(Americans:) You don't have to state who you're voting for, I just want to know what you think of both candidates (McCain and Obama).
McCain (Republican): He's quiet, doesn't get too involved, but had some good ideas. He chose a vice presidential candidate with some good plans as well, but where did she come from (where did he get the idea to choose a candidate from Alaska)? He has TONS of experience in the US Military and the government.
Obama (Democrat): Very inexperienced. He is not prepared to become president, in my opinion. He's a smooth talker. He can tell you something and convince you because of how he brings it up. He has some good ideas for the future, but really has no way to go about them. He picked a vice presidential candidate with more experience than Palin, but like McCain, has a hard time speaking his ideas.
If you couldn't tell, I'm going with McCain.
McCain: Corporate tool with a bigger tool as a Vice Presidential candidate, can't seem to keep his story straight.
Obama: Fresh blood not already "taught" how things "should" work by big business interests, only seems to change his mind when actual flaws in his previous thoughts are brought to his attention. Or at least that is the impression I got.
I usually lean toward the person who does the least bash-adverting, and in this case its McCain-Palin doing all the bashing (Fox News excluded), so, if I could, I'd vote for Obama.
Other than that, I could care less about politics.
same... and i thought the phrase was 'i couldnt care less about ____'
glad all this presidential stuff doesnt apply to me. we just have this stupid credit crunch thing and everyones getting OVERLY worried about it...
Odd, I've seen tons more McCain bashing where I am.
I don't like Obama because his plans end up literally redistributing the wealth (socialism). Some PPL get more money back then they pay in taxes, while others pay even more.
By Obama's plan, people with the money to pay more will, and people who can barely support themselves on their meager incomes will receive financial support. In McCain's plan, everybody gets their taxes raised. And he wants tax breaks for large companies akin to those who got us into the economic crisis we are in right now. Obama's plan can be called something like Socialism, but we don't need a democratic president to do that, since that is exactly what we're doing right now, what with all of the government ownership in banks.
McCain: He has experience, which is a very important asset for anyone running for president. He has some good ideas, but I don't think that he knows how to implement them correctly. His choice of Palin seemed to be very short-sighted, as though he was pressured to select a female running mate by the party so that they could say that they were "breaking the mold," like the Democrats with Obama.
Palin: Besides the fact that she's been governor of Alaska, she doesn't seem to have any administrative experience. She also seems to be a mouthpiece for the party, and calls to mind the Family Guy episode when Lois ran for Mayor ("9-11"). If McCain is elected and dies in office, I would not want her running the country.
Obama: I agree with Feared_1 about his apparent lack of experience, but he makes up for it with interesting ideas. His economic policy is much better than McCain's IMO, and that is what people are going to be worrying about these days.
Biden: I haven't heard much about him, but from what he said in the VP Debate, he is much more capable than Palin. He also has experience, which helps balance Obama's lack of it.
VSMIT.
[Haven't read topic]
No matter the outcome; you're all doomed and so is the rest of the world :lol:
Yeah.. both your guys suck.
But they can't be worse than Bush.... can they?
I find it funny that everywhere I go, a majority votes McCain, yet Obama is still winning....
Yah, I'm McCain as well.
Mainly, I've heard nothing that makes me like Obama, just lies and half-baked, short-term fixups that even I can see the holes in. On the contrary, McCain has told me a few plans that I do like, and nothing I don't. The only reason people like Obama is because he's an outstanding speaker and McCain is a terrible debater.
Much of what is blamed on Bush is actually the backlash from things Clinton did.
Bush's style of brushing off mistakes and errors is to make bad jokes that make him look stupid.
McCain: have not seen him state coherently what his plans are. He says he's going to cut spending, then starts talking about all the cash he's going to give away.
Obama: I don't really agree with what he's planning, but at least he tells people what he's planning. He comes off as a lot more competant.
I'll be writing in Ron Paul.
Ditto.
Off topic really quick: are polls disabled on the forums? I wanted to make this a poll to get a visual representation of what we're talking about.
Back on topic: Why Ron Paul?
Off topic: You need to have higher level rights to add polls to your own topics here. Even higher to add polls to any topic here. And I reserve the right to massively screw with the results of any poll added to the topic.
Edit: Sorry, just double-checked. Without someone screwing with options, I think I am the only one with the add poll interface right now.
I never vote for any president of u.s. I rather wait til im old or 100 yrs old. :lol:
Lucky you don't live here is Aus then.
We are legally forced to vote from the age of 18 up. Quite communist isn't it.
From what I've seen from both candidates it's going to boil down to this: Eeny meeny mineey moe catch a tiger by the toe if he hollers make him say I pick you. Either way it's picking the lesser of two evils. Anybody got a coin to flip? No pun intended, but that's the way I see it. Politicans, in general promise the moon, but rarely deliver after the elections over and life returns to normal again.
lets face it, youre never going to get the ideal leader are you... neither is anyone
Thats true, people want someone who can fix EVERYTHING, and we know the only thing that can do that is cheese.
