On October 03 2008 13:09 D10 wrote: It will be so refreshing to see Obama in the white house.
I urge you republicans, vote with your brains, not with your hearts.
Could you make this just a little more condescending for me? If you could insult the people you're trying to convert just a little more, then they'd surely side with you!
I'll be voting the same way as you and that statement still pissed me off o.o
rofl at that image, although I can't tell if Biden is supposed to be Batman, Satan, or some mix of the two
NOT READY TO LEAD
READY TO LEAD ? NO
WRONG ON X, WRONG FOR YOU
MOST LIBERAL OF ALL OF THEM
NOT A X, DOESNT BRING Y, NOT READY TO LEAD.
PROPOSAL STOLEN FROM OTHER GUY FEW MONTHS AGO BECAUSE WE REALIZED OURS SUCK.
HE WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES, LEMME SPAM THIS AGAIN, UNTIL HIS TAX PLAN SOUNDS LIKE A BIG FAT LIE.
Imo, the true condescendent is the McCain campaign, treating everyone like stupid kids, and saying that saying important stuff is naive, and proof of inexperience, and etc...
IF you disagree with me, than im a condescending bastard, w/e, tired of this, you cant convert diehard republican voters, it was more of a out of the chest cry than any real attempt of changing peoples mind. At least I thought someone would lolz.
Ps: I wish I could vote there =(
Sorry to disappoint, but both sides do that. It was Obama that started the "naive" argument in his acceptance speech when he said "It's not that Senator McCain doesn't care, it's that he just doesn't get it."
That isn't naive that is being out of touch (there is a massive difference). If the Obama camp tried to play McCain off as naive they would be laughed out of the election.
On October 03 2008 21:45 D10 wrote: Believe what you want Blackjack, painting Obama as just another schemer is exacly what McCain has worked so hard to do his entire campaign.
On October 03 2008 21:45 D10 wrote: Believe what you want Blackjack, painting Obama as just another schemer is exacly what McCain has worked so hard to do his entire campaign.
yeah, that's politics. both sides do it
But you cant deny the difference in tone between the two campaigns is tremenduous.
The democrats campaign is really more focused on the issues and proposals, while the republican campaign is focused on ... discrediting everything the democrats says/propose.
And another thing, about the whole drill baby drill thing that McCain is trying to pull, yea, it might be usefull/necessary, but it wont have any significent impact before hes probably dead, and the worst part is, its pretty clear he doesnt believe in alternative energies.
If you were to invest in drilling, the results would start showing in 12-15 years at least, took 25+ in Brazil back in the day.
And if 8 years from now, nothing would change regarding foreign oil, and you still lag behind regarding alternative energy, that would be a huge problem for you and that goes against everything mccain/palin say about they energy policy.
Imo the right would be all of them, scattershot the energy question, after all you are the biggest consumer in the world, and Obama seems way closer to that aproach than McCain.
On October 03 2008 21:45 D10 wrote: Believe what you want Blackjack, painting Obama as just another schemer is exacly what McCain has worked so hard to do his entire campaign.
yeah, that's politics. both sides do it
But you cant deny the difference in tone between the two campaigns is tremenduous.
The democrats campaign is really more focused on the issues and proposals, while the republican campaign is focused on ... discrediting everything the democrats says/propose.
The main focus of the democrats campaign is to paint McCain as Bush's 3rd term..
That ad is so old. And what can you tell me to disprove that hes gonna be Bush the POW version ?
edit: Quote from this link
"Ken Goldstein, who directed the study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project, based at the University of Wisconsin, says the pattern was a reversal from earlier months, in which McCain's advertising was consistently more negative than Obama's. "
The point is that the Republicans have to do it. Democratic party principles are simply more popular with more Americans. To run on policy alone wouldn't work for a modern Republican. Hence they have to focus a greater effort on making the other guy unelectable.
Both sides do it, but the Republicans rely almost completely on it.
My gut feeling is that McCain really will run an extension of Bush. He's still immersed in the neo-conservative culture and all of his analysts come from that school of thought. Remember, Bush ran on cut spending and taxes too. Every republican, including the GOP savior Ronald Reagan, has done it since Nixon, and what's the end result? Massive spending and a worse economy. Why is McCain any more likely to follow what he says than those people?
talking point politics should be seen as a piece of culture and not substantial politics. the rhetoric in use is crafted according to strategic manipulation of both the other guy's platform and the electorate, although a lot of thought (or not!) go into their crafting, trying to read them will only get you a medal for being a good kid. this style of mass politics is some say inevitable, but it also has the effect of killing genuine political discussion. we can demand more from the media and commentators, but the best way to raise important issues to the fore is still through educating the public. zz
in any case, the right does not really give a fuck about governing. the entire political program there is enforcing a certain vision of what politics is and should be. whereas some people on the left want to get into government and do concrete things, solve real problems. many policy questions are generated by leftist basic concerns, which are only interesting to the right mostly because they must be dismissed. real policy should be left to people who care about what's going on.
On October 03 2008 04:55 KlaCkoN wrote: Hm Savio I am curious about one thing, do you actually believe that the US ecconomy will do better under Mccain? or do you support him for other reasons, like above mentioned abortion debate.
You guys might not like this, but in my opinion, the economy is pretty dang independent of politics. The economy of the US is a behemoth and the government is a small part of it. Its true that economic growth can be stimulated by tax cuts (the GOP talking points), but it is ALSO true that it is stimulated by increased government spending (democrats talking points). I don't believe that the differences between the two are very significant.
Now, as far as things like this bailout (stabilizing some large institutions) I don't know much about that, that falls more under finance than economics.
I don't think that Presidents have profound effects on the economy. However, McCain does favor lower taxes on businesses and that seems like it would better allow our companies to compete in the world market.
