U. S. 2008 Election Thread


plopperz

Huh?
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,050
Website
Visit site
Even if your right, and all of Obama's plans will fail. He's opposed to war, which is almost worth a vote in my books.
If you end the war, it won't solve, but it will certainly help solve a lot of the other problems.
 

Pickle

Mega GP Mania
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
5,486
Location
Detroit, Michigan
Website
Visit site
Chip said:
Blah said:
Obama would say anything to get your vote, and says different things to different people.

Do you have any examples to back up this "theory", or do you just believe it because Sean Hannity tells you so?
He did throw his buddy Rev. Wright under the bus when it was poltically beneficial to do so.

My big thing with Obama is the cost, he wants to spend so much money. The last thing we need is more gov. spending. The last I heard was his global welfare program, where he intends to use U.S. dollars to make sure every child in every nation gets water/food/etc. When you come down to it Obama wants to redistribute wealth ("I am my brothers keeper"), basically socialism.

Now I dont agree with Mccain on everything like immgration, although he is now for the fence first then amnesty, which i guess is a start. I like the approach to minimize government and stop spending. I think that if government got out the way everyday people can make this society better off.
Those pointing out Palin has no experience, be careful cause Obama's record isnt much better and he is running for Pres.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ganepark32

Suit Up!
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
1,172
Age
31
Location
Scotland, UK
Website
Visit site
@ Blah - Palin may only be running for Vice President but I can guaran-damn-tee that at the first sign of weakness from McCain (if he were to get elected) she'd try and mussle her way into power. You can tell she'd rather be running for President. She's McCain's biggest problem besides his policies. Unless he keeps her on a leash, she'll jump up and bite him in the arse. Figuratively speaking. And that's not a sexist comment. She just looks like the kind of woman who's aspirations are bigger than vice president.
 

Chip

[Insert Custom Title Here]
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
3,503
Age
41
Location
NJ, USA
Website
chipandre.com
You want to talk about out-of-control government spending? The current administration has spent nearly a trillion dollars picking fights with countries that pose no legitimate threat to the US, and McCain wants to continue that pretty much indefinitely. Add to that the 50 billion per year boondoggle that is the DHS, and the republican party is anything but fiscally conservative.

Both candidates want to spend a huge pile of money that we don't have on projects that they feel are important. Obama wants to spend money on making sure that all children are medically insured, and all adults at least have access to affordable coverage. McCain wants to spend money on fighting a useless war that we cannot win. While Obama plans to hand out cash to researchers and companies developing alternative energy sources, McCain plans to waste $39 billion dollars subsidizing an industry that posted 127 billion in profits last year.

Don't be fooled by McCain's disingenuous claims to cut spending. He plans to spend just as much (if not more) as Obama, he just intends to spend it on making large corporation richer instead of making life easier for regular people.
 

gp32rich

Never been accused of being subtle
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
840
Location
dev heck!
Website
www.geocities.com
Sorry to be the one to tell you this. I reckon the result of this election is already out of your hands.

The media has too big a sway in voting through how they portray either candidate, backed by big business.

Call me a cynic (coz I am) but less than 20% of the vote is made by thoughtful individuals
The rest is by mindless drones, voting the way they always have, voting because he's black or white (or got a female VP) or just doing what the bright box in the corner says.

Modern politics isn't about policies or action, it's about image and message and -in the UK- there is very little to choose between either side anyway since they both follow the same opinion polls.

From comments here it seems there is a difference between the US candidates. But that'll get diluted by congress
 

Blah

Wanna Be Programmer
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
3,253
Age
30
Location
Oregon, USA
Website
Visit site
This discussion reminds me of the stupid ads here by the 2 senate candidates. They have the same format, the same announcer, and sling the same mud at each other. Gordon Smith doesn't tell us why he's good, only why Jeff Merkley is bad. Jeff Merkley doesn't tell us why he's good, only why Gordon Smith is bad. It seems one gets more airtime than the other though. I (and I'm sure others) don't want to vote for either of them as they both are too stupid to realize they are making asses of themselves.
 