I do admit, Obama seems like a more likeable guy, but im still for McCain
If you have heard more about McCain bashing Obama, thats because the idoitic Democrats tell the whole world if McCain jokingly call Obama poo, but if Obama called McCain every name in the book, you would not hear a thing.
Besides, the only really fair news station is foxnews, since the rest are all Completely democrats. When the soldiers voted, and voted 3/1 for McCain, foxnews and only foxnews showed it.
People probably will argue with me, but hey, that's fine. :P
I'm leaning McCain as though Obama maybe a better speak, I don't care if you could be a perfect orator. I'm looking at who can help out the best in all necessary areas of life. In my opinion, McCain would do a better job then Obama.
Fox news is anything but fair. :P
Although, no USA news station I know of is fair. I prefer the BBC, maybe that is why I do not hear much about the elections... :P
Just from what I know about how they both stand on various issues (I have not heard them speak, I do not even really know what they look like, etc...) I lean toward Obama as he seems the only Internet-friendly candidate (since Ron Paul dropped out anyway), McCain sucks for *anything* 'net based, thus, screw him, regardless of how he stands on anything else (otherwise all other issues are balanced between them, that Internet issue is the only thing that topples it).
Quite frankly, anyone who votes based on how someones looks, or how friendly they are, or anything beyond strictly how they directly stand on topics (none of that legalese crap either), are complete morons. That *especially* goes for who votes based on party, I did not even remember Obama was Democrat until I read it above. Anyone who votes based on party alone should be shot. If Ron Paul was running as *anything*, I would vote for him, but meh...
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Net friendly is important, but Obama wants to spread the wealth! My family would either get money or be in the middle, but I STILL want to EARN what I GET, and once I do improve myself, I don't want to pay for Joe Shmo to live comfortably. Besides, socialism gives everyone what they need, not comfort so EVEN WORSE.
I have had to pay my entire life, I would not mind getting something for once. :P
Although, I would prefer they cut back military spending, raise taxes a bit, and pay off the freaking $10trillion national debt first...
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Quote from: OvermindDL1 on October 24, 2008, 10:32:22 PM
Anyone who votes based on party alone should be shot.
Lol, thats most americans for ya.
Good, we might get some more intelligent voting going on.
Whether or not the increase in voting intelligence is measurable or noticeable would be a different question.
Quote from: Nielk1 on October 24, 2008, 10:45:22 PM
Net friendly is important, but Obama wants to spread the wealth! My family would either get money or be in the middle, but I STILL want to EARN what I GET, and once I do improve myself, I don't want to pay for Joe Shmo to live comfortably. Besides, socialism gives everyone what they need, not comfort so EVEN WORSE.
I really love how people just take what someone says in a newspaper or on the internet or on a news show and takes it at face value.
OBAMA AS PRESIDENT DOES NOT MEAN SOCIALISM. Currently, with a Republican president, we have become more socialist than we have been in a very long time.
I'm done before I say something I may regret later.
VSMIT.
Quote from: VSMIT on October 25, 2008, 07:55:45 AM
I really love how people just take what someone says in a newspaper or on the internet or on a news show and takes it at face value.
I didn't. Ive been saying he's socialist since I studied his own press releases and everything he's said. I don't trust the media and saw him as a socialist WELL BEFORE JOE THE PLUMBER!
We've gone from the Republican and Democrat parties to the Democrat and Socialist parties.
Comrade Bush has already socialized the financial system...I don't see McCain or anybody else rolling back the tide at this point. The pendulum was held too far to the right for too long...now it's coming back with a vengeance.
We'll have a great depression, some social programs, 10 years of suck, then some loon will take advantage of the fascist yearnings that are already showing up in the population.
Quote from: VSMIT on October 25, 2008, 07:55:45 AM
I really love how people just take what someone says in a newspaper or on the internet or on a news show and takes it at face value.
OBAMA AS PRESIDENT DOES NOT MEAN SOCIALISM. Currently, with a Republican president, we have become more socialist than we have been in a very long time.
I'm done before I say something I may regret later.
VSMIT.
I'm not going to try and argue too much with this, as I havn't done enough reaserch to go very far with it...
However, from what I've seen, the Democrats want to socialize things. Wealth, heathcare, wellfare, ect. From what I can see, all the Republicans have done is bought out a few corperations, not try to give everyone free benefits and overtake entire markets.
Obama obviously took offence to people calling him socialistic (as true as it is), so now he's using the media to try and reverse the message even though he's doing 10x as much and he knows it. But with the media on his side, what can Republicans do?
I hope we get a social health program, in other countries they work so freakishly better then our system does here...
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Yeah, having to wait a year to get medical attention works out great. I've read many similar stories involving Canada and England. If public healthcare could be made to work better than the DMV then great, I don't see it happening unfortunately. Government services in terms of service tend to suck at least that's the experience I have had with it.
Granted the current system outright sucks too. I'm uninsured until I finish school because a HMO wanted to charge me $800 a month just to cover myself.
I have no clue how Canada's and England's works, but the health system in Japan you get help rather instantly. Although from what I have heard the doctors are not the best. :P
Not sure why it would take a year to get medical services, could you not just walk in somewhere when you are sick?
