Obama Chooses Joe Biden as VP

[Vampyr]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/23/biden.democrat.vp.candidate/?cnn=yes


CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has selected Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, according to his official Web site and a text message the campaign sent to supporters on Saturday.


I don't know. I don't know anything about this guy, I really expected him to choose Hillary, just to keep from insulting all the other democrats pulling for her. If he had chose her, he could pretty much have put a check mark next to all the people who had supported her to vote for him.

I guess he can't be insulted for not having experience on his side anymore? Maybe that was the motivating factor in the decision.

[Professor S]

I think this is a horrible choice, for a few reasons:

1) He is extremely unlikeable. I live in the area, and while he has strong supporters here, his attitude and demeanor are ver "north east". Meaning: He can be a snide asshole to make a point, kind of like me. :D That doesn't fly well in other areas of the country.

2) Obama is running on a "no experience necessary" ticket, and he chooses Biden who could only have been chosen because of his foreign policy experience, and Obama is going to have a hard time making those two things coincide if he is challenged on them.

3) Biden calling Obama "clean and articulate". Trust me, that WILL be resurfacing.

4) Ardent Hillary supporters will be pissed, and considerable (not majority) amount will vote for McCain

5) Biden is also known for making some rash comments when challenged, and that could and will be used against him. He does not have a "presidential" demeanor... well not in this centruries idea of presidential anyway.

[Angrist]

Didn't Hillary once say she didn't want to run for VP? Or was that Obama?

[Bond]

I like Mr. Biden, but some of his past comments are going to come back to hurt Obama, such as, "Obama does not have enough experience to become President" and "I'd be proud to run with or against McCain." Those will go over real well.

Obama never would have picked Hillary, he has too big of an ego to accept both Bill and Hillary onto his ticket. And by picking Biden, Obama may have screwed Hillary over yet again for another attempt at the Presidency.

[The Germanator]

Wow! Being a Wilmington, Delaware native, this is pretty cool for me. We took a class trip to Washington, DC and got to hang out in Biden's office. Despite how he may come off, he is a very nice man. His niece and nephew went to my school...

I respect Biden's sometimes fiery demeanor. Has it gotten him into trouble recently? Yes, he's said some stupid things like the "clean and articulate" comment and saying something to the effect that "every Dunkin' Donuts in Delaware is run by Indians" or something. However, he's also stood up to this administration a lot on the war, and that strength not to back down to the Republican attacks that Obama has already faced will be a big asset. The guy has been a senator forever and his foreign policy credentials are astounding.

And we may not want to say it, but a big help is just the fact that he is a White dude, and that will probably help more than anything.

Edit: Another reason to like the man.

THIS.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v1op8vwF5UA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v1op8vwF5UA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Bond]

McCain should definitely not attack Biden, and should continue to solely go after Obama.

Obama needs to start throwing out names for cabinet positions, a few of which need to be Republicans, or at the least centrists.

Germy, I'm guessing that speech was after he voted for the Iraq war? Tee-hee.

[The Germanator]

McCain should definitely not attack Biden, and should continue to solely go after Obama.

Obama needs to start throwing out names for cabinet positions, a few of which need to be Republicans, or at the least centrists.

Germy, I'm guessing that speech was after he voted for the Iraq war? Tee-hee.

Yeah, and I think he admitted that. But, as he said, he didn't expect the incompetence that the administration had in the handling of the war.

[Bond]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080823/capt.60195c1a3f784f5585928af542ec2117.aptopix_obama_2008_ilmg104.jpg?x=400&y=297&q=85&sig=rbJfIbnJLuj.vs4Kr6XLwQ--

That was good. They look good together.

I don't see how they can lose.

[gekko]

THIS.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v1op8vwF5UA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v1op8vwF5UA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Now, I completely agree that politicians are screwing us in Iraq, and we went in ill-equipped, yada, yada, yada. I've been on the receiving end of that shit sandwich.

However, this is the reason I hate politicians. Our defense spending was cut during the Clinton administration. Those 8 years brought us from Desert Storm into a low period where we became a peace-time force again. It was the same time period where we pulled CIA agents from the middle east, and they they wondered why come 2003 we didn't have good intelligence on Iraq? We began pulling out intelligence in '94. This dude's in a great position to stand up now and point fingers and talk the talk saying "We need change!" Where was he during the 8 years Clinton was in office? Probably sitting in his chair doing nothing.

If he honestly cared, he would've done something years ago. It's like when I hear Hilary say our troops aren't getting enough funding. Hello dumbass, you're on the Senate armed forces committee, do something about it. Politicians only get involved when it becomes popular to be involved.

I hate them all equally.

[Jason1]

Ah, this is good I guess. He obviously picked him so he could relate more to white blue collar workers. His speech was good.

In the grand scheme of things though, the Vice President means absolutley nothing and does next to nothing.

[gekko]

And the President does what again? Last time I checked, he was only a scapegoat for Washington's bad decisions.

[Bond]

This is too funny:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G8YDIopKoLs&color1=11645361&color2=13619151&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G8YDIopKoLs&color1=11645361&color2=13619151&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[The Germanator]

This is too funny:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G8YDIopKoLs&color1=11645361&color2=13619151&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G8YDIopKoLs&color1=11645361&color2=13619151&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The woman who made that ad...Check out her Myspace...

