US Presidential Elections 2

[taks]

And by calling me an idiot for that comment task, you just proved the case for right wingers generally being of low IQ.

of course, you are not only incapable of finding any post of mine which supports your theory, indicating you either made it up or just can't generate a valid argument, you lob an insult claiming some sort of superiority. hehe, you are funny, brdavs. and hypocritical. at least i'm consistent and not a hypocrite.

 

i guess you have some IQ-ometer measuring device, btw? you and hildegard? what did i say before... oh yeah, **** envy.

 

taks

[random n00b]

wonder how such a mess of stupid people managed to get rich? certainly they didn't all inherit their wealth?

oh yeah, **** envy.

Taks is going on a rampage! Run!

[taks]

hehe...

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Conservatism doesn't work either, Taks. So, either way we're screwed. Take a look at trickle down economics. That has never worked. Since Reagon, each and every "fiscal conservative" Republican we have had in office not once balanced the budget. Who was in office when the budget was balanced? Hmmm, a tax and spend liberal Democrat.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Brdavs]

And by calling me an idiot for that comment task, you just proved the case for right wingers generally being of low IQ.

of course, you are not only incapable of finding any post of mine which supports your theory, indicating you either made it up or just can't generate a valid argument, you lob an insult claiming some sort of superiority. hehe, you are funny, brdavs. and hypocritical. at least i'm consistent and not a hypocrite.

 

i guess you have some IQ-ometer measuring device, btw? you and hildegard? what did i say before... oh yeah, **** envy.

 

taks

 

Where was I insulting again? Seriosly, where?

 

All I did here today was point out the irony of a right wingers (afraid of what most people would classify as absurd) labeling people of opposing political persuasion as gullable sheep of liberal leaders that are hell bent on totalitarism (dunno when bush went leftie with his beefing up of the executive branch, but ffs get the commies out the white house for some good old conservatives!).

If thats not friggin ironic I don`t know what is.

 

After that I proceeded to satirize a misshap by the McCain campaign in a simmilar way right wingers at the highes level did (and do) about Obamas "terror links". Then, get this, I get branded an idiot, and not even for being of a different persuasion (as it is custome for right wingers I suppose) but for apparently not comprehending the situation with the Russians fully, cos I "cant read" lol.

 

Oh and I`m apparently super insulting and elitist when pointing out that while you`re not the best at detecting satire&sarcasm you`re infact superslow since you generalize about lefties and insult people, yet dont like it when the boot is on the other foot. Whos the hypocrit again, I cant read, I lost track of what I was articulating.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Brdavs

[Killian Kalthorne]

Taks is going on a rampage! Run!

 

Of course, and it is all in good fun just as long as no one takes the rambling on either side too seriously. After all, we each have a part to play in the Obsidian Forums Melodrama.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[taks]

Of course, and it is all in good fun just as long as no one takes the rambling on either side too seriously. After all, we each have a part to play in the Obsidian Forums Melodrama.

of course we do... as i said, if i can't pick on you, who can i pick on?

 

certainly, i'm sure there are plenty of threads in which any one of us walk away either peeved, totally pissed off, or outright fuming. but then we come back the next day and talk about how fun/boring/stupid some game is and whether or not the latest GFX card lives up to the hype.

 

what would a political discussion be without at least one extremist on either side of the debate*, anyway?

 

taks

 

*i've never thought of these as debates... simply arguments for the sake of arguing, maybe just plain venting. we are on the internet, ya know.

[Aristes]

I think you should vent about the terrible campaign McCain has run. It's not that it's more brutal (don't make me laugh. Jefferson hired a slanderer to write things about Adams and tried to paint Washington as a dottering old fool). It's that McCain has been stupid. Hey, the proof of the pudding is in the... tasting? Something like that. Anyhow, the point is, McCain will look super smart if he wins, but he looks pretty dumb to me right now and, frankly, I'll go to my grave thinking he's an idiot stick for that whole "suspend my campaign" debacle.

[Hurlshort]

Cover up? Umm, no he didn't.

 

Type in "Colin Powell My Lai" and you will get quite a few different stories all about his terrible investigation. Maybe he was just a really bad investigator, but he's never struck me as a dumb guy. It seems pretty clear he covered it up, and it was only because another witness came forward years later that we have any record of the horrific massacre.

[Meshugger]

So, with of the possibility of a democratic majority in the congress, senate and a demcratic President, what is your bet that they will (hypothetically) follow through with the following issues:

 

1. Taxes: Obama's taxplan will be legislated

2. Afghanistan and Iraq: Within 4 years everyone is back home

3. The economy: Recession will take place, but how will their policy change aside from taxes? You know, transparacy, audits, investigations on fraud on wall street?

4. Social security, medicare and alike: Will they implement universal healthcare for all?

5. Education: Will education be free, no matter how high you go?

 

My take: 1 out of 5, and that is the first one. Maybe some social issues will be done, but certainly nothing will be done on 1)The war on terror, and 2) Energy policy and finally on 3) Nothing will be done on Wall Street, no one will get into prison, no audit will be done, and nothing will be done on the federal reserve, since they are way into their pockets.