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
From what I understood, this is for major operations or surgeries in general. I've heard of instances where Canadians would come to the U.S. for cancer treatment because of having to wait a year in Canada.
I don't know how walk in clinics work if those have the same type of lag.
I find it disturbing that we have industries that want to profit off of the health of Americans. To me that is like a fire department or the police department expecting a profit ie they won't help you if they don't make a profit doing so.
Quote from: OvermindDL1 on October 25, 2008, 07:01:33 PM
I have no clue how Canada's and England's works, but the health system in Japan you get help rather instantly. Although from what I have heard the doctors are not the best. :P
Not sure why it would take a year to get medical services, could you not just walk in somewhere when you are sick?
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Here's how it works:Obama starts socialistic healthcare.
Doctors no longer get paid as much because everyone's covered.
Doctors, no longer getting enough money, leave the country.
All the time, the amount of people with heathcare goes up by 50%.
So now you have 150% of the patents, with 50% of the doctors. You know how it usualy takes two of three weeks to get an appointment? Yah, so now mulitply that by 3. That makes it 2-3 months at minimum. Do you want to wait that long to get cough medicine? Well, the good news is that those rich pharmacys will get even richer! :D Unless... unless of course the overinflation caused by the extream release of money into circulation (via Democrats) causes them to go bankrupt. It is not uncomon for the Canadians and English to wait up to 6 months for a checkup.
That's right. The only way that they will even think about looking at you within a week is if it's life threatening.
So, you all know about the deseases that don't seem bad? You just get a few minor side effects, that's all. But in the end, the desease could kill you. Take the flu for example. Streap throat. So many killers, so many people.
Yah, so now
those diseases will kill more people.
YAY! You just effectively killed off 10% of the American population! Way to go Obama!
Oh, and of course, you can't forget how our government is always so great at suplying quality goods and services. Well, now you can expect that same great quality in our healthcare! Oh, wait.... government goods and services are the lowest quality they can possibly make them. Think that will have an effect?
Lol... I think you may be taking that a wee bit out of context Civ.
3 weeks to get an appointment? I have never heard of an instance where anyone I know has had to wait more than a few days for a medical appointment - even for the most serious conditions. But then, I am not American so really I have no clue.
Just vote for whoever you think will do the least damage to your country guys.
By damage do you mean domestic or foreign damage? :wink:
VSMIT.
Oh there will always be doctors who get paid more for higher quality service, and as such they will be more encouraged to provide the higher quality service (always for a fee of course). :P
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Quote from: VSMIT on October 25, 2008, 09:23:08 PM
By damage do you mean domestic or foreign damage? :wink:
VSMIT.
Oh... you know me... selfless. :-P
Okay... yah, some of it's a bit out of line. But still the same basic principle.
Less doctors, more patence, bigger wait. Bigger wait for help, more death.
It is true, though, that those countries commonly wait up to half a year just to get to an appointment. It would no longer be a yearly thing.
Maybe it would have the effect of people being proactive by placing more emphasis on staying healthy than on being being reactive by dependent upon doctors and hospitals?
QuoteIt is not uncomon for the Canadians and English to wait up to 6 months for a checkup.
We are free to pay for immediate treatment if we wish to, you might have to wait for some treatments if you do not wish to pay for private treatment and use the national health service.
The poor are not excluded from healthcare in England. The wealthy can have whatever they wish to pay for. It is not a perfect system, it could be better if the political willpower was there to make its financing work properly. Unfortunately it is financed from general tax revenues, not a national health insurance, and so is highly vulnerable to the whims of the 2 political party's we foolishly vote for again and again.
We have the leaders we deserve (stupid self interested one's) and a health service to match.
So check the small print on the candidates plans, A national heath service needs to be set up so that politicians cannot play games with its financing whenever they need a bit of cash somewhere else.
QuoteSo now you have 150% of the patents, with 50% of the doctors.
Ahem...you could only have 100% of the patents...
Obstetricians quite often go into a room and come out with 200%.
But that's a very different idea.
VSMIT.
Red unfortunately some of us are born with conditions that require somewhat routine checkups and are therefor born unhealthy.
If I didn't have a heart condition, I could afford to exercise regularly without the fear of having a heart attack.
Our current system scares me considering health care is already expensive for individuals who weren't born with any defects. In my case, I'm sure I'm outright screwed.
In a socialistic system, I can see people saying f**k going to school for at least 8 years to become a doctor if you can't make enough to justify the cost of going and the time it takes to graduate. I'm assuming Obama is mainly wanting to change the way health insurance itself works and not how much doctors make which may be a good thing if it works.
This has already been happening for decades. My wife's dad was a doctor from the 60's on, and he said the screwing came when they stopped calling it medicine and started calling it healthcare. The first nail was the malpractice insurance that eats half of what they make, then came the medicare and HMOs that only pay a fraction of the patient's bills....leaving the doctor to eat the rest.
We've already got the disadvantages of a socialized system, and the insurance industry is the one taking all the profit. We need to either go back to how it was before the insurance companies got their hooks into it, or we need to make the government be the insurer and raise taxes to provide insurance for everybody. The current system is corrupt and screws everybody but the insurance companies.
