Janaic

3rd party gets my vote.

LazyHippy

I don't know enough to say on that (and can't be fucked searching for independent non-biased info), but regardless...

Would you like to be judged based on the actions of even your closest friends and family? Especially when the stuff was over quarter of a century ago.

Plus, from the little I know, it looks like he might've had a point - trying to overthrow a corrupt government that was serving vested interests. Freedom fighter or terrorist?

__________________

erect

You've seen Dogma one too many times. So have I, because we totally agree there. There's always a reason to change your mind if the facts change, new ones are presented or become clearer to you. Beliefs are much more tricky to change than ideas.

You are however wrong about the FANNIE/FREDDIE thing. That was very much a democrat's project cooked up by democrats for the poor people (more democrats) who can't afford homes to be able to purchase them.

Let me repeat that one more time. These people could not afford houses and the democrats pushed this system through (under Clinton, a democrat) that said ... ooh give them the house, we've got their back. Then, what a surprise, they couldn't pay and foreclosures are causing the housing bubble to burst.

It's biting us in the ass right about now and quite possibly is the straw that is breaking our economy's back (though it's not the only cause).

__________________

LotsOfZeros

If Ayers was a 'Freedom Fighter', I'd love to know what freedoms he was denied so much that he felt he had to fight for them.

Freedom fighters stand up for the innocent and would never think of bombing a building full of innocents.

You have to admit, calling him a freedom fighter is flimsy at best.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

xmcp123

No, I say Stop Putting Word in my Mouth. I'm saying I don't give a fuck if I spend some extra cash to keep the economy that I RELY on alive.
How the fuck does me saying I don't mind paying the extra taxes that are a part of his plan imply I would like an extra trillion dollars of deficit?
That's a real mindfuck of a thought process.
(ok, I won't be a dick after this part of the post, I just have absolutely idea where you got that)

1. Taxing those making $250,000 or more keeps the middle class purchasing, and despite what McCain says will not damage the small business economy. I don't know about a lot of people doing well on this board, but I know my own spending habits don't vary drastically after my income passes a certain level.
   Do I like more money? Yeah. But a bit less money does not necessarily affect my spending habits(to a certain point obviously). Now once again, remember that although I'm getting taxed more I also get more sales because people are willing to part with their money.
2. Oil prices are going to continue going up. The idea of heavily investing in renewable energy then reselling it to other industrial nations is a really. fucking. good. idea. It costs a substantial amount to create a solid infrastructure for that, so we could more or less hold a monopoly on it for quite awhile. Not many places will be able to round up the funding necessary to compete. As long as we're below the price of gas and have a solid method of distribution, we're solid.
   Additionally, it gives us the ability to put a financial squeeze on oil producing nations we may have conflicts with by lowering our own prices to undercut them. Oh yeah, and this entire thing creates jobs.
3. If you look at the polls, the public has a much higher confidence in Obama to deal with the economic situation. The confidence of the public is absolutely important to an economy. If people are more confident/less afraid of losing their asses, they don't restrict their buying habits to campbell's soup.

That's not everything, but we both know it's impossible to cover one of the most complex financial situations our country has ever faced in a forum post. And even if it was, I would not be qualified to be the one typing it. No one here would. Or else we'd be running for prez, not voting.
Now this (edit:errr the first part)I can agree with. If I'm being completely honest, I know neither party is perfect for this situation. There's a lot of things to be done. Politicians won't agree to most, and people would approve of even less.

That said, I feel that the symbolic 3rd party vote is part of what is wrong with this country right now.
I feel like the situation right now is bad enough that the time for symbolism is completely over. Symbols are just that, symbols. Indicators or reminders of a concept/idea. They are not actions or even planning. And right now, those are what we need. We need to sit down, iron out a real plan, and hit it balls to the wall. Either that or we're fucked.
I've rarely met a 3rd party voter who wasn't at least pretty well informed on the issues, and it fucking sucks that some of the few people in this country that know their head from their ass politically are wasting a vote on a symbol rather than actually trying to help us figure out which of the realistic candidates is going to at least have a decent chance of success.
Agreed. It was 1968 when the weathermen were formed.
I have VERY straightlaced relatives who were dropping acid and enjoying the free love in a hippy van back then.

