One of My Friends opinions

[Sportsbuck]

In the news these days Senator Obama is generally heard in the same sentence as "change", and God(I use this as a phrase in no way wish to offend anyone haha) when you see one of his rallies you can hardly see Obama behind his banners that say "CHANGE". The thing is the "change" the Senator keeps referring to is not in fact change, but a shift in power with no new outcome. Senator Obama is no different than any other democrat, so he offers no more change from the current political catastrophe than Hillary or Edwards and LESS change than Senator McCain or Representative Paul.

Change means that when faced with something that goes against party lines but is inline with your beliefs you stick with your guns and vote against the party if you know it is good for your Nation. I fail to see anytime when Senator Obama has voted against his party, and thus fail to see a time when Obama has offered change from the current politcal mess that is American Politics. Now going off of that same definition of change: Senator McCain and Rep. Paul time after time again have offered change; not afraid to vote against their party if they felt it was wrong or would hurt America. So i ask you; who is really trying to change America? Senator Obama who offers the same old democratic policies? or Senator McCain who offers, yes republican, but "different" republican policies than his predecessors?

Many of you are saying to yourself "well at least Senator Obama is a democrat that has to account for something, doesn't it?" and my answer is no. What many people forget is that the two politcal parties in America have the same ends just different means, and since the ends justify the means does it really matter? no... Senator Obama wants to give federally funded health care, Senator McCain wants to do it on the state level; whats the difference as long as it gets done?

Anyway I wrote this because it really pisses me off when Obama says "change" and he really isnt any neew change. please take this into consideration when voting.

Figured Keeper and a lot of you would have fun with this one... FWIW this friend of mine is working on the McCain campaign so he's heavily biased as well.

[Freak93]

Both candidates are not great. Straight up. Frankly, I will be voting for Mr. Obama come election season. Also, the parties have same ends is bullshit. There are a lot of issues where Republicans and Democrats would not want the same outcome on.

[Buzz Killington]

Seems like your friend is helping campaign for the cause of political apathy, at least to me.

Also, third parties ftw.

[Keeper]

I'll write a response to this.

[JacktheRipper]

Aug 1, 2008 22:58:14 GMT -5 Keeper said:

I'll write a response to this.

Ditto

[detroitbasketball]

Bob Barr '08!

[Chief Bstn]

lol


politics.

[Keeper]

I want to start by talking about Senator Obama first, then I'll get to Senator McCain.

Over the past eight years, America has been knocked entirely off course by the most incompetent president in our nations history. We have been thoroughly failed by our government, on a scale that has been matched only a few times in our nations history. In these times, I think a candidate in a general election proposing an absolute departure from the failed policies of the current administration is certainly qualified to cite "change" as a theme in their campaign.

The notion that Senator Obama hasn't stood apart from his party on occasions is an absolute false one. Let us not forget that almost all Democrats signed on to the invasion of Iraq, while Barack Obama publicly opposed it. Since entering the U.S. Senate, he's stood apart from the Democratic caucus several times, most recently on FISA (in which he took a position that I absolutely disagree with). Of course, as with every member of Congress, on most occasions, they vote along their party lines (the parties do exist for a reason, after all).

The two parties in this country are not the same, unless you are looking at the political process from an anarchist perspective and no one on this forum is one, to my knowledge. The parties have two very different courses they envision for the nation. Also, the health care comparison I think we all can see its clearly untrue, both candidates see health care in different directions.

I've asserted on numerous occasions why I think Barack Obama is best suited to be our President. He was my second favorite candidate this year, and he is by no means perfect. There are plenty of policy differences I have from him. But I believe he is the best candidate the Democratic party has had since Bobby Kennedy in 1968, and I believe he can be an incredible president for this country. I can just copy and paste my letter to the editor I wrote today, but I think it's pretty clear by now why I support Senator Obama.

Now we need to talk about John McCain. If you asked me, in 2004, what Republican senators I respected, I could give you three names, and unfortunately no more. Arlen Spector (R-PA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and John McCain (R-AR). I disagreed with them on a LOT of issues, but respected their willingness to stand apart from their party on occasion, and display the kind of independence that is refreshing in American politics.