Health insurance in a free market system HAS to be corrupt because of the profit motive. The only thing I would keep from the current system is untaxed healthcare savings accounts, but without the additional catastrophic insurance requirement. Malpractice suits should pay out only for subsequent medical care to put things right...no more punitive jackpots. If they want to punish the doctor, suspend his license, but don't make it profitable to sue him.
Nothing will happen though. The insurance industry owns too much of our government, and they are making bank the way things are.
Quote from: Dx on October 26, 2008, 07:34:06 PMI think people need more pervention rather than care.
I think most doctors and 'healthcare' professions do emphasize preventive medicine, sometimes even as general as... take vitamins daily, don't eat junk food (salt & sugar), eat fruits & vegetables, go lite on dead barbecued animal parts, exercise, yet don't overwork (or overstress or overexercise), and/or just be plain stupid (kids on the playground getting more than the proverbial knee scrape). Usually when you heed that advice, potentially a lot of the hypertension, diabetes, obesity, overstressed joints, ad infinitum, can be avoided through life for the general normal healthy population. But people will always be people. Not really their fault though, you can't help it when you gotta pay the bills stressing out during long work hours (getting sick from stress, etc), or have rowdy kids (or adults, heh). Again, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Many other factors contribute to the unwell being. And thus there will always be doctors around. It's most likely that the general patient population of a medical physician sees him for HPT, diabetes, colds, flues, and the ocassional knee scrape. And from that he will usually have to dish out the drug prescription. The drug and pharmaceutical industry is huge ($$$) and is a great factor in all of this, so whatever healthcare reform we are getting from the next Pres, they're gonna be a big part of it as usual.
Quote from: Dx on October 26, 2008, 07:34:06 PM
Not sure why you think that, doctors move to other states, not other countries.
Wrong. I know of some American doctors who have moved out here to Aus.
Yeah. And then they grew wings and flew to the moon. :-P
*Insert bz2 joke relating to the previous post here*
Yah our health care sucks cheese balls.
One of the things about the two partys is they are too different.
Look at it this way (if you look at facts you know im right)
The democrats are the parents that give their kids everything they want, the dont have to work for any rewards, and they walk all over their parents.
The republicans are the parents that give tough love, really tough love, the kind of people you would ask "You sure he loves his kids? Doesn't treat them very nice", but the parents do it because it will benefit their future.
It doesn't help that some states, especially mine, only allow for the two parties to be on the ballet for the most part. It is possible for a third party to get added to the ballet, but it takes a very large number of signatures to do so. I think it is around 100,000 signatures which is a high number for the state of Oklahoma.
Democrat: Leans toward socialism, but in a good way. Socialism is the best form of government on paper, and a low lv of socialism that gives everyone what they need but still allows for capitalism on top of that for greater improvements is ideal. That is kind'a what Star Trek is like. Democrats would by literal meaning be "by the people", but the Democrat party's supposed idea is "for the people".
Republican: Wants things back the way they used to be. Strong believer in Capitalism, the Republic (called Democracy), and getting things back to "the good ol' days" where every American had spirit and patriotism. Their ideas have changed to be more liberal that the way things used to be in that they better follow the wording of the Constitution: giving women and minorities EQUAL rights. Leans heavily toward christian beliefs and morals.
Those are what they roughly are supposed to be. Socialism would not be a bad thing, if implemented correctly. The problem is all the plans that get us there are AWFUL. The people don't seem to like this idea, I myself seem to have some sort of repulsion, even though my family would likely gain in the skewed and incorrectly designed Obama plan (actually, all socialist plans so far have been badly designed).
Corruption badly degrades both these sides. Pandering to what the media wants, as that is what sways the people in large number, tends to put both sides into the FAR FAR FAR left. This is damaged by personal agendas and will eventually lead to the collapse of the government or nation as a whole.
The worst part is the skew of the media, Fox News is by no means "fair and balanced", but they are not right wing. They, like the rest of the media, are left wing. Nearly every member of the media loves Obama, and choose to exclude any news that would hurt him or help his opponents. Joe the Plumber is just one example of how the media hurts us. We all should have already known Obama's plans are socialist from his own press releases (as I did) and have thought intelligently about it (as I said earlier socialism is not bad).
If I was American, I would vote for McCain because I happen to like the old school style. Social equality is, in my opinion, impossible.
i dont know who id vote for tbh. i think the result is set.
im NOT[/u] racist by any means, but im surprised their hasnt been an uproar in the states about having a black president... although my american history is poor.
I think all these polls are wrong. Polls are public, so ppl vote Obama to make others view them in a good light. What happens when the curtain closes?
Obama's tax plan is not socialism by any definition. Get over it. Raising taxes on one part of the population and providing tax rebates to others that qualify might effectively redistribute wealth but it isn't socialism. Seeing as the GOP dogma of trickle down economics has proved to be a failure it might make more sense to try something new.
McCain is a good man just not the right man for these times. Moreover, I don't think he has the temperment to be the leader of the free world... can we get a few more eye rolls and exasperated facial expressions from him :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:?