__________________

LotsOfZeros

Many who will vote for McCain agree with this. I don't see this as a partisan issue for the most part. We all hate seeing those Saudis driving Bentleys and skiing in the desert.

I disagree with anyone who says this won't affect many in America since millions of mom-and-pop S-corps fall into this range. Each one employs 2 to 3 people as well. It all ads up. The larger corps love this one because their leaner, more nimble competition will get slaughtered.

I can see a small boost in consumer confidence immediately after the elections but I doubt it will have any lasting sustainability once the reality we are still in a depression sets in. Consumerism is fickle.

I guess that makes bombing government buildings OK then.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

tweak50

Take a look at the actual tax graph from both candidates. Under Obama you wouldn't feel a pinch until you hit the 603k mark.

__________________

LotsOfZeros

This proves Obama is a liar. There is no way he will be able to pay for all of his promises to the public if he is able to *allegedly* cut so much tax revenue out of the picture.

According to this graph, I walk away with an extra $410 under McCain.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

xmcp123

Yes, but Obama has put a lot more emphasis on alternative energy in general. McCain? Not as much. Palin? Still quizically pondering over global warming and rolling around on her skinned moose.

What's that zero? Implying it won't trickle down?
On a more serious note, only 3% of the sole proprietorships in the US make more than 250,000 per year.
The S-Corps and some businesses would fall at the bottom end of that bracket. Quite frankly, it's completely unavoidable. There will always be a bottom of the bracket, regardless of whose plan it is.
And by your logic the big businesses would hate these sole propriaterships since(gasp) they'd be paying less taxes than the big businesses.
Consumerism is fickle. But if you're sitting in the bottom of a big fucking hole, it's amazing how much a ladder(that initial consumer confidence) can help in getting out of the hole. That confidence with some positive action observable by the public, and who knows. This shit could turn around faster than we think(though admittadly still not fast)
It's not ok to bomb buildings. But it's also fucking retarded to judge someone who is simply associated in the present day with someone who over 35 years ago, during one of the nations most tumultuous political times in our history did that. While it is unforgivable to bomb buildings like he did, that doesn't mean I'm prepared to condemn everyone he's ever been associated with even decades after the indident because of it.

I think most people have known and in many cases befriended some very fucked up people. It's unavoidable in life. That doesn't make them the same as the people they knew.

__________________

LotsOfZeros

Haha! Well, I'll give you that one. Nice hit.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

BlueYonder

I love the way this thing is progressing: The McCain campaign ignores the economic collapse, and thinks we're all dying to hear about the names in Obama's Rolodex.

fail

__________________
Better copy = More sales
I write sales copy that moves the numbers.
Review thread here

Try Article Marketing Robot FREE

turbolapp

I have a few friends and alot of family members that are Evangelical Christians. I sure would be offended if I were judged based on their ideas and behaviors.

LazyHippy

I'm not condoning their actions, but one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

I'm sure the British would have viewed those who fought for American independence as terrorists back then if the word "terrorist" had been around.

I'm sure the Nazis viewed the French resistance as terrorism.

Even now, they still do it - how many protesters and political activists are being monitored or even locked up in the US and elsewhere under the guise of preventing terrorism?

__________________

LotsOfZeros

Then we should feel free to put morons like Ayers to death for treason. I'd be willing to pull the trigger myself. I guess that makes me a 'Freedom Fighter' too within the context of your definition.

Give me one example of when a political activist was locked up here for peaceful activism.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

Lord B

In the words of a wise American judge -- One Man's Terrorist is Another Person's Freedom Fighter.

__________________

LazyHippy

So the Sons of Liberty et al were terrorists and should have been executed?