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=392833877

If Delaware elects this "woman" I will be absolutely ashamed. I'm pretty sure New Castle County won't' allow it, but with the two "slower lower" Delaware counties out there, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Bond]

Oh, I agree. Entrenched senators are nearly impossible to defeat, but the video was still funny. Especially when he started talking about golf.

[Professor S]

Regardless of politics, I think Biden is an embarrassment. His reduiculous performance duriung the Roberts hearing bordered on humorous.

The biggest problem with Biden as VP, is that he has given the GOP more soundbytes to attack Obama with than Hillary would have. Its almost like Obama is trying to rip defeat from the jaws of victory.

[GameMaster]

Would you take a look at his wife?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/synthoid/JILLBIDENTWN.jpg

I sure wouldn't mind conquering that on top of the Oval Office desk!

[flunkie44]

I love how when Obama introduced him, he said, "here's the next President of the... I mean, Vice President of the United States!"

Writing is on the wall?

[Jonbo298]

Biden is what, 65 now? In a hypothetical sense, he'll be 73 if Obama manages to serve a full 8 years. That's bordering on too damn old to run a country.

Biden in general, while a decent pick, Obama could have done better. Obama wants to "change" the way politics are, then he goes and chooses someone who has been in for 30+ years not advocating any kind of change.

I still have lost all faith in the political system and I hope at some point the american public realizes this, and finds someone non-democrat/republican to run the white house and see how it goes.

[Bond]

This is bad news for Obama:

"Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters -- registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee -- are now backing Obama. That's down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they'll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June."

That number should be going up, not down.

[TheGame]

With how media is handling the whole election, and how the older and younger people I know are reacting to it... I honestly can say this is the most clear cut election I've been old enough to care about. I think Obama will win hands down unless he makes some huge mistake.

And he didn't take Dave Chapelle's advice and get a mexican vice president as life insurance, but he sure did get a guy who I feel will grow to be hated soon enough. lol

[gekko]

Funny that you say that, since according to all the experts, the people who care about politics in the race leading up to the election is a very small percentage of actual voters.

[manasecret]

Doesn't change my vote. I guess the whole point of the VP choice from either party is to sway the voters still on the fence.

If that's the case, then according to the polls now, it doesn't look like Biden was a good choice for Obama. But there's still time left. Maybe some Clinton supporters are especially bitter now that Clinton is officially off the list and there's no "maybe..." anymore to hope for. And maybe after some time that bitterness will wear off and they will warm up to Biden.

Or not. Political forecasting seems like such a complete crapshoot.

[Jason1]

Regardless of politics, I think Biden is an embarrassment. His reduiculous performance duriung the Roberts hearing bordered on humorous.




Oh yes of course, Biden is an embarassment, nevermind Mcains absolutley rediculous adds attacking Obama...when you start to put Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in your campaign ads...

but of course the Democrats are doomed, because the Republicans OBVIOUSLY know how to run a country well, just look at the past 8 years...

and of course we cant elect Obama, because he dosent have enough experience (like the experienced people who led our country into the shithole its in now)

Oh, and as soon as Obama is elected the country will be totally unsafe to live in and terrorists will run free.

[TheGame]

Funny that you say that, since according to all the experts, the people who care about politics in the race leading up to the election is a very small percentage of actual voters.

The whole hillary vs Obama thing did bring out a record number of voters, but yes you're right, any way its sliced what we see now isn't the whole picture. Outside of state things, for actual presedent elections I've seen... which were bush vs gore and bush vs kerry, both times people were generally mixed on their opinions. I knew a lot of supporters for all of the above from the begining to the end (though the bush ones are real quiet these days).

Right now I hardly see anyone openly supporting Mccain. Maybe its just me though.

[Bond]

Look at Ronald Reagan's speech from 1964. He was right then, and he's right now:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yt1fYSAChxs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yt1fYSAChxs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Jason1]

Ronald Regan is the most overrated president ever. He went to college in the hick-born again christian town of Eureka, IL which is about 8 miles from where I live...they act like its a big deal Regan went there or someting. In any event the college is really lame.

[BlueFire]

Uh oh

[GameMaster]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/synthoid/BT23690-2.jpg

[Professor S]

Oh yes of course, Biden is an embarassment, nevermind Mcains absolutley rediculous adds attacking Obama...when you start to put Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in your campaign ads...

but of course the Democrats are doomed, because the Republicans OBVIOUSLY know how to run a country well, just look at the past 8 years...

and of course we cant elect Obama, because he dosent have enough experience (like the experienced people who led our country into the shithole its in now)

Oh, and as soon as Obama is elected the country will be totally unsafe to live in and terrorists will run free.


What in the world are you talking about? We're discussing Biden's VP pick and you start reiterating MoveOn.org talking points. I'm starting to think you don't really support anyone, but instead simply run on hatred of Republicans.

As for the polls slipping for Obama, I think that has less to do with Biden's pick, and more to do with the Faith Forum they both participated in and each candidates response to Russia invading Georgia. Both of those were solid political wins for McCain after months of being dominated by Obama.