John McCain is not the man he was then. Since that time, he has walked directly in line with George W. Bush's failed economic policies. He has carried the party banner so he could have his last shot at the Oval Office. McCain cannot even continue the promises he set forth at the beginning of his campaign. He said that he would run a campaign different then the ones we've seen in past years, a respectable, honorable campaign. Yesterday, John McCain in an interview said that he thinks there is "nothing slightly negative" about his campaign. Any American with eyes and ears who has seen the ads he has put on TV recently know that is not the truth.

I have a great deal of respect for Congressman Paul and frankly for someone to try to put McCain on that same level is an absolute insult to Paul's integrity and record. McCain is currently has broken the campaign finance law... what's it called... oh yeah, that's right McCain/Feingold. This is not the maverick America once loved, it's not even the maverick some of his closest friends and advisers loved, as over the past week several have said that Senator McCain has gone too far.

John McCain will forever be an American hero for his service to this country, let us make no mistake about that. But my honor and respect for this man on any level other than that is entirely gone. He has lied countless times throughout the course of the campaign, demonstrated that he has absolute zero knowledge about both the time line of the surge in Iraq as well as the workings of the Sunni-Shi'a conflict. At their current pace, John McCain is aiming to run one of the dirtiest national campaigns this country has ever seen, and it will only get worse as these last 95 days go by.

Senator McCain was simply not fit for this race. For the first time in a long while, the Democratic party has a candidate who knows how to talk about foreign policy, and very well at that. The extent of John McCain's foreign policy experience is being a P.O.W., and while again, we honor his service, that is not the kind of credibility necessary to be commander-in-chief. In fact, the two wars John McCain has had a voice in during his time in the Senate... have been two of the worst wars this country has waged. He has no ideas to fix an economy that his economic advisers have said is in a "mental recession". He has no plan to realistically lower the cost of gasoline. He has no plan to make sure Americans have affordable healthy insurance. Instead, the only thing his campaign has, is the hope that they can scare Americans into thinking that they can't trust the new guy purposing new policies. That's the only leg they have to stand on, and it has shown, especially in the past three weeks of this campaign. For the Senator from Arizona to sacrifice his own decency and honor for the cost of an election, that I think to be far more punishable than any of the crimes his campaign has claimed Barack Obama has committed.

Our nation cannot afford to have four more years of the same lame duck leadership, it's time we take a new course, even if it may be unfamiliar and uncomfortable. I do not want to tell my children and grandchildren why after eight years that sent America spiraling down the wrong path, citizens voted for another four years of the same failed policies.

[cooljayhu]

in my brief experience with politics I have found that (at least in Canada) my day-to-day life is almost never affected based upon which party is in power (liberals or conservatives) so I guess I have become jaded and apathetic about the entire process. I basically given up voting in an election unless somebody does something to make me give a shit again

[detroitbasketball]

I just want to state that I firmly disagree that Bush is the worst President in American history.

I'd type more, but my arm hurts, plus I really don't care enough to do so.

[USN]

This is to Keeper:

You clearly see Obama as The Messiah or The One that Can Do No Wrong. Obama has NO experience. If he did you would have been able cite it. In your writing there, you didn't really cite any of his accomplishments in the US Senate, and I guess that could be a task since he's only been in the Senate for about 190 or so days.

You, like most liberals, are trying to link McCain to Bush. If McCain was even close to being as conservative as President Bush, the questions that the conservative right have about McCain wouldn't exist. You also try to do what Obama did, which was say that without The Awakening, the surge wouldn't have worked. Without the surge in troops, the Awakening would have been irrelevant and vice versa, I believe. Obama says things like "If the surge hadn't worked, I would have been right." How arrogant is that?

I also want to remind you that the President, no matter who it is, does not control the price of gasoline. Barack wants the gas prices high anyway, he was just upset with how fast they rose. And Obama isn't going to lower the prices of health care, he's going to give it away. Thus degrading the system.

One popular thing that Obama wants to enforce is raising the taxes on the wealthy. I'll have you know that the top 1% in this country pay 25% of this nation's income tax and the top 25% pay 86% of the income tax.