Maybe the world would be a better place if that revolution by "terrorists" had been successfully suppressed. We would have given you independence eventually, probably in the middle of last century with all the other troublesome colonies. Shame those terrorists had to get involved or my ancestors could've had another 200 years or so of milking America's resources.

If you executed someone whom you saw as a terrorist, yet others saw as a freedom fighter, that wouldn't make you a freedom fighter, rather an instrument of the very state that is being fought against.

__________________

BlueYonder

This sounds like what McCain's ignorant shrew is spouting, which does NOTHING to address the real concerns we're facing. At least they have the redneck yahoo vote locked up.

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks

__________________
Better copy = More sales
I write sales copy that moves the numbers.
Review thread here

Try Article Marketing Robot FREE

LotsOfZeros

So you contradict your own statement here when you refer to Ayers as a freedom fighter.

Nothing like a debate with a lib - round and round we go.

Nothing you can say will ever justify the actions of this terrible person.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

LazyHippy

No contradiction mate, one action is fighting against authority, the other action is in support of it.

I'm not justifying anyone's actions, and haven't called him a freedom fighter, just saying it's not black and white as I've tried to illustrate with America's founding "terrorists".

Can you simultaneously think that America was founded by freedom fighters taking on their oppressive rulers, yet others who take similar action against an oppressive or unjust regime are terrorists?

Have you read 1984? Sounds like doublethink to me.

__________________

LotsOfZeros

Our founding fathers were defending land they believed was theirs. I know the history books have been tampered with over time but I don't recall ever reading about George Washington promoting unprovoked attacks on innocent people.

I'm still trying to find a freedom Ayers was denied. The irony is, he had many freedoms afforded him by the very country he attacked. He's no less a terrorist than Osama.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

xmcp123

Godamn. Fuck ayers. Once again, there's no point to judging someone based on the actions of anyone other than themselves.
For fuck's sake, stop dodging the point in favor or semantic battles.

__________________

BlueYonder

I don't recall ever reading that Obama promotes unprovoked attacks on innocent people.

__________________
Better copy = More sales
I write sales copy that moves the numbers.
Review thread here

Try Article Marketing Robot FREE

LotsOfZeros

But there is a point. Obama demonstrated a serious lapse in judgment when he knowingly kept dealing with the guy. How can someone like Obama be a good president when he can demonstrate such bad judgment on an issue that is crystal clear as this?

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

pat J

So what? McCain hangs out with Palin every day which is 10 times worse.

tweak50

The guy is a professor of education at the University of Chicago. Hundreds of people deal with him on a daily basis, get over it.

__________________

xmcp123

How could anyone be a good president if they stopped associating with someone simply because a few pricks who watch fox news wanted him to.

I don't give a fuck who Obama associates with. If it were possible, I would give a negative fuck about what those people did 30 years ago.

It's a loose association between the two. What's been described happens all the time between thousands of different people in the political world. It's in passing, and that's it. It's not like he impregnated him.

imo, this is what we call "desperately grasping" on McCain's part.

__________________

HarveyJ

Obviously this "University of Chicago" is a terrorist organisation and needs to be burned to the ground. They house and fund a known terrorist!
Everyone in there needs to be rounded up and sent to Guantanamo for questioning of their anti-American activities! They're non-combatants, but they are the enemy after all.

Wait, it's an academic institution that promotes research and analytical thinking???
Shit, forget the napalm, better get the bunker busting nukes!
It's time for the people to start a Cultural Revolution where we get rid of all these left thinking "intellectuals"! We'll round up the kids into some sort of national Guard. Give them a nice Republican colour, like Red.

What? That was a Communist thing?
FUCK!

__________________
After 10,000 years I'm free!

LotsOfZeros

@patJ, tweak50, xmcp123
I'm willing to bet none of you are even of age to buy a beer yet. My observation of the political tone of the youth today disturbs me deeply. Being one who grew up during the Reagan era, I for one have lived in the absolute best of times. I had everything I ever wanted, America basked in the glory of power and prosperity. Had any of you been born during my time, you would clearly see the danger in the liberal agenda.