I still think Obama will win by a slim margin, but that margin is getting slimmer and slimmer. McCain came off much more decisive and leader-like in the forum, and it will interesting to see if that continues in the debates. Then there is also the "fear of being a racist" polling skew that has always existed for elections with black candidates. A certain percentage of voters who polled Obama will likely vote McCain, only polling Obama as not to appear racist.

In any event, I've already taken Nov. 2-5 off and will have a lot of popcorn and beer on hand for the show :D

[Jonbo298]

I guess people just love it when we go to war with anyone. It boggles my mind how they don't see that the cost of war is astronomical and while there seems to be a "post-war" boom in the economy, the crap that is dealt with here in all areas is worse along the way. War should be a last resort, not the first option.

Unfortunately, we're so hopped up in "helping" the world spread "democracy", that we fail to care enough about the home issues. Hence why corporations are slowly running the US, because we're too damn busy "helping" other countries when they just have to learn to fix their own problems once in awhile.

If Hillary wants to get her supporters to stop supporting McCain, she needs to get frank and blunt with them on stage (I think its either tonight or tomorrow). Something along the lines of "What the fuck are you thinking?" but in slightly nicer words :D

Obama could've picked better overall then Biden, but we'll see how it pans out in November. He just doesn't have the appeal to alot there yet unless he can prove himself better over time.

[Professor S]

I guess people just love it when we go to war with anyone. It boggles my mind how they don't see that the cost of war is astronomical and while there seems to be a "post-war" boom in the economy, the crap that is dealt with here in all areas is worse along the way. War should be a last resort, not the first option.

Who was talking about war? There are many ways to deal with Russia beyond violence, such as tossing their asses out of the WTO, NATO and the UN, sanctioning them until it hurts and isolating them until they decide to work with the rest of the world. Or you can do what the rest of the world is currently doing, and that is cowering our of fear Russia will cut off the oil.

Russia showed a while ago it has no respect for their own democracy with their staged election, which more of a coronation of Czar Putin, and now they have proven they have no respect for the choice of other people to choose their own leadership. At what point should the world assert itself when faced with a burgeoning autocracy with an eye for expansion via military action and a penchant for political assassination? After a world war is inevitable?

For the record, McCain never once mentioned going to war with Russia. There is a difference between being assertive and war-mongering.[/QUOTE]

[Jonbo298]

I'll just accept defeat in this forum and let the Republicans win.

[Bond]

I think the issue that we run into here is that our forum members who consider themselves Democrats and/or of liberal mindsets are used to discussing politics with right-wing evangelicals and neo-cons.

Strangler and myself (correct me if I'm wrong, Professor), are of more liberal Republican or centrist mindsets. So, sometimes we argue for the same viewpoint, but we go about it very differently than the right-wing crazies.

[Jonbo298]

Eh, at any rate, I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll just leave out.

[Professor S]

I think the issue that we run into here is that our forum members who consider themselves Democrats and/or of liberal mindsets are used to discussing politics with right-wing evangelicals and neo-cons.

Strangler and myself (correct me if I'm wrong, Professor), are of more liberal Republican or centrist mindsets. So, sometimes we argue for the same viewpoint, but we go about it very differently than the right-wing crazies.

To boil my veiwpoints down:

I'm a fiscally conservative

Socially moderate, even leaning to the left except for abortion where I am formly in the middle

Diplomatically, I believe in Teddy Roosevelt's stance: Speak softly, but carry a big stick. I think that holds true for both diplomacy and the military.

But when it comes to politics, I can remove myself and enjoy the spectacle. Presidential elections are almost like sport to me. Its just fun watching everything develop.

[KillerGremlin]

I masturbate a lot. If Obama wins it will be due to him portraying McCain as a war monger and instilling a false security in the American public that the Democrats will resolve the Iraq situation. I just wonder if America will be left with a bitter taste (towards the Dems) when Obama fails to remove all the troops from Iraq and increases spending to send more troops to Afghanistan to get those dirty terrorists. Also, Iran.

Anyway, this election is boiling down to a Douche vs. a Turd.

[TheGame]

I masturbate a lot. If Obama wins it will be due to him portraying McCain as a war monger and instilling a false security in the American public that the Democrats will resolve the Iraq situation.

Yup, and if Mccain wins its because he convinces people that Obama is too inexperienced to be president and that Obama is really going to make the over seas situation worse somehow. Though I'm pretty sure even at this point 90+% of people are already sure who they're going to vote for no matter what is said or done.

I just wonder if America will be left with a bitter taste (towards the Dems) when Obama fails to remove all the troops from Iraq and increases spending to send more troops to Afghanistan to get those dirty terrorists. Also, Iran.

Pretty much, just how people are left with that bitter taste towards bush now because he failed to remove the troops and is putting so much money into the war. Though I think no matter what happens, it'd be easy to just blame everthing on Bush if Obama or Mccain fail to find a resolution and remove us from Iraq.

[KillerGremlin]

Yup, and if Mccain wins its because he convinces people that Obama is too inexperienced to be president and that Obama is really going to make the over seas situation worse somehow. Though I'm pretty sure even at this point 90+% of people are already sure who they're going to vote for no matter what is said or done.