DawnOfTheRent

Still Fresh
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
93
Age
35
Location
Palm Beach, FL, USA. Resides: Lawrenceburg
Website
www.proexistence.com
I used to only vote for the candidate who matched as many ideas/opinions as I had (it always ended up being an independent guy too). Of course, for a while it seems we have lost focus on that whole “money earned : money spent” ratio, so I figured I'd go with Obama this time. Obviously I don't think the President could ever fix this problem completely, it would require a lot of sacrifice on our (the citizen's) part.. At least, for now, we can opt for a guy that's for spending our money instead of someone else's, that should help us keep what was spent in check.

Have you guys ever checked out www.votesmart.org? It looks like a very in depth knowledge base (seems unbiased too).

Oh, and I live in the south east.. There actually isn't much of that “he's black” shit anymore (at least not in the middle Tennessee area). However, I don't doubt they would still be doing it if they didn't learn his middle name. I guess knocking him for that just makes them feel more “educated” or something.. Sure is disappointing.

Does anyone else find it funny/ironic, that socialism was brought up as a bad thing on a forum that pushes for more open source technology? (Disclaimer: Obviously I have nothing against the guy who brought it up, he's more useful in this scene than I am)
 

Sphinxter

Says What?
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
2,897
Location
Silicon Valley California, USA
Website
fullsack.com
daclassicgamingmaster said:
Sphinxter said:
jakshep2 said:
I look like Obama. :)
I look like Osama. :(

Where exactly in the silicon vally do you live? I'd like to collect my reward money :D

You will never find my cave infidel! No shit, right after 9/11 my mom calls me up in tears scared silly someone would mistake me for him and bust a cap in my terrorist ass.

This just in, almost made me choke on a cheerio.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/arc...oomeranged.aspx
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gp32rich

Never been accused of being subtle
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
840
Location
dev heck!
Website
www.geocities.com
The main problem I have with stories like this is someone with an axe to grind is doing the digging.

You're not telling me that Obama doesn't have any skeleton's in his closet (he's a politician FFS :rolleyes: )

It's just that the media doesn't have an axe to grind so no-one is digging dirt on him.


The one thing that's true about all politicians is that they have to do deals to get their own agenda supported, which corrupts them and their message, despite their best intentions


An unbiased media? Pull the other one.
Hopefully the biases are balanced and the general population get the stories from a variety of sources
but the cynic in me says that the general population is lazy and get their info from people who support their viewpoint

I'm not saying McCain isn't a stupid hypocrite that talks out of his a.. the top of his head
but Obama is a presidency chasing politician too.
The decision for most undecided people comes down to who has the slickest media image
 

DaveC

Internal Development
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
9,208
***Work in progress don't reply yet****


Ok I guess I will have to come out of the closet, I will vote for Obama. My demographic is a white middle class suburban male in mid 40s.

Some things I hear here:

1. Obama doesn't have experience.

2. Obama has skeletons.

3. Obama talks alot and promises too much but won't deliver.

4. Obama will spend to much money.

5. The media is biased.

6. Palin

7. Moral values

1. For the first "experience" one I like Chips answer:
Someone with little experience but good intentions, or someone with lots of experience and very bad intentions. Experience is something that can be learned, morality isn't.

Barack has Written a total of 890 Bills and Co-sponsored Another 1096 since he started serving in the U.S. Senate. More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=132x4678548

McCain is a flip flopper extraordinaire. I could write pages but I wont, I will just state a few:eek:ffshore drilling, Financial regulation (he and his stable of lobbyists were some of the biggest deregulators. He stands for nothing but winning (Palin was a cheap trick to try to woo Hillary voters). Now he wants to cancel the debate because he has to parachute in and save the economy. Sounds good but is an obvious ploy. First they don't need him (remember he said himself that he didn't know much about the economy), second he could be in Washington during the day then fly in for the debates later. Presidents have to multitask. If he can't hack it, he shouldn't be running.