McCain also favors limiting the scope of government involvement in the economy. I support that.
But MOST OF ALL, as far as economic reasons that I support McCain, is that more than any other politician in Washington, he has fought and continues to fight wasteful government spending.
I am disappointed with both President Bush and the Republican Congress for completely abandoning all pretenses to fiscal restraint and behaving like a bunch of democrats. It used to be that the GOP was all about fiscal responsibility and restraining government, but in the last 8 years, it seems that they just became another democratic party of big spenders.
McCain has been fighting this and refused pork spending his entire career. He has also committed (and only he has the clout to say this) to vetoing every bill that contains pork regardless of whether it was for democrats or republicans.
But I support McCain for many other reasons besides economic reasons. I do always vote pro-life, I own several guns and I don't want guns and ammo taxes increased 500% as Obama supports (this is true as verified by factcheck.org), and I do trust McCain's experience, knowledge and judgement more than Obama's on military and foreign affairs.
So there you have it.
You say that politics is independent of economics (which is flatly untrue) but then you go on to say you support McCain on economics because of his push to cut pork barrel spending. Honestly, read some of the stuff you're saying. You're like a nicer version of Sean Hannity.
Pork barrel spending accounts for an insignificant amount of our deficit. Tax cuts and military expenditures account for over 80% of our deficit, and are truly what have caused this massive national debt. Not Medicare, not education, not science (lol), not social security. http://www.cbpp.org/9-12-08bud.htm
Jibba, the point I was making was to answer whether I support McCain for economic reasons or if I really only support him because of social issues. This is a summary of what I said and the point I was trying to make:
1. The President in my opinion has very little effect on the economy. So that is why it may not be #1 in my list of priorities and why the economy is not the trump card for me.
2. Even though the economy is not a trump card for me, there are still reasons favor McCain economic plan over Obama's--of which I named a few.
3. I pointed out some of the other reasons besides economic, that I support McCain.
Also when you talk about debt and the deficit, just remember that the bulk of the government budget right now is entitlement programs. Under Obama's plan, that percentage is sure to go way up with his health care plan.
Think on this:
Right now the Federal Government expenditures total roughly 2.5 trillion dollars. In 2007, Total Health Care Costs in the US were 2.3 trillion dollars.
If government takes over health care in the US, you can expect the size (and cost) of government to go WAY up.
Maybe if the government keeps on growing and growing, it WILL become the main determinant of our economy and at that point the economy won't be so independent of government.
On October 03 2008 05:04 KlaCkoN wrote: But unless I have missunderstood something both candidates are for abortion, gay marriage are beeing decided on the states level (didnt cali allow it recently?, and no president in the US would ever move for more gun control? :S
Ah, but my friend, you are using logic! Savio supposes that Presidents have the ability to appoint judges, thus they should appoint judges based on their own political agenda, even though judges only decide on constitutionality, not legislative worthiness. He fails to understand that appointing a judge for said reason only means you are tampering with the checks and balances of government and you're setting yourself up for a let down when a winning opponent chooses the same tactic.
Right now, there are 5 justices that feel they can "interpret" the constitution and that it is a living document. 4 are more originalist. John Paul Stevens is a liberal justice who is 88 years old. You cannot say that this is not important.
Appointing the next justice will almost surely be the most important thing the president does. And it is permanent!
Tax policy can always just be undone by the next president.
YOU SELECT JUDGES BASED ON JUDICIAL LEANING, NOT SOCIAL LEANING. YOU SELECT JUDGES BASED ON JUDICIAL LEANING, NOT SOCIAL LEANING. YOU SELECT JUDGES BASED ON JUDICIAL LEANING, NOT SOCIAL LEANING. YOU SELECT JUDGES BASED ON JUDICIAL LEANING, NOT SOCIAL LEANING. YOU SELECT JUDGES BASED ON JUDICIAL LEANING, NOT SOCIAL LEANING. YOU SELECT JUDGES BASED ON JUDICIAL LEANING, NOT SOCIAL LEANING.
The point is that originalist judges don't create rights that aren't in the constitution (like abortion). McCain is committed to appointing originalist judges, and Obama is not. That is a judicial philosophy, not just a social leaning.
We need 1 more originalist judge on the court in order to have a court that believes that the constitution should mean what it says rather than what society "needs it to say".
Part of that would be that Abortion would be turned over to states where it has always belonged.
On October 03 2008 13:45 Flaccid wrote: If I hear another Republican tell me that terrorists 'hate our freedoms', I'm gonna bite off my dick. I can't take this shit any more.
On October 03 2008 21:45 D10 wrote: Believe what you want Blackjack, painting Obama as just another schemer is exacly what McCain has worked so hard to do his entire campaign.
yeah, that's politics. both sides do it
But you cant deny the difference in tone between the two campaigns is tremenduous.
The democrats campaign is really more focused on the issues and proposals, while the republican campaign is focused on ... discrediting everything the democrats says/propose.
According to this study, there IS a difference in tone between the two campaigns but it is not what you would think:
Despite perceptions that Sen. John McCain has spent more time on the attack, Sen. Barack Obama aired more negative advertising last week than did the Arizona Republican, says a study released yesterday.
Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat's commercials were negative during the week after the Republican National Convention, compared with 56 percent of the spots run by McCain.
1 - The public keeps more negative information than positive information, its a fact, and it should be used.
2 - McCain did more negative adds all the way before the national convention, this study shows only the following week where democrats wanted to tip the momentum back to them, and I see no reference as to an overall negative study.
The Alaska governor incorrectly made it sound like McCain supports giving bankruptcy judges the power to rewrite mortgage payment terms on first homes. He doesn't.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://xs232.xs.to/xs232/08405/1223006306013651.png)