I actually think McCain will win the vote of the religious folks, the working class, and people over 40. It's going to be a close race either way....at least I think so. It wouldn't surprise me if it's 49%/51% type dealy.

Pretty much, just how people are left with that bitter taste towards bush now because he failed to remove the troops and is putting so much money into the war. Though I think no matter what happens, it'd be easy to just blame everthing on Bush if Obama or Mccain fail to find a resolution and remove us from Iraq.

There is no resolution to "remove us from Iraq." That is THE revolution. We are going to be there until we stabilize the region, otherwise someone will just rise to the position that Saddam once had and we will be back in Iraq at some point in the distant future.

I wish Obama and McCain would both be more up front about this. Again, I think a lot of voters (especially the 20s age group) are under the impression that Obama is going to remove the United States from Iraq. It ain't happening.

[Professor S]

I actually think McCain will win the vote of the religious folks, the working class, and people over 40. It's going to be a close race either way....at least I think so. It wouldn't surprise me if it's 49%/51% type dealy.

Thats the way I see it, too. Its going to be too close to call, and I'll hav a case of beer and a bowl of peanuts at the ready 11/4-11/5. I love this shit. :D

There is no resolution to "remove us from Iraq." That is THE revolution. We are going to be there until we stabilize the region, otherwise someone will just rise to the position that Saddam once had and we will be back in Iraq at some point in the distant future.

I wish Obama and McCain would both be more up front about this. Again, I think a lot of voters (especially the 20s age group) are under the impression that Obama is going to remove the United States from Iraq. It ain't happening.

I agree, but I don;t see how McCain can be more upfront about it. He has said we'll be there until the job is done. I'm calling 2010. You heard it here first, folks.:mischief:

[TheGame]

I actually think McCain will win the vote of the religious folks, the working class, and people over 40. It's going to be a close race either way....at least I think so. It wouldn't surprise me if it's 49%/51% type dealy.

I disagree with that. :P Being a religious person myself and being surrounded by a lot of them, I cantell you for sure when the 2004 election and even the 2000 election was around they did openly support Bush more. But as it stands right now I see no open support for Mccain among the religious comunity, but I see Obama's name tossed around more like Bush's was.

As for the "working class" I'm not sure how you draw a line there. As for people over 40, that's the group that's more split on the issue from what I can see. I could see it going 50/50 for people over 40, or if Mccain supportersa re just quiet, then I could see Mccain taking that group.

Also, when I said 90% of the people know who theyre going to vote for already, I mean that right now Obama or Mccain would be hard pressed to change some people's minds. The people who are most likely still on the fence are hillary supporters, and if they've been following things for the last month they're likely all Obama supporters now, or they were never real hillary supporters to begin with.

Maybe its just me though, or maybe its just the schools I'm surrounded by, or the job I work for, or the church I attend. Maybe just the people I know online and offline, or just my family or the state I'm from. But to me, this doesn't look like it's going to be a close election again.

I think the thing that is killing Mccain is his open support for Bush.

[Vampyr]

Somehow McCain is creating this image that he is a down to earth working class citizen himself.

I'm not sure who's buying that. From everything I've read about him and from every time I've heard him speak, he seems to be one of the most out of touch people I've ever seen.

[Professor S]

Somehow McCain is creating this image that he is a down to earth working class citizen himself.

I'm not sure who's buying that. From everything I've read about him and from every time I've heard him speak, he seems to be one of the most out of touch people I've ever seen.

Can you give examples?

[Vampyr]

Can you give examples?

First of all, John McCain is immensely wealthy. I don't have any problems with that, I would like to be too, but he downplays that all the time, trying to make himself seem more rugged and blue collared. I mean, all his commercials are calling him the "The original maverick." What does that even mean? Nearly every speech he's given in Kentucky was at a National Rifle Association meeting. That's laughable.

When asked how many houses he owned, he responded "I'll have to have my staff get back to you."

When asked if he thought it was unfair that health insurance companies covered viagra and not birth control, he sat there with a very pained expression on his face for about 15 seconds, before saying, "I don't know enough about that to answer you" or something to that effect.

McCain once stated that there had been great economic growth during the 8 years Bush has been in office, stating there had been "great progress economically over that period of time." I guess someone told him the mistake he made, because on the next day he turned around and said "American's are hurting badly, they're not better off than they were 8 years ago."

I don't think he's in touch with regular people at all. And it's not just those things, it's the way he acts and the things he does. The other day I saw a video of him giving a speech somewhere, and he introduced one of his supporters to talk...some Puerto Rican rapper named Daddy Yankee. I mean, could that be any more obviously an attempt to get what he considers to be the "young and cool" crowd to like him? Maybe if Puerto Ricans could vote it would have been an alright thing to do.

And now his VP pick. Mostly just a ploy to draw in women voters. You complain about Obama's lack of experience all the time, and here McCain chooses someone who has been a governer for two years, not even any experience with the federal government. If McCain dies (and he's getting kind of old, it could happen) would you want her to be our president?

[Professor S]

First of all, John McCain is immensely wealthy. I don't have any problems with that, I would like to be too, but he downplays that all the time, trying to make himself seem more rugged and blue collared. I mean, all his commercials are calling him the "The original maverick." What does that even mean? Nearly every speech he's given in Kentucky was at a National Rifle Association meeting. That's laughable.