Obama knows nothing about the military. My evidence for that is when talks about giving money to the troops for education. Apparently he's never heard of a little thing called the GI Bill.

Obama was a virtual nobody when he spoke at the 2004 DNC Convention. He gives a speech and is thrust into the postion he is now. He is a terrific orator, he could make money at giving motivation speeches. But he is not qualified to be president. He has no accomplishments. He proposed one bill that was shot down 97-0.

McCain has a number of things that I disagree on and I agree that his campaign has made many mistakes and has not taken advantage of Obama like they should have. McCain has basically been sleepwalking through this campaign. But a poll released today showed the two candidates tied at 44%.

[Keeper]

Aug 2, 2008 3:20:59 GMT -5 USN said:

This is to Keeper:

You clearly see Obama as The Messiah or The One that Can Do No Wrong. Obama has NO experience. If he did you would have been able cite it. In your writing there, you didn't really cite any of his accomplishments in the US Senate, and I guess that could be a task since he's only been in the Senate for about 190 or so days.

This is untrue. As I stated in my initial post, Obama is far from perfect, and there are issues that matter a LOT to me, which he has voted differently than I would have. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama was integral in eliminating lobbyists from their state's political process. In the US Senate, as one example, he worked with my least favorite senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) to pass the Federal Funding and Accountability Act, a very important bill in making sure we have responsible politics, and the same bill that Alaskan senator Ted Stevens has given no regard. He has been a co-sponsor on countless other legislation that has passed, and during his time in the senate, has average statistics for bills that are currently in committee, and his own bills that have passed.

Aug 2, 2008 3:20:59 GMT -5 USN said:

You, like most liberals, are trying to link McCain to Bush. If McCain was even close to being as conservative as President Bush, the questions that the conservative right have about McCain wouldn't exist. You also try to do what Obama did, which was say that without The Awakening, the surge wouldn't have worked. Without the surge in troops, the Awakening would have been irrelevant and vice versa, I believe. Obama says things like "If the surge hadn't worked, I would have been right." How arrogant is that?

Point out one difference between the economic policies of John McCain and George W. Bush.

Also, if you are going to accuse me of distorting the facts, pick a different subject that the subject of McCain talking on the surge. In an interview with CBS on July 21st (I believe was the date), McCain stated that the Anbar Awakening was a result of the surge. That is historically incorrect. The Anbar Awakening occured long before the surge was implemented, and had begun even before the strategy of the surge was being discussed. One gaffe on a foreign policy issue like this would be one thing, but McCain is routinely out of his depth when talking about Iraq. Whether it be in hearings at the Senate, or in front of reporters, McCain has routinely swapped, altered, and changed the dynamics of the Sunni-Shi'a conflict, not bordering on getting the facts straight, and often making the same mistake moment after being corrected for it the first time.

Senator Obama has not said "if the surge hadn't worked, I would've been right." One, that's just a stupid quote. Two, the surge was supposed to create political progress within Iraq and it failed to do so. Now for some people, the military progress we made is enough to call that strategy a success. Of course when we put more troops in a place, we are going to do better, there is no questioning that. But because the political agreements have not been able to be made, I consider the surge a strategy that has not been successful. It hasn't been a failure, but it hasn't delivered the results it was supposed to.[/quote]

Aug 2, 2008 3:20:59 GMT -5 USN said:

I also want to remind you that the President, no matter who it is, does not control the price of gasoline. Barack wants the gas prices high anyway, he was just upset with how fast they rose. And Obama isn't going to lower the prices of health care, he's going to give it away. Thus degrading the system.

I'm not stupid, I know how the market works. We knew we couldn't make our energy decisions like we have forever, but we have failed to take the necessary steps to ensure we have alternative energy sources available that would dramatically decrease the burden the gasoline prices have on our family. Obama doesn't want gas prices high, that's again ridiculous and you cannot substantiate that with any evidence at all. I believe that health care is a human right, there are numerous nations in Scandanavia and Europe that have shown socialized medicine is most certainly a viable option. That's an issue that people can have a debate on, but I was pointing out that the initial post said they had the same beliefs in regards to health care and that was not true in the least.