Palin is definitely not the right person. Her presence on the ticket should be enough for most rational people not to vote Republican.
Quote from: †Trinity †on October 29, 2008, 04:14:29 AM
Palin is definitely not the right person. Her presence on the ticket should be enough for most rational people not to vote Republican.
What about the unacceptable amount of experience Obama has? Shouldn't that make most rational people think not to vote Democrat, because Obama is running
to be the president, not vice president?
I heard that McCain was a POW in Vietnam for 5 years. He sacrificed 5 years of his life for his country and went through hell.
Even if he is a terrible president, you would only have 4 years of hell! :-P
Quote from: †Trinity †on October 29, 2008, 04:14:29 AM
Moreover, I don't think he has the temperment to be the leader of the free world...
The free world? I was under the impression that he was going to be the leader of the America.
Quote from: bigbadbogie on October 29, 2008, 04:56:32 AM
I heard that McCain was a POW in Vietnam for 5 years. He sacrificed 5 years of his life for his country and went through hell.
Even if he is a terrible president, you would only have 4 years of hell! :-P
You know, a military record does not necessarily mean that he should win the presidency. Four years ago we dismissed a veteran with three Purple Hearts in favor of the incumbent. And records have shown that the incumbent usually wins a presidential election with a ratio of (currently) 22:13. (http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2000/table5.1.pdf) So it would actually be more like 8 years of hell.
QuoteThe free world? I was under the impression that he was going to be the leader of the America.
We Americans are so arrogant, aren't we? Damn. Should have been "We 'citizens of the United States' are so arrogant..." :-P
Yes we are arrogant, but we have also become used to "the free world' as a synonym for USA, even if it is not accurate.
Kerry... Don't get me started...
Bush is not that bad. A lot of his 'failures' are things he actually vetoed or the result of policies implemented by the Clinton administration. 90% of the time a good president gets a bad wrap for what the previous one did, and the previous a good for the one before him. Bush has an interesting way of speaking, which makes him look like an idiot. When he forgets something, as many of us do (we call it a 'brain fart' where I live), instead of pausing to remember, or running over it as others do, he makes a humorous situation out of it. You can actually see Bush has a standard pose that he takes in these moments (though he slightly modifies it each time). Hands out, palms forward, head leaning forward, slightly tilted to the side. He made this motion in the "left hand (shows right) doesn't know what the left hand (shows right) is doing" and he did the same but showing his hands the other way because he was leaning on his elbows to one side in the famous "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... I ain't gan'na get fooled again".
Prime example of what I spoke of earlier: Herbert Hoover. Hoover had many failures in trying to combat the Great Depression, ones that FDR learned from, but he also had a number of successes that did not become fruitful until FDR took office (though no act of FDR). Hoover is sometimes even blamed for the depression that happened shortly after he became president! poppycock...
Speaking of the economy, I saw something interesting yesterday (or it might have been the day before). I was watching teh news, the stocks were doing rather well, but then it came time for Obama to speak. Something he said hit some sort of bad cord because suddenly the stock market lost all its gains and went far into the negative. Issues with the economy, though also caused by the companies, are mainly the fault of the people to participate. They panic, sell, panic, sell, panic, sell, panic, sell in an endless cycle (the panic is caused by the media, then they sell, it drops, they panic again, etc etc). The economic difficulties are not Bush's fault.
Once and for all, for the general dissidence:
Bush did not cause 9/11, actions of Clinton helped facilitate it, bu no one could have seen it coming.
Bush did not botch Katrina. The FEDERAL government can not force an evacuation of a city. They told the local government that they should, and even that they must! The LOCAL government did not make it mandatory, and the people themselves, complacent, stayed where they where. Federal aid came immediately once the local government allowed it, and Bush did not visit New Orleans because it would have slowed the rescue work.
Finally, the terrorist ARE in Iraq. They didn't start there, but they went in there when we did, so STOP saying there are no terrorists. We won the Iraq war, its over. Now it is a police action against insurgents.
few... I strayed a bit from the topic but I covered much of what is used against Bush, as the name Bush is used incessantly in this election.
Since corporations run countries by proxy now-a-days via their lobbyists, donations, and back-door dealings, Presidents are more or less figureheads, so our votes should be based on the potential for comic relief and eye appeal.
Obama is pretty much one dimensional (selling/making 'change' like the guy at the ballgame), but McCain will probably either kick off or retire after he takes office, leaving Palin (related to Michael Palin of Monty Python fame? ) to take his place and *that* will give Tina Fey *tons* of good material. Plus, she'd probably pick McCain's wife (or maybe even Dennis Kucinich's wife) as VP, so that would be be like winning the Daily Double.
And so I ask you my fellow citizens, who would you rather see delivering canned speeches and press conferences? Some guy constantly rattling on about change (yawn), a geriatric with anger management issues, or a couple of entertaining babes? They'd have the best ratings for State of the Union addresses in history.