Well honestly, in today's day and age being a supporter of the NRA is maverick. Moreover, he has a long history of bucking his own party to achieve goals that he thought were best for the nation, recently pushing for reductions in spending since 2000 and campaign finance reform (even though that turned out to be a bit of a mess).

As for him being rich, well, really his wife is rich and he went along for the ride. he enetred politics pretty much right out of the Hanoi Hilton.

When asked how many houses he owned, he responded "I'll have to have my staff get back to you."

Do you have any other Obama ads you'd like to repeat? Maybe he shiould be compaining about the price of arugula at whiole foods, like Obama did? And in the end, biothg arguments are meaningless. Honestly, who cares who knows owns what? Obama is rich as shit too. So what? That has npothing to do with whether or not someone is in touch.

When asked if he thought it was unfair that health insurance companies covered viagra and not birth control, he sat there with a very pained expression on his face for about 15 seconds, before saying, "I don't know enough about that to answer you" or something to that effect.

The knee jerk Republican reaction reaction would be to go all birth control nazi on the reporter. Instead, he admitted to not knowing something on a subject, which is honorable especially when confronted with a loaded question like that. Moreover, insurance compoanies can cover whatever they like. And consumers can choose accordingly.

McCain once stated that there had been great economic growth during the 8 years Bush has been in office, stating there had been "great progress economically over that period of time." I guess someone told him the mistake he made, because on the next day he turned around and said "American's are hurting badly, they're not better off than they were 8 years ago."

Both statements are correct. There was great economic growth, especially after 9/11 when everything plummeted. Now its taken a downturn, and is not a great as it was one or two years ago or in 2000, which techinically is 8 years ago. 2001? We're MUCH better now.

And I do take exception to the wording in McCain's second statement, as I think he pandered a bit. The economy isn't as bad as everyone would have you believe, and the BBC even reported that it went up over 3% last quarter. The Anmerican idea of success and "poverty" is so skewed by our affluence it's insane. It used to be success was a car in every driveway... now its a car in every three-car garage, a plasma screen TV in every room, and meanwhile the kids in these families are relying on grants and government loans to go to college.

I grew up knowing what it was like to be in a successful and poor family. In the 80's my dad had a successful, but small, construction company. When the recession hit, he barely worked for almost 2 years and struggled just to keep his business afloat. I remember weeks of tuna casserole for lunch and dinner. I also remember steak and eggs for breakfast in years earlier and in the mid-late 90's and my dad being lucky enough in 2001 to have a contractual job with a private school when times got tough again.

Times aren't that tough right now, we're just doing as well as we were before and we have to make adjustments. Its not the democrats or republicans who are responsible... its the economy... its done it before and MUCH worse and it will do it again. And the sky certainly isn't falling and no amount of raised taxes to the rich will help, it will only inspire the rich to hide their money in untaxable trusts and not invest it back in their businesses, which can only hurt.

And in my experience, demonizing business and the rich never made any poor person any richer. Does it make them feel better? Sure, I guess and I find that sad. And it defeinitely gets people elected.

I don't think he's in touch with regular people at all. And it's not just those things, it's the way he acts and the things he does. The other day I saw a video of him giving a speech somewhere, and he introduced one of his supporters to talk...some Puerto Rican rapper named Daddy Yankee. I mean, could that be any more obviously an attempt to get what he considers to be the "young and cool" crowd to like him? Maybe if Puerto Ricans could vote it would have been an alright thing to do.

And Obama doesn't do the same thing? Remember Luda's rap against Hillary? Oh please... both are guilty of this so please don't point it out only when it is politically expedient for your candidate.

And now his VP pick. Mostly just a ploy to draw in women voters. You complain about Obama's lack of experience all the time, and here McCain chooses someone who has been a governer for two years, not even any experience with the federal government. If McCain dies (and he's getting kind of old, it could happen) would you want her to be our president?

Palin was on the short list back when Hillary was still winning the primary, so your pandering point is a non-issue. For this arument? She has a son in the Iraq war and I believe she's the wife of a firefighter. +1 for in-touchness for McCain.

As for her experience, I'll admit I am concerned about it, especially considering McCain's age and her lack of pretty much any international experience. She would not have been my first choice. I always liked the governor of Lousiana, Bobbty Jindal.

[Bond]

First of all, John McCain is immensely wealthy. I don't have any problems with that, I would like to be too, but he downplays that all the time, trying to make himself seem more rugged and blue collared. I mean, all his commercials are calling him the "The original maverick." What does that even mean? Nearly every speech he's given in Kentucky was at a National Rifle Association meeting. That's laughable.
Just a quick clarification: McCain is not wealthy. His wife inherited a beer bottling company. That's where the money comes from.

Sometimes I wish these threads wouldn't get so lengthy so quickly. It's so hard to jump in after a few pages and reply to everything. :(

[Professor S]

Just a quick clarification: McCain is not wealthy. His wife inherited a beer bottling company. That's where the money comes from.

Sometimes I wish these threads wouldn't get so lengthy so quickly. It's so hard to jump in after a few pages and reply to everything. :(

I can be wordy at times... and full of typos... wow...