Aug 2, 2008 3:20:59 GMT -5 USN said:

One popular thing that Obama wants to enforce is raising the taxes on the wealthy. I'll have you know that the top 1% in this country pay 25% of this nation's income tax and the top 25% pay 86% of the income tax.

We have one of the worst distributions of wealth in the world. While Americans are suffering, oil CEO's are bringing in more money than ever. The only way capitalism works is if you have a progressive enough tax system to keep the ultra-wealthy in check and give the middle and lower classes actual ground to stand on. Adam Smith's invisible hand isn't perfect, it needs guidance for it to work properly in a society. We have been cutting taxes on the wealthy, and decreasing programs for the poor, and that's just wrong.

Aug 2, 2008 3:20:59 GMT -5 USN said:

Obama knows nothing about the military. My evidence for that is when talks about giving money to the troops for education. Apparently he's never heard of a little thing called the GI Bill.

You will continue to tune out Obama when he talks about foreign policy because he's "naive" and "inexperienced", but if there is any comfort zone for Sen. Obama, it is foreign policy. He's demonstrated time and time again the correct judgment in regards to our ongoing conflicts. Obama supported Sen. Webb's GI Bill, a critically important bill because this country has had almost no support for our veterans and to be frank, with the amount of money we spend on our military, that is downright shameful. Thanks to Webb's GI Bill, for the first time since really World War II, soldiers will be able to count on getting an education when they get back from the war, among numerous other programs that received the update they have needed for the past 60 years. Sen. McCain opposed the GI Bill because it did too much.

Aug 2, 2008 3:20:59 GMT -5 USN said:

Obama was a virtual nobody when he spoke at the 2004 DNC Convention. He gives a speech and is thrust into the postion he is now. He is a terrific orator, he could make money at giving motivation speeches. But he is not qualified to be president. He has no accomplishments. He proposed one bill that was shot down 97-0.

He had run a brilliant US Senate campaign, had done important work in the Illinois State Senate, and has done important work in the United States senate. If your idea of qualified is how many years you've spent in Washington, then I guess he loses out there.

Aug 2, 2008 3:20:59 GMT -5 USN said:

McCain has a number of things that I disagree on and I agree that his campaign has made many mistakes and has not taken advantage of Obama like they should have. McCain has basically been sleepwalking through this campaign. But a poll released today showed the two candidates tied at 44%.

There are 95 days until the election, polls do not matter at this point, though the candidates are not tied as Obama has been ahead or tied in 50 consecutive polls of registered voters.

[Keeper]

Aug 2, 2008 2:00:49 GMT -5 detroitbasketball said:

I just want to state that I firmly disagree that Bush is the worst President in American history.

I'd type more, but my arm hurts, plus I really don't care enough to do so.

I think other president's in Bush's situation would do worse, but I think he's done pretty terrible overall. I like Bush the guy though, to be completely honest, he seems like a down-to-earth guy. Just completely over his head at the Presidency.

Also I'm going away for four days so I won't be able to keep posting in here, so nows a good time for a few posters to continue to make their arguments that are never based in any sort of fact or real logic.

[I am a huge CUNT]

Aug 2, 2008 9:28:01 GMT -5 Keeper said:

I'm not stupid, I know how the market works. We knew we couldn't make our energy decisions like we have forever, but we have failed to take the necessary steps to ensure we have alternative energy sources available that would dramatically decrease the burden the gasoline prices have on our family.

But why is this Bush's fault? You cannot get past all the red tape with the environmentalists in 8 years. Hell, it takes 10 years to build a damn refinery. So I don't see how it is president Bush's fault at all.

Also, I saw a commercial with Obama being interviewed, 60 Minutes I think not sure. I find it funny how he says all this crap about bringing the troops home, and then he says "We need more troops in Afghanistan."

Obama also scares me. With all of his change talk, I am afraid that he will try and do too many things, and really make things a lot worse than they already are, especially since he has not been around a long time. Not saying he can't be a good president, but for a young guy like him to come into a bad situation like this and make all his speeches and such about changing this and changing that, it scares me a little bit.