However, who am I to say it truly is danger? It's just my opinion. I can only say what I have seen, what I now see, and what I personally predict the final outcome will be.

For the sake of yours and your children's future well being, I sure hope I am wrong about all of this.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

tweak50

My drivers license says you're wrong.

Ok, as much as I respect your opinion, assuming that just because someone is liberal they must be too young to know any better is just fucking retarded.

In fact, I don't see how you can say how dangerous the "liberal agenda" is and look back at the last 8 years and tell me that 4 more isn't just as dangerous.

But like you said, this is all just opinion. Chances are both of us will be mostly wrong on what the future will bring. My money is on Bush declaring martial law to keep power

__________________

LotsOfZeros

You're kidding us right?

I refuse to go into a convoluted class on the liberal agenda, you'll just have to understand what I am saying.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

xmcp123

Yeah, because your generations decisions have obviously set this country up in such a fucking fantastic position.
Oh loorrrddyy mista zero. We sure do got lotsa learnin to do about the monies from yall eldas.
Seriously, fuck off about age.
We may not have had a chance to take the test to see how we handle the country yet, but you guys have already flunked the test.

__________________

LotsOfZeros

^^^
proof you don't remember Reagan

Seriously, I welcome the test since I already know what the outcome will be.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

tweak50

Of course I'm kidding. Thus the wink at the end.

__________________

xmcp123

I know about Reagan.
Get over it.
It was 20 years ago. The world is different. Things like the internet and the end of the cold war change things. The same things that may have worked back then(obviously) aren't working now.

__________________

tweak50

Yup, the outcome will be better then what the decisions of your generation has produced over the last 8 years. I find it funny how everyone forgets how fantastic this country was doing under the Clinton Administration. Lets refresh some memories:

6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration, an average of a quarter million a month.

In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.

Cut taxes on 15 million low income families and raised taxes on the top 1.2 percent.

Reduced the deficit for the first time since Truman.



SOOOO... the "young dumb liberals" that voted him into office did a fuck a lot better than the "older experianced republicans" that voted in Bush...

__________________

LotsOfZeros

Don't make the common mistake of confusing Bush 1 & 2 with Reagan. The sheeple are doing a lot of that now. Apples and oranges.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

LazyHippy

I'm offended you didn't include me in that list. I know you have to be pretty old to buy beer in your country and I don't post many boobs and shit but I thought you might at least consider my constructive, logical, yet liberal and socially responsibly viewpoint to be the product of a young under-developed mind.

__________________

turbolapp

LOL I was offended too! But I didn't know if I was more offended about not being on liberal list or that it was just a given that I was older than the drinking age limit. :-/

LazyHippy

if(liberal == young){
$action = flame
}elseif(liberal != young){
$action = ignore, turn up Fox news
}

__________________

LotsOfZeros

if(liberal == young){
$action = 'save_their_future'
}elseif(liberal != young){
$action = 'cant_teach_old_dog_new_tricks'
}

BTW, has anyone seen SNL tonight? The debate was dead-on. Funny as hell.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

LazyHippy

If fuckin hope a certain very old dog learns some new tricks if he wins, or at least goes back to his old tricks before he was trying to win the votes of the far right. Or they might have him put down in favour of a slightly younger pitbull.

BTW, I'm 30. Young to many, but going by your sig probably a lot older than you (unless that's just a marketing tactic? Appear young and stupid to get em to click...? )

Anyway, you certainly can teach any fucking age dog new tricks, most old dogs adapt well... unless it's an old Christian dog that believes his tricks are the only tricks worth knowing and doesn't understand that jumping through a hoop or over a bar is still jumping, just the thing they are jumping for is slightly different.

__________________

turbolapp

On Thursday? Wha? TNL?

erect

I've been away from this thread too damn long. Took 10 to read now it'll take 20 to respond.