Now *that's* change we can live with! :mrgreen:
:-D
im dont liv in the US but if i did and if i was 18 i would vote for Obama
Quote from: Nielk1 on October 29, 2008, 02:31:23 PM
Bush is not that bad. A lot of his 'failures' are things he actually vetoed or the result of policies implemented by the Clinton administration. 90% of the time a good president gets a bad wrap for what the previous one did, and the previous a good for the one before him. Bush has an interesting way of speaking, which makes him look like an idiot. When he forgets something, as many of us do (we call it a 'brain fart' where I live), instead of pausing to remember, or running over it as others do, he makes a humorous situation out of it. You can actually see Bush has a standard pose that he takes in these moments (though he slightly modifies it each time). Hands out, palms forward, head leaning forward, slightly tilted to the side. He made this motion in the "left hand (shows right) doesn't know what the left hand (shows right) is doing" and he did the same but showing his hands the other way because he was leaning on his elbows to one side in the famous "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... I ain't gan'na get fooled again".
The main reason why so many people dislike Bush is not because of the policies he vetoed, but because he went against the general populace a lot of the time regarding Iraq. And because we now know that he and his cabinet basically faked records of WMDs in Iraq. Saddam needed to be removed from a place of power in Iraq, but we shouldn't have been the ones to do it.
QuotePrime example of what I spoke of earlier: Herbert Hoover. Hoover had many failures in trying to combat the Great Depression, ones that FDR learned from, but he also had a number of successes that did not become fruitful until FDR took office (though no act of FDR). Hoover is sometimes even blamed for the depression that happened shortly after he became president! poppycock...
This is very true. The downward slide toward the Great Depression had started before Hoover was elected. Hoover just didn't do enough fast enough to combat it. And thus he is blamed.
QuoteSpeaking of the economy, I saw something interesting yesterday (or it might have been the day before). I was watching teh news, the stocks were doing rather well, but then it came time for Obama to speak. Something he said hit some sort of bad cord because suddenly the stock market lost all its gains and went far into the negative. Issues with the economy, though also caused by the companies, are mainly the fault of the people to participate. They panic, sell, panic, sell, panic, sell, panic, sell in an endless cycle (the panic is caused by the media, then they sell, it drops, they panic again, etc etc). The economic difficulties are not Bush's fault.
I could have a counterpoint for that. There was one point where the Dow was up, Bush made a speech, and it plummeted. Blaming the falling Dow on Obama is basically warmongering. And I could also blame McCain for the Dow falling, as it has come to a time in the campaigns where they are speaking almost all the time.
QuoteOnce and for all, for the general dissidence:
Bush did not cause 9/11, actions of Clinton helped facilitate it, bu no one could have seen it coming.
Bush did not botch Katrina. The FEDERAL government can not force an evacuation of a city. They told the local government that they should, and even that they must! The LOCAL government did not make it mandatory, and the people themselves, complacent, stayed where they where. Federal aid came immediately once the local government allowed it, and Bush did not visit New Orleans because it would have slowed the rescue work.
I didn't know that anyone was blaming Bush for 9/11. It's not like it was something anyone could have prevented.
QuoteFinally, the terrorist ARE in Iraq. They didn't start there, but they went in there when we did, so STOP saying there are no terrorists. We won the Iraq war, its over. Now it is a police action against insurgents.
I understand there are terrorists in Iraq. There are terrorists everywhere. The Weather Underground was a terrorist organization
based in the US. Nobody (nobody I know, anyway) is saying there are no terrorists in Iraq. There are no WMDs, which is the reason why we invaded in the first place. We also should have pulled out of Iraq a while ago, basically since we found Saddam and set up the puppet government, seeing as how it has degenerated into a civil war between the two factions of Islam. By the Geneva Accords, we should no longer be a part of any kind of fighting.
Quotefew... I strayed a bit from the topic but I covered much of what is used against Bush, as the name Bush is used incessantly in this election.
The reason Bush is used so much is because of the fact that McCain's policies would probably just be a continuance of Bush's.
There. I'm done for a little bit.
VSMIT.
Quote from: VSMIT on October 29, 2008, 05:04:33 PM
The main reason why so many people dislike Bush is not because of the policies he vetoed, but because he went against the general populace a lot of the time regarding Iraq. And because we now know that he and his cabinet basically faked records of WMDs in Iraq. Saddam needed to be removed from a place of power in Iraq, but we shouldn't have been the ones to do it.
I didn't say because he vetoed them, I was saying that he is blamed for things that pass even IF he vetoed them. The records were NOT forged, they were plain wrong. Don't go confusing bad intelligence with fake intelligence.
Quote from: VSMIT on October 29, 2008, 05:04:33 PMThere was one point where the Dow was up, Bush made a speech, and it plummeted. Blaming the falling Dow on Obama is basically warmongering. And I could also blame McCain for the Dow falling, as it has come to a time in the campaigns where they are speaking almost all the time.
But mongering is fun! :-P
Quote from: VSMIT on October 29, 2008, 05:04:33 PM
There are no WMDs, which is the reason why we invaded in the first place. We also should have pulled out of Iraq a while ago, basically since we found Saddam and set up the puppet government, seeing as how it has degenerated into a civil war between the two factions of Islam. By the Geneva Accords, we should no longer be a part of any kind of fighting.