[Vampyr]

Just a quick clarification: McCain is not wealthy. His wife inherited a beer bottling company. That's where the money comes from.

Sometimes I wish these threads wouldn't get so lengthy so quickly. It's so hard to jump in after a few pages and reply to everything. :(

So if I were to inherit a ton of money, that would make me not wealthy, even though I had...a ton of money?

And this isn't about him having money, it's about about being out of touch with reality because of it.

@Prof S. your post didn't point out a single thing McCain has done or said to prove he -is- in touch with reality, you just pushed my points to the side as "quoting Obama's ads", and said McCain was admirable.

I fail to see how him not being able to answer the simple question of "do you think this is right or wrong" makes him admirable. I think it makes him crooked.

And yeah, I could quote some Obama ads, like the one that has John McCain saying "Our economy isn't headed to a recession", but I know -that- one was taken out of context, his house comment was not.

And I'm sure McCain though "Well, if you taken into consideration that everything got REALLY bad after 9/11, then greatly improved, and if I word things just right, I can say that the economy improved." Seriously Professor, you're amazing with facts, but I think you're terrible at reading peoples intentions.

And the difference? Obama can actually pull of being cool, and everyone knows who Ludacris is. No one knows who Daddy Yankee is. They may be doing the same thing, but McCain is obvious that he isn't really comfortable in the situation, and he's just doing it because some campaign manager said it was a good idea.

[Professor S]

So if I were to inherit a ton of money, that would make me not wealthy, even though I had...a ton of money?

And this isn't about him having money, it's about about being out of touch with reality because of it.

@Prof S. your post didn't point out a single thing McCain has done or said to prove he -is- in touch with reality, you just pushed my points to the side as "quoting Obama's ads", and said McCain was admirable.

No, my comments were to show you how your eviudence for his being out of touch are pretty erediculous. Happening to be rich and have houses isn't proof that anyone is out of touch. About the source of his wealth, there is a big difference in formative experience between someone who grows up with ealth and someone who grew up an army brat, spent five years as a POW and nearly 30 serving his nation, most of the time relying only on his salary as a Senator.

I fail to see how him not being able to answer the simple question of "do you think this is right or wrong" makes him admirable. I think it makes him crooked.

No, it doesn't. The question was crooked, silly and not justified by any background. If your asked a question when the questions assumes facts that you don't know are correct, why would you answer it? What context is being omitted in this obviously biased question?

And yeah, I could quote some Obama ads, like the one that has John McCain saying "Our economy isn't headed to a recession", but I know -that- one was taken out of context, his house comment was not.

Our ecomomy isn't headed into a recession. Its had positive growth every quarter for as long as I can remember and went up over 3% last querter. if you think that means we're headed towards a recession, you don't know what a recession is.

And I'm sure McCain though "Well, if you taken into consideration that everything got REALLY bad after 9/11, then greatly improved, and if I word things just right, I can say that the economy improved." Seriously Professor, you're amazing with facts, but I think you're terrible at reading peoples intentions.

And I think you take things the way you want to view them. I already stated my issue with McCain's second statement was that he pandered. No question about it. He should have stuck to his guns and made the bold and risky statement of truth, and thats the fact that we're not in a recession, we are doing better that we were in the early 2000's instead of quibbling over whether it was 2000 or 2001. The economy was terrible all through the early00's and the fact is we ARE doing much better today even during our slow down.

And the difference? Obama can actually pull of being cool, and everyone knows who Ludacris is. No one knows who Daddy Yankee is. They may be doing the same thing, but McCain is obvious that he isn't really comfortable in the situation, and he's just doing it because some campaign manager said it was a good idea.

Well I'm glad Obama can pull off being cool. I suppose you can excuse someone for panswering when they "pull it off" but not when they can't? Thats like saying its ok to steal if you get away with it.

Opinions olike this only show complete bias. Its ok for one candidate and not for the other because you like one and not the other... good for you. :crazy:

I wish both candidates wouldn't do it. Its insulting but unfortunately deemed necessary in today's political climate.

[Professor S]

I wanted to edit out the insuting comment at the end of my post, but for some reason I can't edit it. I apolgize for the insulting tone, I just don't understand how you can overlook pandering by one candidate, yet condemn the other for the same thing.

[TheGame]

Prof S you're being overly defensive about Mccain in my opinion. You're a good example of someone who's completly sold, I doubt there's anything that'll change your mind in the next few months.

Like I said earlier in the thread though, I'm in a situation where I see very few people who actually support John Mccain. I've heard the speeches, and have been following Mccain for a long time... But honestly, I've probably watched it from biased sources with a biased mindset, but at this point I can't think of any good reason why I'd want to vote for Mccain.

So to clarify your stance, why do you think Mccain should be our next president? If possible, leave comparisions to Obama out of it and mud slinging. Just look at Mccain for himself and what he is and what he stands for. Why would you vote for him? What does he bring to the table that you know from history would make him the most suitable for this job?

I guess side questions could be be, are you a supporter of what bush has done in the last 8 years? If so, what would you say Mccain is carrying on from bush that you like? If not, what things do you think Mccain is going to change?

I'm conserative, but I prefer not to define myself by a party. Since defining myself like that implies I would vote with them no matter what.