[detroitbasketball]

Aug 2, 2008 9:29:49 GMT -5 Keeper said:

Also I'm going away for four days so I won't be able to keep posting in here, so nows a good time for a few posters to continue to make their arguments that are never based in any sort of fact or real logic.

[JacktheRipper]

Jesus, it's going to take me hours to straighten y'all up. So much misinformation and misunderstanding in this topic, I'm having a hard time of where to start. (I'll post my response to Sportsbuck in a later post...because it certainly doesn't fit the tone of where we're at now)

unless you are looking at the political process from an anarchist perspective and no one on this forum is one, to my knowledge.

Uh, that would be me. Well, at least way more than anyone else who has responded.

What are the Democrats all that different from the Republicans in? Economically...sort of. They're both socialists in different ways. The GOP loves their corporate welfare, and the Dems love their well welfare. They both don't know how to cut spending, which is something I feel we're in dire need of. They just have different ways of paying for it. I guess they disagree on "social" issues, but these things will never actually come up.

Keeper, you're too idealistic in your party. The Democrats are horrible. My example is the oil situation. The Democrats refusal to allow oil companies to drill in the gulf and off the east and west coast is foolish. I'm not a fool, I know it's not going to help tomorrow. We're years from a real alternative to oil, like at least 10-15. So if you want to be pragmatic about helping Americans deal with the high costs of fuel, you have to take steps to raise global supply. We're already seeing American's lowering their own demand. We have to have both to get some relief. The Democrats refusal to do this, when it is painfully obvious it is necessary, just shows they care more about beating the Republicans than the American people. At the very least the one's in congress, and it makes me sick!

He has lied countless times throughout the course of the campaign

He's a politician, what'd you think he was going to do. Obama is just as big of a liar.

Our nation cannot afford to have four more years of the same lame duck leadership, it's time we take a new course, even if it may be unfamiliar and uncomfortable.

That sounds all dandy, but the change Obama is talking about is not the kind I'm interested in. I want to see a much more intelligent and pragmatic economic policy. A tax system that doesn't slam corporations for doing their jobs. Obama talking about taking the oil companies' "windfall profits" and making them send Americans a check is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Define "windfall profits" first, and then explain to me how the fuck an industry that has an 8.5% profit margin falls under that. Those "record profits" your side likes to site is because they are selling so much oil it blows my mind. Exxon had $138.1 billion in revenue in the second quarter of this year! Not their fault they sell a shit ton of oil. They aren't dirty, they're a great American company. Why demonize them?

Also I want to see all these tax breaks and subsidies to the corporations to go. If they can't make money on their own, they shouldn't be in business. I'm all for lowering corporate taxes, but also none should get breaks and government help. They should stand on their own in a free market economy.

Healthcare is a very tough subject to deal with for me. We need it. 100% we need some form of healthcare coverage for the nation's poor. What I would suggest is setting up an insurance company similar to what Fannie Mae was. Private company with a government backing. The company will give basic insurance coverage to people who can't afford it at a much lower rate. If you can afford insurance now, I really don't think you'd want to be turned over to a government program. So my idea allows for people to have a choice, companies to have a choice, and our poor to at least be able to go to the doctor and get necessary prescriptions. The idea of a government controlled healthcare plan for all, I just can't get behind.

Obama, I can't get behind because he's too much of a socialist. Lower taxes for all and lower spending is what I believe in, and he's for neither. Obama has no understanding of our current energy situation, and has shown no understanding of economics. Not that McCain is better, but we're going into very dangerous economic waters and he's position has the least chance of fucking us. Obama's...not so much.

[JacktheRipper]

You clearly see Obama as The Messiah or The One that Can Do No Wrong. Obama has NO experience. If he did you would have been able cite it. In your writing there, you didn't really cite any of his accomplishments in the US Senate, and I guess that could be a task since he's only been in the Senate for about 190 or so days.

Ever hear of the term "strawman?"

You're such a hack it's not even funny.