2. Yes Obama has skeletons. They ALL do. He has mostly GBA (gilt by association). Rev. Wright etc. The media pretty much beat that to death. McCain also has a huge closet full of skeletons. Want to talk pastors just look at Rod Parsley, John Hagee two wackos that were associated with McCain. How about the Keating five? How about McCain's financial advisor Phil Gramm? How about his stable of wall street lobbyists? His 7 mansions and 13 cars?

3. They all promise allot. Yes there are many things he won't be able to do. I think he WILL try to do them, but some just might not be possible. That said I think he would accomplish allot if he gets the chance.

4. "Tax and spend liberal" That is a favorite phrase used by the Republicans. Republicans have become "borrow and spend neocons" What is worse? He will repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for some of this stuff as well as cut tax breaks for oil companies to raise revenue. He DID say that the middle class will NOT see tax increases. BTW tax cuts at war time is irresponsible. If you want to have a war everyone needs to chip in, it is your DUTY to help out and do your part for the war effort. Bush said it is so important to be in Iraq, if so you wouldn't mind right? You would mind? Well then you should have voted the bum out in 2004.

5. Media is biased. Mostly they give McCain a free pass. The don't bother reporting on his many weird unpresidential temper and behaviors and "senior moments". Instead they make things up about Obama, like "lipstick-gate".

91% of the programming (2,570 hours per weekday) was hosted by the conservatives, 9% (254 hours) by the progressives.

92% of the stations (236 of the 257) broadast no progressive talk radio programming at all.

Broken down according to station ownership, the numbers are as follows: Clear Channel (145 stations):
86% conservative. Citadel (23 stations): 100% conservative. Cumulus (31 stations): 100% conservative. Salem (28 stations): 100% conservative. CBS (30 stations): 74%. One owner, CBS, stands out from the rest politically, but still shows a 3:1 conservative-to-progressive ratio.

In some markets (most notably, New York and Chicago), the ratio is close to 1:1. In others (Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, it’s 100% conservative or very close to it.)

6. Palin was picked hastily by McCain to try to woo the Hillary voters. He only talked to her twice. That pick was very irresponsible. If that is a sign of things to come from a McCain presidency we are in trouble. This was not "Country first, it was McCain first".

7. Moral values. This is something the Republicans LOVE to brag about, how moral they are. While they blasted John Edwards for cheating (that was bad) McCain cheated on his first wife after getting disfigured in a car accident. He later dumped the first wife for his super-rich mistress Cindy. I guess it is OK when McCain does it. Those are moral values? Obama Is still married to his first wife.
 

DaveC

Internal Development
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
9,208
Ganepark32 said:
Anyways, I do hope Obama gets elected. From his speeches to his policies, they just seem right for the current political climate, he does have to correct package to move American forward. I just hope when it does come to voting that certain sections of America's population don't just go,' He's black. I'm not voting for him.' I'm looking at you, Southern states.
Well our country is very racist I am embarrassed to admit. Some of the things I heard were awful, and those from the so called "progressive" states. It is sad really. If this country passes him up just for the color of his skin it will be a real shame.

Obama is not perfect, he has issues and makes mistakes. But when I look at the two choices it isn't even close at least not to me.

I think Obama *is* a bit inexperienced, but I also think he is very smart. He is a quick learner. He has written brilliant books, and brilliant speeches which he wrote himself (many others use "ghost writers").

Some people are born dumb, some are born smart, but everyone is born inexperienced. It is the intelligence and temperment that matters, inexperience is temporary. Look at Bush, he has the experience of 2 terms in the presidency (that is alot) , but it didn't do him much good.