[Fyacin]

I like Mcain's foreign policy, I like that he is pro-life, an that's about it. I think he may want to do something about the economy, but doesn't know how (Maybe part of the Palin pick?) I think he may be changing his mind about drilling in the anwar (which I like alot) He is a bit to liberal for me, and I really don't like that he his for global warming, but he is waaaaaay better then Obama. Which is sad, because I don't really like Mcain, Obama just scares me. Especially with a democratic congress. I like some of what Bush has done, but he hasn't done enough. Hopefully Mcain will make the tax cuts permanent, start drilling anywhere we can, and ramp up alternitive energy (Specifically shale coal, clean coal, and nuclear) In addition to finishing the fight in Iraw, and presenting a strong country against Iran and Russia.

[Professor S]

Prof S you're being overly defensive about Mccain in my opinion. You're a good example of someone who's completly sold, I doubt there's anything that'll change your mind in the next few months.

Like I said earlier in the thread though, I'm in a situation where I see very few people who actually support John Mccain. I've heard the speeches, and have been following Mccain for a long time... But honestly, I've probably watched it from biased sources with a biased mindset, but at this point I can't think of any good reason why I'd want to vote for Mccain.

So to clarify your stance, why do you think Mccain should be our next president? If possible, leave comparisions to Obama out of it and mud slinging. Just look at Mccain for himself and what he is and what he stands for. Why would you vote for him? What does he bring to the table that you know from history would make him the most suitable for this job?

I guess side questions could be be, are you a supporter of what bush has done in the last 8 years? If so, what would you say Mccain is carrying on from bush that you like? If not, what things do you think Mccain is going to change?

I'm conserative, but I prefer not to define myself by a party. Since defining myself like that implies I would vote with them no matter what.

Now you're changing the subject. The topic at hand was whether or not McCain was guilty of being out-of-touch in any special way. Vampyr made his claims and I refuted them. If you'd like an explanation as to why I'm for McCain, I'm all for it.

I think I've been quite clear on why I'm a supporter of McCain through my openess when it comes to my stance on issues.

1) Iraq - We need to stay in until the job is done. Thats McCain's stance and thats been my stance from the beginning. If this were the only issue that I agreed with McCain on, I would be his supporter compared to Obama.

2) Economy - I have made it clear that I am a supply-sider since I came on these boards. Low taxes plus low spending. I know Obama has talked a big game when it comes to giving tax breaks to 95% of the economy, and just raising taxes on the rich, which is idiocy if you want ot build the American economy since they create the jobs, but he also is in favor of an obscene spending bill. Most economists and newspapers agree that his policies would only increase our national debt... or Obama would do what I expect and say "Whoops! Looks like you're going to have to pay more too!"

His consistent voting against spending is one of the things I support the most about McCain, and separates him from the Republicans of the last 8 years and Bush especially who has had an open wallet policy, and not just for the war. To be honest,. war spending is a drop in the ocean when it comes to our debt.

3) Experience - He has proven to be one of the \most effective and respected Senators in American history. He has a wealth of experience in both the economy and foreign relations. He has seen it all before, from Vietnam, to the Cold War, Peristrioka(sp?), the Iraq War. He has the context to translate world and domestic events.

4) Independence - McCain does what he feels is right. Does that mean he's never guilty of pandering or standing behind his party at times? Of course not, but no one is. But his record of bucking his party's stances that he disagrees with is long and strong. People try and debunk this by saying that he voted with Bush 90% of the time... well Obama voted with Bush 60% of the time. If you don't know what those issues were, the number is meaningless. Political statistics exist to fool people, like polls, and thats why I rarely use them.

5) Diplomacy - When the Georgia invasion took place, McCain was the first to analyze and understand the nature of it immediately. Bush didn't, the media didn't, and Obama didn't. McCain did. Talk without the legitimate threat of action does nothing but empower nations that want to exert dominance, like Russia and Iran. I believe McCain understands this more than any other candidate today.

For the record my perfect ticket is McCain/Powell, and I've made that clear FOR YEARS on this forum in presidential talk.

To be honest, if at this point you don't unbderstand why I'm for McCain, you haven't listened to me, McCain or both of us. Its been quite clear for some time. Now add to the that the fact that he's running against Obama, who I view as a borderline marxist, and it's a no-brainer.

[Professor S]

Almost forgot:

6) Health care - Single payer would be the biggest mistake in the history of American domestic policy. McCain's policy on this is a $5,000 tax credit for families to get their own health care, and be able to choose the kind they weant, which keeps competition in place, and competition increases the quality of the product. Compared to Obama's policy, which I believe he stated would only save the average family under $3,000 a year in health care costs and give them little to no choice. But If I'm wrong on the number, please let me know

The choice remains with the individual, and philisophoically, that is very important to me.

[BreakABone]

As an aside saw Obama's speech yesterday and maybe it is I watch too much wrestling, but the whole thing had a WrestleMania feel to it.

Huge set piece. Outside. Titantron. Fireworks going off the top of the building. Confetti.

MAybe he did smell What The Barack is cooking.

[Professor S]

As an aside saw Obama's speech yesterday and maybe it is I watch too much wrestling, but the whole thing had a WrestleMania feel to it.