Both candidates basically take no care of the middle class (as I see it). One over taxes the rich, the other the poor. Where's a real candidate that taxes both the rich and the poor and gives the breaks to the citizens who make this country great .. the middle class. I say double digit breaks if over $50k but under $300k. Now that's logic you won't see on either side.

The Iroquois Indians affectionately nicknamed Washington "Caunotaucarius," which translates to either "Town Destroyer" or "Devourer of Villages." [ source ... if cracked can be considered a valid source that is ]

You're an idiot. Palin has been shell shocked by being thrust into the nationwide media who is very critical of her and has stuck her foot in her mouth more than a few times because of it. That doesn't mean that it's 10 times worst than being associated with someone with a dark history. Again, you're an idiot

I totally agree, and I'm only 33 so it's not like I'm an old fart. It's like the past few years trumps anything good the republicans have done in the past century. Being conservative is not considered a good quality anymore and that's EXACTLY what we need to safely get through this recession.

It's my opinion that the voting age should be raised 10 years. Everyone should pay taxes for a decade and start a family before getting vote on a direction for this country.

The young or ultra poor make up about 80% of the democratics party demographics. He's not that far off base, you guys just have Zeros thinking age on this thread.

8 years is short sighted, time to whip out your history book and realize Bush doesn't represent Republicans very well at all.

So not true, corrupt politicians and greedy fuckers from every generation have ruined our country. You can't blame an entire group of people for these issues.

It's like saying the senior citizens are to blame for social security issues. If they knew it was a bogus system and would cause a tremendous strain on their children & their children's children, they would have not been behind it.

Trust me when I tell you that in your generation you will find that many people leech off the system, this won't make your entire age group bad ... just a bunch of the greedy fucks in it.

Clinton gets a lot of credit that deserves to go to a house and senate that was ruled by Republicans. Not to mention that Alan Greenspan was a better Fed chairman than anyone else EVER. Stop acting like Clinton was superman ... he'll be remembered as a joke.

More like apples and spaceships. It should be illegal to use the words Bush & Reagan in the same sentence.

You shouldn't be, you're one of the more eloquent debaters we have on this board.

Both throw errors because they don't end with a ;

bwwwwwahahahha ... the sad part is 87% of our country falls under that category. EightyFuckingSevenPercent!!! I still get emails from my mom about Obama being the anti-christ ... geez.

__________________

pat J

The danger with voting for a republican candidate is that they are always religious nutjobs. Someone who puts their religious believes first is someone who can not think rationally. And that is the only argument i need to vote for the lesser evil.

Haha, don't even try to defend her.

LotsOfZeros

It was some special.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

xmcp123

Quote:

I usually don't think in absolutes, I overstepped a boundary there. My point is that Obama will spend like it's always Christmas. I'm for small gov't, which is old school Republican, and there is nothing thrifty about the democrats way of doing things .. that's where the extra trillion came from. Not out of your mouth.

Don't sweat it. It happens.
And I can agree in terms of we need to cut down, the only issues is where we cut it from
I suspect he can't. But he's actually bringing it up and placing a lot of emphasis on alternative fuels. McCain gives the impression he's bringing it up for votes. Much more of a "yeahhhh about that. Someday I'll jump on it"
I know the importance in 3rd parties. Honestly, what I stated above is something I never would've said in the past, and I suspect I'll never say again.
But once again, for me it is clear they are not going to get 5% of the vote this time around. And this time, we need something to prevent this from going downhill. It's not going to matter in the future if they can get their financing if there's no financing to be had. Right now is about turning this shit around as soon and sustainably as possible. End of story.