The reason Bush is used so much is because of the fact that McCain's policies would probably just be a continuance of Bush's.
McCain's policies are NOT a continuation of Bush (although he did say he voted with him a lot, but if bush doesn't have something to vote with, it can go in a new direction). And they did find gas weaponry. I thought gas was a WMD as it was indiscriminate and could go over a large area. Also, they gave a long warning and trucks were sited carrying things all about before the inspectors arrived. Yes, it did degenerated to a civil war, and then it became an insurgency when much of that civil war was quelled.
What do you like about Obama?
Quote from: VSMIT on October 29, 2008, 05:04:33 PM
By the Geneva Accords, we should no longer be a part of any kind of fighting.
Exactly the reason why Australia recently pulled out.
Quote from: VSMIT on October 29, 2008, 05:04:33 PM
By the Geneva Accords, we should no longer be a part of any kind of fighting.
Which one/part, so I don't have to search.
Quote from: Red Devil on October 29, 2008, 03:21:40 PM
Since corporations run countries by proxy now-a-days via their lobbyists, donations, and back-door dealings, Presidents are more or less figureheads, so our votes should be based on the potential for comic relief and eye appeal.
Obama is pretty much one dimensional (selling/making 'change' like the guy at the ballgame), but McCain will probably either kick off or retire after he takes office, leaving Palin (related to Michael Palin of Monty Python fame? ) to take his place and *that* will give Tina Fey *tons* of good material. Plus, she'd probably pick McCain's wife (or maybe even Dennis Kucinich's wife) as VP, so that would be be like winning the Daily Double.
And so I ask you my fellow citizens, who would you rather see delivering canned speeches and press conferences? Some guy constantly rattling on about change (yawn), a geriatric with anger management issues, or a couple of entertaining babes? They'd have the best ratings for State of the Union addresses in history.
Now *that's* change we can live with! :mrgreen:
:-D
Bush has been awesome for all that...Laura and the twins...yummy! I can concede empirically, that Palin is hot, but she looks a lot like my second grade teacher, who was the first human I ever wanted to kill.
Mrs. McCain was once hot, but she's got a queen of the undead vibe that I can't get past.
My ideal peripresidential lineup would be If Obama kept Leeza Rice and the Bush Twins on, and had televised fireside mud rasslin With Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Kucinich to guide us through the coming depression.
I've decided I'm not going to write in Ron Paul.
I'm writing in CAMACHO!
Quote from: Feared_1 on October 29, 2008, 04:23:46 AM
What about the unacceptable amount of experience Obama has? Shouldn't that make most rational people think not to vote Democrat, because Obama is running to be the president, not vice president?
The primary role of the VP is to be prepared to be the president should circumstances warrant. In the case of the 72 year old Sen. McCain the likelihood that Gov. Palin would get that opportunity is rather high. Besides.... what did all that experience get Bush/Cheney or Sen McCain for that matter in the last few years?
Quote from: Nielk1 on October 29, 2008, 09:23:59 PM
Which one/part, so I don't have to search.
Protocol II, of the 1949 Convention, if I'm not mistaken.
VSMIT.
Breezing over it quickly, it looks like it doesn't apply because we were already in there. It is specific to entering a sovereign country that is in civil war, but we were already in there when said internal conflict started.
Quote from: †Trinity †on October 30, 2008, 05:17:28 AM
The primary role of the VP is to be prepared to be the president should circumstances warrant. In the case of the 72 year old Sen. McCain the likelihood that Gov. Palin would get that opportunity is rather high. Besides.... what did all that experience get Bush/Cheney or Sen McCain for that matter in the last few years?
I'm sure it's hard to be a Republican president with a Democratic senate and House of Representatives. Anything he proposed would be shot down, everything they proposed would be shot down.
Vote for your candidate tomorrow! Don't forget to go vote!
Don't listen to him! Your vote is a waste of time!
Its not like a single vote has ever won or lost an election with about 100,000,000 other votes!
:wink:
A million single votes will win it. If everyone says "my vote doesn't matter", then we're going nowhere, are we?
Exactly. And nobody wins the election because nobody turned up to vote. :-P
Then anarchy and turmoil ensue in the US and then comes the chance for the new communist union between China and Russia to destroy the western world!!
HAHAHAHA!!
I gotta quit overdosing on vitamin c.
VOTE NADER!
Had to get that one in before election day.
VSMIT.
Obama will win, give up people.
(i do not want him to though)
People want to look good so they say to polls that they will vote Obama. It is still up in the air when the curtain closes.
I voted.
hes just being an american.
Quote from: .:.FTD.:.squirrel-Cmd on November 04, 2008, 03:16:07 PM
hes just being an american.
Of course. :D Cause he and I *are* American. :P
Means I voted too.
"i think mccain is just a gorge bush wanna be war lord and there is enough of thoes already and he will not help the environment as much as obama so obama should win or else the world is gonna die of smog and china and japan need to stop making smog to or if mccain were voted to be pryminister then they will invade china and japan to stop them from making smog and it will start WW3 and then we all die cause nukes fly in every direction and all while USA is still smogging but obama putting in the new + environment stuff it will be better for the world to" says some guy i seen on CTV news
ROCK THE FREAKEN VOTE!!!!
