistency." While they make members of the religious half of the right wing happy, such policies do little to combat teen pregnancy--but they do help foster ignorance about contraception.

 

A study in the UK showed that parents do need to start talking with their children at age 11 about sex and relationships; by the time the kids reach age 15, it's probably too late.

 

Parental responsibility is important--but I think more enlightened government policies (divorced from religious beliefs) are needed, too.

[mcjaco]

What happened to personal responsibility?

 

I think we can all agree that American's gave up on that idea years ago.

 

I blame you, Bob.

[Coaster Palooza]

I'm glad I found this thread. I looked at it over the weekend and I think this has been a great topic! The points have been debated well. I am amazed at how civil everyone has been, given the passion that this topic would start.

 

I voted for Scott in the poll.

 

I will vote for McCain in the election. There are a number of reasons and most of them have been posted by everyone, so I won't bore you with a long read.

 

Thanks for the topic!

[gisco]

It was what was said after that gives me the reason why I won't vote for him or most Democrats. He said the the government needs to do more to combat teen pregnancy. That's funny, I thought that would be a parental issue. What happened to personal responsibility?

 

Bush has been trying to combat teen pregnancy by funding abstinence education at the federal level. So, I don't really think this example illustrates a distinct difference between the parties.

 

The key difference is that the dems tend to support more than just abstinence education. It is a far more realistic approach. Notice I said MORE THAN. Meaning abstinence is still the goal, but it also gives kids information on what to do when they decide to have sex. It helps limit pregnancy and spread of std's. Neither of which is doing all that well under the current abstinenece only education.

 

Also, it would be great for parents to teach their kids this, but that isn't working so well. Many parents tend not to do it at all or will give kids flat out wrong information.

 

Exactly, the Democrats feel it is the Federal Governments responsibility to solve the problem. More inefficient government, more money down the drain.

[BeemerBoy]

I say implement a law which would heavily penalize the parents of underage kids should either party (the son or daugther) be responsible for a teenage pregnancy or STD. Threaten the parents' wallets, and then let's see how many start taking the time to talk to their kids at an early age.

 

 

 

BeemerBoy:

 

what is your stance on crime? Being that you are a Miami fan, I am led to believe that you are not tough on crime. Please elaborate.

 

LOL. As for the crime issue, this administration would stand strong against crime. My plan is to talk with Dave Thomas about possible new punishment plans for 1st offenders of serious crimes. You heard that right, America. The way I play ball, you don't get three strikes. One and done. And done would mean facing the wrath of carnivorous bees, chainsaw-weilding bears, etc.

 

With that said; however, the University of Miami would continue to be allowed to recruit from only the finest juvenile detention centers as long as it produced national championships. I'd also consider re-implementing Luther Campbell's old "Pay for Play" policy.

[Guest]

With that said; however, the University of Miami would continue to be allowed to recruit from only the finest juvenile detention centers as long as it produced national championships.

 

I voted for Ron Paul, dont know who I will vote for in the election. Probably niether McCain nor Obama.

[Moose]

Exactly, the Democrats feel it is the Federal Governments responsibility to solve the problem. More inefficient government, more money down the drain.

 

Technically, wouldn't the absolutely ineffectualy republican abstinence only education be more inefficient and wasteful?

 

The costs of both are basically the same but there is alot more return for the buck when there is more to the "education" than just "Don't have sex, sex is evil."

[cherrydrink]

Okay, first off, I've been a Military brat since I was born. I can tell you that YES, almost all those little things you mentioned are in a way true.

 

1.) If someone who had a record of killing people threated to kill you, would you just ignore it. We didn't.

2.) Your ignorant remarks really makes me mad because I've had friends parents die over in Iraq, and your complaining because you think we are over there for no reason. Saddam Hussain killed innocent people, we went in to help.

You are basing your facts over what you hear in the media, which isn't the best choice in the world because of course they want to report interesting news, which is usually the bad side of every situation.

 

Before you make ignorant remarks, why don't you talk to people who are actually over in Iraq that have reported seeing factories that...OMFG! make weapons.

 

I'm sorry to come of rude and mean, but my whole life revolves around the military. And when people like you say we are doing all this for no reason, it really pisses the hell out of me.

 

--James "ignorant people make me mad and your whole post puts you in that catergory" Flint

 

Your argument is flimsy, at best.

 

1.) Saddam didn't threaten to kill us, nor did he threaten to attack us, nor did he have the ability to do so. Iraq posed absolutely NO threat to us, at all.

 

2.) We didn't invade Iraq to liberate a country. We were told that we were invading Iraq because they were harboring weapons of mass destruction, etc. None is true. Once this was proven false, Bush all of a sudden changed the point of the invasion into some kind of humanitarian liberation effort. As for you're "WMD factories"... I'm not gonna take some here-say as proof. And believe me, if weapons of mass destruction we're found in Iraq, we'd hear all about it in the media. I'd hardly call the current state of Iraq a liberation.

 

And yes, Bush did lie to the American public so he could invade Iraq. Before the invasion, CIA director George Tenet (on behalf of himself and many senior IA officers) briefed President Bush on intelligence that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush quickly dismissed it, and after the briefing it was never addressed again, nor was it included in the National Intelligence Estimate which stated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

 

And what about Osama Bin Laden, the real mastermind of 9/11? We still haven't captured him, and we have relatively little resources working to do so. So given this, it's mind boggling that some people still support the war, and are not outraged at this blatant misuse of the presidency on the part of Bush and his administration.

 

3.) have family in the military too.

[ginzo]

LOL. As for the crime issue, this administration would stand strong against crime. My plan is to talk with Dave Thomas about possible new punishment plans for 1st offenders of serious crimes. You heard that right, America. The way I play ball, you don't get three strikes. One and done. And done would mean facing the wrath of carnivorous bees, chainsaw-weilding bears, etc.

 

Dear Scott,

 

How would you deal with amusement parks that commit the crime of installing Vekoma coasters? Also, what about parks that trim their rides or run obnoxiously short cycles on their flat rides for no apparent reason?

 

Sincerely,

 

Ginzo

[mr_teisco_delrey]

 

Dear Scott,

 

How would you deal with amusement parks that commit the crime of installing Vekoma coasters? Also, what about parks that trim their rides or run obnoxiously short cycles on their flat rides for no apparent reason?

 

Sincerely,

 

Ginzo

 

Now we're getting to the meaty issues. With that, I will shelve my questions regarding bringing back Glass-Steagal and repealing Sarbannes-Oxley.