 

And 2-4 years, the republicans will re-enter congress and the senate, promising to throw socialism out of Washington. In reality, they will just lower the taxes and keeping the social programs intact.

[Gfted1]

#2) Already happening in Iraq with the plan to be complete withdrawal in three years. IMO, once that happens and we focus on Afghanistan, it will be over within 3-4 years.

#4) God, I hope not.

[Meshugger]

#2) Already happening in Iraq with the plan to be complete withdrawal in three years. IMO, once that happens and we focus on Afghanistan, it will be over within 3-4 years.

#4) God, I hope not.

 

This is not whether you like it or not, or whether it goes against anyone's principles. It is about the possibility of it happening, since they will have to some degree, total majority in every seat of government.

[Hurlshort]

Cover up? Umm, no he didn't.

 

Type in "Colin Powell My Lai" and you will get quite a few different stories all about his terrible investigation. Maybe he was just a really bad investigator, but he's never struck me as a dumb guy. It seems pretty clear he covered it up, and it was only because another witness came forward years later that we have any record of the horrific massacre.

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/corn20010502

 

That is probably the least inflammatory of the articles I read, but it still makes it clear Powell has some skeletons in his closet.

 

I don't necessarily have an issue with Powell, I just find it baffling where his reputation of integrity comes from.

[Meshugger]

Cover up? Umm, no he didn't.

 

Type in "Colin Powell My Lai" and you will get quite a few different stories all about his terrible investigation. Maybe he was just a really bad investigator, but he's never struck me as a dumb guy. It seems pretty clear he covered it up, and it was only because another witness came forward years later that we have any record of the horrific massacre.

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/corn20010502

 

That is probably the least inflammatory of the articles I read, but it still makes it clear Powell has some skeletons in his closet.

 

I don't necessarily have an issue with Powell, I just find it baffling where his reputation of integrity comes from.

 

Hmm, this article points out at best that he might know more than he says to know. I can't really make out more of it.

 

As far as character and integrity goes, I think that it partly comes from the way he articulates himself and how he makes statements and general judgement. I can also guess that he got som kewl points for resigning from the bush administration discretely, like a good soldier would.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Meshugger

[taks]

1. Taxes: Obama's taxplan will be legislated

2. Afghanistan and Iraq: Within 4 years everyone is back home

3. The economy: Recession will take place, but how will their policy change aside from taxes? You know, transparacy, audits, investigations on fraud on wall street?

4. Social security, medicare and alike: Will they implement universal healthcare for all?

5. Education: Will education be free, no matter how high you go?

 

My take: 1 out of 5, and that is the first one.

yup, and even that may be compromised from the bribe he's offering up now due to the financial issues, if it is implemented at all. don't get me wrong, both candidates are trying to bribe us with tax cuts for the majority of the electorate.

 

Maybe some social issues will be done, but certainly nothing will be done on 1)The war on terror, and 2) Energy policy and finally on 3) Nothing will be done on Wall Street, no one will get into prison, no audit will be done, and nothing will be done on the federal reserve, since they are way into their pockets.

 

And 2-4 years, the republicans will re-enter congress and the senate, promising to throw socialism out of Washington. In reality, they will just lower the taxes and keeping the social programs intact.

wow, you sound almost as pessimistic as me... ahem.

 

actually, as gfted1 said, #2 is already happening, it just doesn't get much press since that's not newsworthy compared to economic issues. #3, they'll push for more regulation, wrongly blaming de-regulation as the cause of what is underway. #4 just won't happen unless the economy clears up completely before a filibuster becomes possible again (assuming the senate loses the filibuster as it is). #5, no way. the federal government only accounts for a bit over 10% of public education for k-12 as it is, plus aid to college students. no way we can afford that without bankrupting ourselves.

 

the economic woes really have changed the political landscape, even with a liberal supermajority. ultimately, what they need to get most of this through is the economic situation of the 90s, as biff hound dog had, but without being saddled by republicans in congress, which biff the hound dog also had. if biff had the supermajority they are looking at getting this time, we'd have a failed universal health care system by now.

 

taks

[Hildegard]

lolz... yet another hypocritical liberal. everyone that believes in anything even remotely rightwing must be a) redneck and b) low IQ. you know this because why? because they're rightwing therefore they must be low IQ? or because you're in possession of such a high IQ that you can tell? they don't agree with you therefore... i can go on and on. and yet i'm the one with the superiority complex.

 

somehow, liberals are for the workers and conservatives are for the rich. wonder how such a mess of stupid people managed to get rich? certainly they didn't all inherit their wealth?

 

taks

 

Well as far as my votes go, I voted only two times in my country, for a far right party for your info. So based on my choices in elections I wouldn't call myself a liberal to be exact.