The 3rd party thing is not happening this time, and we need you guys. No matter which side you vote on.
Beyond that a system that involves 3 parties would require a drastic restructuring of our current voting system to get rid of the "wasted" vote concept.
Here's a question. Do you want someone who gets shell shocked that easily?
Our foreign policy is obviously right now largely about the middle east. A lot of cultures in the middle east don't respect women.
As much as I hate Hillary Clinton, I know she could've handled herself. Can you imagine Palin getting "shell shocked" (or for that matter, even how she is normally) and having to talk to the leader of Iran? Here's a hint. He'd probably consider talking to a woman about world issues in the first place degrading, and I have a feeling actually talking to her wouldn't do much to alleviate that.
She is simply not the example of a female leader we want to show to the world.
Left unregulated, stupid shit happens at companies(I can't believe I just linked to newsmax).
An under regulated marketplace is what created this. A conservative "hands off" policy will just let these companies keep doing what they have been.
Man, we're just not going to let up about the age thing, are we? Fucking hell I'm not paying taxes for 10 years after I'm 18 before I get a say in the countries elections. Besides, that would just result in people not following elections for 10 years.

You can't just say an age group shouldn't be able to vote because they disagree with you. If you disagree, congratulations, you no longer believe in a democracy.It's called a dictatorship if only people that agree with you can vote.
But he does represent McCain well. And frankly, most republicans don't represent the republican concepts well. It turned into the "christian" party for the past 8 years.

Sing it with me folks: regulation! transparency! regulation! transparency!
They shoulda stopped fucking. (just kidding, can't really blame them for this. Really, how many of us would NOT have been fucking that much given the opportunity)[/quote]
So remind me again why we're not qualified to vote if we're so similar to your age group?

thanksssss
I'm glad I get to end this response with a "I agree"

__________________

turbolapp

Alot of good points there SS. I liked the one about the republicans not being represented by republicans. The republicans today should just rename themselves the Christian party and that can be the third party.

Hey, I'm sure they would get more than the 5 % the way this country is so far up Jesus's ass.

erect

Nader got almost 3% of the vote in 2000 and Perot got over 8% in 1996

With all the noise Ron Paul has made, and the fact that he's backing Chuck Baldwin, if there was ever a time to introduce a 3rd party this is the year. RP's backing alone is worth 5%

Ugh, you think Obama is an economist???? What on earth leads you to believe that he can correct our financial situation? If anything his free spending will make it worse. Any confidence gained from consumers when he gets elected is just short lived ... like drinking a cup of coffee after being up for 48 hours. That's not enough.

No more than I want a Freshman senator that just goes with the party flow to be President. Put Biden at President and Obama at VP and you can make an arguement here.

She's fine normally as she showed on the VP debate (watch it, she did very well). Politicians are puppets anyways, their cabinet/party does most of the heavy lifting and they just read scripts (which Obama is good at).

I think the last thing in our mind when deciding on a VP is how middle-easterners feel about women. That's the lamest reason against Palin I've heard yet.

Furthermore, we should go back to the constitution and say "fuck the rest of the world, we've got our own problems" No war, no negotiations, no moderation between Palestine/Israel .... nothing. Let businesses trade and spread good will. Be friends but not nation builders. It's fucking sad that Afghanistan, Iran, etc are even a topic in our debates.

Regulation is bad with very, very few exceptions. This is an arguement for big government and I'm totally against that.

You already do it for 2 of those years (> 16) so what's the big difference? I bet if we lowered the drinking age to 18 while raising the voting age to 28 all of your campus buddies would get behind passing the bill, like 95% of them ..... THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I DON'T WANT THE YOUTH DECIDING WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT IS.

That's not what I said at all. The vast majority are simply not informed and/or would vote selfishly. It's not that they don't agree with me, it's because it's bad for the country as a whole.

Ex: Say Obama campaigns on free gov't funded college for all high school graduates. Democrats like to buy votes with handouts so this is a good example. College kids wouldn't care about the damage this would do to the economy, they want their free tuition.

^^ While I like that scenario better than welfare, it's still a handout and a great example of buying votes. Just like the 2nd round of stimulus checks the dems are pushing. It's also why democrats want to lower taxes for poor people to the point that we're actually paying them to work. Fucking bullshit.