You, like most liberals, are trying to link McCain to Bush. If McCain was even close to being as conservative as President Bush, the questions that the conservative right have about McCain wouldn't exist. You also try to do what Obama did, which was say that without The Awakening, the surge wouldn't have worked. Without the surge in troops, the Awakening would have been irrelevant and vice versa, I believe. Obama says things like "If the surge hadn't worked, I would have been right." How arrogant is that?

Bush is conservative? Figure out what a "conservative" really is before you come back here and post. Thanks.

(I probably should explain. Bush is at best a centrist economically, besides his tax cuts. That's what I'm getting at.)

He is a terrific orator, he could make money at giving motivation speeches. But he is not qualified to be president. He has no accomplishments. He proposed one bill that was shot down 97-0.

Obama is not a good orator. He's about as painful for me to watch as Bush. Get him off a teleprompter and he's miserable. That's not to say he isn't qualified enough, because I personally think he is.

That post you made was just dripping with Republican talking points and Obama smears. Come on! I'm no Obama supporter, but I can't stand this blindly following the party line stuff I'm seeing. It's called hackery, and I have little patience for such.

[sep]

Aug 1, 2008 23:56:49 GMT -5 Chief Bstn said:

lol


politics.

Co-sign

[JacktheRipper]

Alright...now I move back to Keeper.

I'm not stupid, I know how the market works. We knew we couldn't make our energy decisions like we have forever, but we have failed to take the necessary steps to ensure we have alternative energy sources available that would dramatically decrease the burden the gasoline prices have on our family. Obama doesn't want gas prices high, that's again ridiculous and you cannot substantiate that with any evidence at all.

No you don't understand how the market works if you're going to make this post. Allowing the market to act freely means allowing private companies to come up with alternatives. Look, alternatives are not all that viable and some of the ideas on the table get taken down by the fucking Democrats. Nuclear power should be what is used for every fucking power plant in this country. Look at France if you want to see how well this would work. There is no transportation of fuels to the site, there is very little pollution, and it's just as safe as any other fuel source we have. Not allowing nuclear because of Three Mile Island is insane! That would help in lowering demand in this country. Democrats won't allow for more drilling right now, which would increase supply. All the red tape, put up by our environmentalist friends make it near impossible to build a new refinery. That would too increase supply and lower the cost of gasoline. I'm all for the EPA, they do a good job but the hoops a refinery has to jump through are above and beyond.

Lower demand, increase supply. That's what we have to work on to lower the price of oil.

Government funding trying to find alternatives would have just been pissing in the wind. They already do some of that, but it's just not profitable yet nor cost efficient. There are many companies working on it though. Thankfully we have a system still based on the free market, so people have a reason to look for a cost effective alternative. It'll make whoever finds it, very very wealthy. That's incentive!

We have one of the worst distributions of wealth in the world. While Americans are suffering, oil CEO's are bringing in more money than ever. The only way capitalism works is if you have a progressive enough tax system to keep the ultra-wealthy in check and give the middle and lower classes actual ground to stand on. Adam Smith's invisible hand isn't perfect, it needs guidance for it to work properly in a society. We have been cutting taxes on the wealthy, and decreasing programs for the poor, and that's just wrong.

Yes! Let's punish the oil CEO's for doing their damn jobs. If they could do their jobs better, they would hire more middle class Americans to work in their new refineries and new oil rigs they'd be putting up. That's better than anything welfare could throw out. They are greedy bastards, but through their greed they'd add thousands of jobs into the American economy. The want more demand, and it's obvious the prices where they stand today serve to lower that. They know the more they sell, the more they make. Oil companies haven't seen a notable increase in profit margin since the spike in prices. They're just selling more of something that is worth a hell of a lot more. Good for them.

I'm glad we have the lowest wealth redistribution in the world, show's we're dong something right. I believe big business being greedy will make for more jobs and that's better than anything welfare can do. Lower taxes on the wealthy means more investment and more spending. It helps our economy and a stronger economy means more jobs and better paying jobs. That is what will help the poor, more than welfare ever will. I'm not against helping people in need, because I hate to think anyone out there is suffering. It's just the free market can do the job better.

So yeah...anyone have anything to add.

[dkgojackets]

we need someone like genghis khan imo