Quote from: lucky_foot on November 04, 2008, 03:28:50 PM
Of course. :D Cause he and I *are* American. :P
Means I voted too.
yeah well, a little to young to do that.
Still, Obama is gonna win, no matter what.
Quote from: cheesepuffly on November 04, 2008, 04:45:45 PM
yeah well, a little to young to do that.
Still, Obama is gonna win, no matter what.
Stop being either snide or full of it.
QuoteROCK THE FREAKEN VOTE!!!!
Now I do have my negative opinions on how MTV is getting young people to vote.
I am a fan of John Stossel and I agree with what he has to say in his video "Voting for Dummies"
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/stossel On video player, look for "voting for dummies"
That should explain what I shouldn't have to spend my time in typing...
For a number of reasons, I really would not be surprised if McCain wins. Obama is in the way of the agenda in Iran (unless he is really on their team).
Today is history in the making people! No matter who wins.
If McCain wins *crosses fingers* we will have a female vice president
If Obama wins *readies the sniper rifle* we will have the first assasignation within five hours of inoguration.
Wait... you weren't suposed to hear that...
You didn't hear anything!
*runs away*
Quote from: Nielk1 on November 04, 2008, 05:40:31 PM
Stop being either snide or full of it.
Neither, im stating a fact. Obama will win, and i can bet on it. Mostly because he says things, and people take them WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of poroption. Alot of Obama voters and uninformed and really stupid. Now, remember, i said ALOT, i didnt say Nielk1 i did not say anyone else on this forum, (assuming you did vote Obama, everyone i know does... and no offense)
Red, How can you not be suprised if McCain wins? Ill passout! (that is what i want though)
Go cheesepuffly!
Universal Healthcare - Socialism
What I don't get is, if everyone has the same healthcare plans, what's stoping the hospitals from just raising their prices to compensate? Than everyone's paying 100%... unless, of course, he plans to go all mass takover and take control of the hospitals as well.
Spreading the wealth - Communism
Come on, this is just stupid. People work for their money, that's what capitalism is. This country has worked well with that system for 250 years! Why change it? So poor people can be lazy and just have the money handed to them while the cheap foreign labor takes over our country and eventualy causes it to collaps?
Taxing the rich & 95% tax cut - Communism
One very common characteristic, the one that started it all, is bringing everyone to the same level. And, since it's too hard to bring everyone up, it's much easier to take everyone down. So, lets start with taxing the rich. They've had it too good for too long. But, wait, they rich run our economy and businesses. That means if they're taxed, prices will soar and the middle class will end up paying for it. Great job Obama!
WHAT'S WRONG WITH CAPITALISM?!?!?
Plenty wrong with it, and every other system.
Threads like this want me to either institute an age and IQ requirement or ban politics from being discussed.
I would agree CmptWz.
I myself did NOT vote for Obama. I only voted for a few things, since I did not know all the issues or people, and hence had NO BUSINESS voting in those parts of the election. (Local things I ignored mostly.)
Sry, I'm just a little... hyper... over the election today... Tomarrow I'll probably throw a fit because Obama will win :(
some people in toronto prank called mccain and they said they were some important person in africa or some were around there and obama is not as old and crusty as all the rest so hes not gonna bbe the "GET OFF MY LAWN!" type of person so thats good but the nafta agriement he wants to change :( thats bad and :) good cause then we carge more for oil and water or dont sell it to USA at all or USA gets mad and invades us :( and thats bad but mccain is gonna be like a gorge bush and thats bad for the rest of the world cause u rnt only electing a pryminister ur also electing a world leader so now i dont know wich 1 is best :( but it doesnt matter to me cause i dont hav to vote :) but as long as u dont vote for skin color then its all good :) i cant w8 to see wats gonna happen
Well most of the topics was mostly logical conversation. I don't know why these other people are here...
Currently:
207 - Obama
143 - McCain
Doesn't look good for McCain at the moment.
@news
I am insulted that "it is amazing America can elect a black president".
It just pisses me off. No hoot! It isn't amazing, it is damn likely. Just STOP the Racial BULLSH*T NEWS!
Race should have NO standing.
As of about 5 minutes ago:
Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States after winning all of the West Coast states.
Quote from: Nielk1 on November 05, 2008, 04:05:41 AM
@news
I am insulted that "it is amazing America can elect a black president".
It just pisses me off. No hoot! It isn't amazing, it is damn likely. Just STOP the Racial BULLSH*T NEWS!
Race should have NO standing.
I do agree, congratz Obama, even though i hate to say it.
Wow, looks like you're all going socialist now.
Quote from: Nielk1 on November 05, 2008, 04:05:41 AM
@news
I am insulted that "it is amazing America can elect a black president".
It just pisses me off. No hoot! It isn't amazing, it is damn likely. Just STOP the Racial BULLSH*T NEWS!
Race should have NO standing.
*Looks at N1s avatar* - WTH?
At this point there is nothing to be gained from most potential discussion (IMO). If you don't like that assessment, go flame me.