 

 

You started saying that liberals in case of Obama are bunch of sheep. But IMO they are not more a bunch of sheep then those rightwing masses in US whom you can sell anything, all you need to do is wave them the flag, jab about traditional views because they mostly live in rural areas and small cities rather then urban areas and you have them in your pocket, tag your adversary as a threat to their security and if a non republican wins it's actually a victory for US enemies and them actually buying that, to me these are bunch of sheep.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Hildegard

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

these are bunch of sheep.

 

Dear God...

[Tigranes]

Not surprised, really. And the media has to take a big kick up the arse as a significant contributor to that.

[taks]

my gawd... you're actually a) pulling out IQ data published by... liberals... hehe, and b) falling for the "divide" myth.

 

are you really that... easily bought? go look, btw, at all the "red and blue" states and, surprise surprise, they're all nearly 50/50 (mostly closer than 55/45) regardless of which way you split (red or blue). in other words, you're bifurcating what isn't a simple red/blue split, not even close, and using dubious (if not outright ridiculous) statistics as if that "proves" something.

 

yet another case of someone posting evidence that makes my case for me (yrkoon was famous for failing to actually read his own links). all this and the only thing i had to do is call liberals sheep. out you went to prove it.

 

hook.

line.

sinker.

 

taks

[Gorth]

...and using dubious (if not outright ridiculous) statistics as if that "proves" something.

I loved an old joke posted a few years (?) ago, just after hurricane Katrina. It showed that all major hurricanes (measured in the loss of lives and property) with one exception happened during the rule of republican presidents. The conclusion was: God hates republicans.

 

Statistics is such a nice tool

[Killian Kalthorne]

Well, on various issues, to be honest here, I don't like Obama or McCain all that well.

 

First bit on Immigration. Both want to give amnesty to illegal immigration. That just seems wrong to me. These people broke our laws, they are criminals, yet we are going to give them amnesty? Didn't we do this before and it has shown not to work? I do agree we need immigration reform, but giving amnesty to criminals is just wrong. Another bone of contention with both sides is indeed the economy. Both sides supported the bailout, a bailout that will cost the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. Also both sides share the blame for the mortgage meltdown. The Democrats for setting it up with the CRA and the Republicans and its leadership doing nothing about it when they held the majority and the presidency. Also the tax plan both sides are proposing, while I like Obama's better for selfish reasons, being honest here, I much prefer ditching income tax altogether, ending the existence of the IRS, and place a federal sales tax on taxable items. Higher the cost of the item, a higher the percentage. We are a consumer based society and it is the most fair way possible. It treats everyone equal when it comes to spending money, and promotes saving. I am for socialized health care, but for only legal residence and citizens. Use a blanket insurance policy which the government employees use and apply it to everyone with legal status.

 

I am Pro-Choice, but I am against having federal money being spent on abortions unless it is a medical emergency or in cases of rape/incest. I am also for having parents and guardians being told if a minor under their care is going to have an abortion. An abortion is a surgical procedure, and a parent/guardian should be told whenever their child is going through a surgical procedure.

 

While weighing both sides, Obama is closer to my views but hardly a perfect fit. One thing I am positively against him on is the issue of gun control. I think that guns, but not automatics and military hardware of course, and armor should be unrestricted.

 

Also, nothing can be more skewed one way or another than statistics. Useless, in my ever so humble opinion.

[Aristes]

Actually, as someone who comes at it from a different viewpoint, I think you put your case very well in a short space, Killian. I think policy changes will make a difference in our lives, but I don't think there will be drastic policy changes no matter which candidate wins. However, I fear dramatic policy changes that might pass in a filibuster-proof senate and house under complete Democratic domination.

 

This is the firts election in a long time that I'm not voting for someone. I'm voting against Obama on the following grounds:

 

1) While both candidates are offerering substantial spending, Obama is far worse and I suspect that his spending increase will be even more significant than he currently states.

 

2) I don't believe Obama's tax plan will have any chance of succeeding with his current spending proposals. Even though he shies away from the term "socialized healthcare," I believe he wants to move us radically toward that goal.

 

3) I don't favor banning abortions, but I disagree with the idea of sponsoring abortions as a matter of public policy. If it is truly a woman's choice, then it should certainly be her responsability. If we do not socialize healthcare, and I fervently hope we do not, then I don't see why the governtment should be concerned about the issue any more than other medical procedures.

 

4) I simply disagree with the notion that people who do not pay income tax can receive a tax break. Obama's claim regarding the payroll, sales, and other taxes is simply political double-speak.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I really cannot vote for McCain because of Palin. I do not want some religious nutjob like Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency. I don't like her policies, I don't like how she mixes her religion with her politics. A fiscal conservative I can vote for, but a religious social conservative like Palin I just cannot support.

[Tigranes]

Hey, I'm sufficiently disgusted by Palin's politics and campaigning angle, and McCain & co's mindset behind choosing her in the first place... never mind the prospect of her presidency (though I really think it's unlikely McCain will just, y'know, die.)

[Walsingham]

It could just be the hangover talking, but isn't this something quite fundamental? How can any extreme social agenda ever really represent the will of a people as heterogenous as the USA? Therefore is it not an argument that therefore an extremist platform is logically and ineluctably unsuitable for a national leader?