He also exhibits very presidential qualities. He is pragmatic, he thinks things out before making a decision. He is calm and seemingly unflappable even in stressful/trying times. He won't make rash off the cuff knee jerk decisions. He has the temperment we need. I think he would pick an equally competant staff and cabinet (which we desperately need).

He seems to be able to manage funds. He beat the Clinton machine in the primary (believe me that is NOT an easy task). He did so with a surplus of campaign cash at the end, while the Hillary campaign was in debt (she loaned her campaign 5 million just to operate).

People that he meets like him. He is not abrasive, but instead down to earth and affable. When he did his tour of Europe from what I could see he was met with a warm welcome even though the US is tarnished at the moment. We really need a president that other countries like. Now we have a president who everywhere he goes people want to kill him, even in his own country (new Bush approval rating = 19%).

It is these things about Obama that I think would make him a very good president. I could be wrong, no one knows for sure but with the things I know that is the way I see it.

McCain on the other hand is a hothead with a bad temper. He makes "shoot from the hip" decisions without much thought. He says things that are abrasive (saber rattling with Russia = Bad idea) and divisive. He is a real loose cannon. McCain with his finger on the Big Red Button scares the hell out of me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gp32rich

Never been accused of being subtle
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
840
Location
dev heck!
Website
www.geocities.com
Nicely researched Dave!


Here's the killer question for me .. creationism or evolution?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/26/palin_science_creationism/ said:
As to compromising science if it conflicts with a person's views, the answers made only a pleasant-sounding hum. Obama, if you want the long version, McCain, if you prefer short.
"Denial of the facts won't solve any of [our] problems," offered McCain.
"Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views," said Obama.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

telegramguy

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
378
Website
www.youtube.com
gp32rich said:
Here's the killer question for me .. creationism or evolution?

You can have both. You just don't teach them in the same class. E.g. please don't teach me calculus in my literature class and vice versa.

I think people with or without organized religion in their lives should at least learn about what most of the world believes in. Great. Teach that in theology courses and even make it mandatory. But don't teach my kids creationism in a science class. It's not a debate over theories. It's a definition of what science (and therefore science class) is. Science is the study of observable phenomena. Observation of what someone wrote in a book doesn't count.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gp32rich

Never been accused of being subtle
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
840
Location
dev heck!
Website
www.geocities.com
Fat Agnus said:
gp32rich said:
Here's the killer question for me .. creationism or evolution?
You can have both. You just don't teach them in the same class. E.g. please don't teach me calculus in my literature class and vice versa.

I think people with or without organized religion in their lives should at least learn about what most of the world believes in. Great. Teach that in theology courses and even make it mandatory. But don't teach my kids creationism in a science class. It's not a debate over theories. It's a definition of what science (and therefore science class) is. Science is the study of observable phenomena. Observation of what someone wrote in a book doesn't count.That's a great way of looking at it.

Sadly politicians aren't quite that opinionated (in public) and tend to follow other agendas.

From the article I quoted - Palin is a creationist and Obama and McCain are 'on the fence' <_<
Neither want's to stand on either side and lose votes
Not a clue where they or Obama's veep actually stand
(But I'm sure that someone will enlighten me)

for the record - I call myself a zen-scientist. I'm spirtually closest to Buddhism with a base view of everything
I'd class your view as a scientific christian - it allows faith but tempered by what modern science tells us.

Creationists believe that evolution is a disprovable theory because they can't see it happening experimentally and think that a scientist's open mind to being wrong is a failing of the science where their closed mind view is the source of them being right, because they can't see a full and proper scientific explanation.
[Ask any scientist if they are 100% sure and they have to say 'no']

That is why creationists want it taught along-side evolution in science class. They want equality at a scientific level because proper scientific process has to allow their theory.

Creationists are an electorally powerful group that can make a candidate appear weaker by losing votes in some states, thus affecting the voting in other states, so candidates have to appease them.
Scientists, on the other hand, aren't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top