Republicans want lower taxes on the rich and everyone else to pay their fair share. These are poeple who provide jobs & power our economy with all their contributions to the GDP. True, some are corrupt, but if you can answer honestly, who deserves the tax breaks more?

a> someone looking for a handout
b> someone who creates wealth for our country

87% of the country is christian. The only difference between democratic and republican religious nutjobs is the color of their skin.

I totally agree that the republicans in power should tuck their tail and make another party for their war-mongering agenda. It's not what a true conservative believes.

__________________

xmcp123

We'll see I suppose. No sense in arguing this one till there's some data.

I didn't say I thought he was an economist. But I do think as far as our realistic choices for president go, he's the best bet economically. More than that I trust him to actually consult others who are more knowledgeable than him about the economy. Politicians aren't economists(yes, even McCain) but we still have to elect them based in part on their economic philosophies...
I wouldn't fight that ticket.

I did watch it. She did "well" by not getting destroyed. I won't concede that she did well until she actually answers a few of the questions she's asked. I'm pretty forgiving(even of repubs) for question dodging; some are loaded and there's no gettin around that. But she was skipping questions that weren't loaded.
The other thing you'll notice is that 99% of the appeal she had was targeted at those who would already support her. So did she serve to energize her own base a bit? Yeah. But I doubt she picked up any new votes.

Read into it more. Certain women have enough of a powerful personality or a fund of information large enough to command respect, even where they're disliked.
I don't have the same cultural issues the middle east has with women, and I still can't take her seriously. She's not very experienced, doesn't strike me as especially bright, and is evangelical as fuck.

Do you honestly believe it's a good idea to have a VP(who has a good chance of being president) who is completely unable to function in our region of greatest conflict?
You break it you buy it.

There doesn't have to be a big government for it. There has to be someone watching to make sure they're not falsely representing their financial stability.

Things that are different when you're 18 vs. 16

1. The potential(albeit limited in this situation) for a draft.
2. I get charged as an adult if I get arrested. Responsible enough to be criminally liable for my actions, but not enough to vote?

And I bet you're wrong. Let me ask you a question erect. How much time do you spend every week actually physically talking to someone my age? How many people is this sample size here?
Or are you forming your opinions of a generation based off of some random Spring Break video on MTV?

...this is an awesome hypothetical argument, unfortunately it has no basis in reality.
Obama's not doing that, and has never indicated he would.

If you're against selfish voting, can I expect to see you ragging on republicans like popeye who blatantly say their motivation is a desire to pay as little taxes as possible?
I'm sorry, but I can't believe given the repubs tax plan you called students "selfish" voters.
The people without enough food to live on. Or people without houses. I've known these people in my life, and they're not looking for a handout.

I'm sorry, but especially as people in our industry, do you honestly believe we're working harder than someone working 2 shitty, mind numbing jobs?
If you do, you need your head checked.
I know I don't deserve what I make from a "difficulty of work" perspective, and I can't imagine being conceited enough to believe otherwise.

Oh by the way, it's even better in Michigan. Republicans demolished our mental health system a bit ago. So in many cases these people looking for "handouts" as you say are mentally ill people with no family who were thrown out by the state gov't because engler wanted a tiny little boost in his "end of the year" statistics.


Agreed. But the evangelicals/nutters are almost without exception conservative.
We have our nuts, don't get me wrong. Find a hippy middle-school teacher and you'll know what I mean. But I'm sorry, trying to spread the crazy christian blame is an argument on the failboat.
^right thurrr.

__________________

pat J

Uh no. Obama might be a christian, but he's not a religious nutjob. The majority of all democrats might also be christians but not as crazy as the majority of all republicans. This is what the MAJORTIY of republicans actually believe;

* Using stem cells for medial research is wrong.
* A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body.
* If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
* Creationism should be taught in public schools.
* Ban gay marriages and adoptions, ban the teaching of evolution, ban/censor porn, punish women who expose their breasts...

Voting for a republican candidate would be like voting for Hitler because you're not a jew and you don't give a fuck as long as you get your 3% tax cut.