Huge set piece. Outside. Titantron. Fireworks going off the top of the building. Confetti.

MAybe he did smell What The Barack is cooking.

On a non-partisan note, I thank that spectatcle was a big mistake. It only does more to feed the McCain advertising machine when it comes to painting Obvama as an out-of-touch elitist celebrity, and those ads have been very successful.

Obama needed to give a state of the union address, heavy on substance and not spectacle. He added a little more policy to his acceptance speech, but he should have done much more. I think he was overly negative about the plight of the American people as well. A lot of middle class won't want to hear how bad they're doing, especially if they're not doing all that bad.

[The Germanator]

On a non-partisan note, I thank that spectatcle was a big mistake. It only does more to feed the McCain advertising machine when it comes to painting Obvama as an out-of-touch elitist celebrity, and those ads have been very successful.

Obama needed to give a state of the union address, heavy on substance and not spectacle. He added a little more policy to his acceptance speech, but he should have done much more. I think he was overly negative about the plight of the American people as well. A lot of middle class won't want to hear how bad they're doing, especially if they're not doing all that bad.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your criticisms of his speech as I would like to see more substance as well, I think the the "celebrity/elitist" ads are absolutely ludicrous. Maybe you can help me with this, but what exactly is that ad campaign even trying to accomplish? "Look at all of those Obama supporters!! Haha! THEY REALLY LIKE THEIR CANDIDATE!! Hey guys, look how popular this guy is, don't vote for the really popular guy that everyone likes!" I patrol the Fark.com forums and when the Republican trolls (not saying you are one of them by any means, they are far worse ;) ) have nothing better to say they just say something like "Ooh, look at the Obamesiah and his followers, etc, etc...The best you can do is attack the guy because people like him? It just seems totally transparent.

I suppose it could be more effective for an independent, but I feel like McCain has lost his "elitism" angle anyway. In this race we have a black guy who was raised by a single mother in a middle class family who worked his way up to go to a good school. This same guy turned down a higher paying job to go into public service. And this guy is an elitist?! I'm sorry, I thought the gray haired white man who can't remember how many houses he had fits that bill. I'm very thankful the Obama campaign hit him hard on that as well. If there is one thing Republicans do better it is to attack worthless tidbits better, but I'm glad the Obama campaign latched on to the "7 houses gaffe" along with the "not rich until you make 5 million line." I don't know, I just see that whole ad campaign as grasping for straws from McCain, and I hope that independent minded voters aren't idiotic enough to fall for something that can be seen through so easily.

[Professor S]

I never said the Obama elitism attacks are necessarily valid. I'm saying they are EFFECTIVE, and they are. McCain has been steadily gaining on Obama since they began, and the star-studded stadium spectacle that was his aceptance speech only fed into that image McCain and Co. are trying to create.

Also, the chanting of O-BAM-A in the ads is meant to play on the fanaticism that has followed Obama's campaign, with the fainting women and all, and create nervousness about it. Its been effective as well, especially since Obama is the more unknown out of the two candidates. McCain is McCain, and he has a long record that makes people more comfortable. Obama is still a relative unknown, and there are a lot of people that are uneasy voting for a political unknown for President. Like my wife, and she's a life long democrat but is voting McCain this year. And trust me, it has nothing to do with my influence. She never listens to me anyway... :D

[TheGame]

To be honest, if at this point you don't unbderstand why I'm for McCain, you haven't listened to me, McCain or both of us. Its been quite clear for some time. Now add to the that the fact that he's running against Obama, who I view as a borderline marxist, and it's a no-brainer.

Honestly outside of this and the other two threads open here, I have been listening to you. The thing is though, I've found it to be clear that you dislike Obama more than you like Mccain. Even in your above post I asked for you to leave out Obama in your explanation if possible, which it does look like 'compared to your other posts' you tried. (/salute)

I was just looking for a clear viewpoint from a Mccain supporter. :P I am conservitive by my own beliefs, but I do not claim a party since what it implies is that I'd support them no matter what. I will openly admit that I did vote for bush in 2004, and I feel like at the time I voted for him that he was misleading about what he hoped to do in his second term.. And the events of his second term showed that he was misleading in his first to. So as it stands now I'm strongly against Mr. President.

I do have some comments though... For #1, your opinion on Iraq. In your personal opinion what would you define as the job being "finished" in Iraq? And do you honestly think we're going to reach this goal realistically with how we're handling the war out there now?

In my opinion, I don't see a resolution there anymore, I just see Americans endlessly babysitting the people there and endlessly causing a distraction for the rest of the middle east. I think eventually we just need to pull out and let them handle their own social issues. I think in time if we were to ever reach this so called "peace" in Iraq, that the other countries around them will simply turn on them and start killing them off again anyway.

As for the economy (only drawing references to Obama because you did), I don't think myself or my kids stand to benifit more from what Mccain wants to do. Obama seems to want big changes, but a lot of his changes are rooted in what America stood for in the first place. Being the true land of oppertunity, and being strongly in the interest of the middle/lower class people instead of trying to once again spread the gap between the middle and upper class.

As for experience, there's no denying that he has a lot of experience, but judging off of all the slip ups he's done and all the flip flopping on forgien policy.. And given the fact that I've seen him outright paint false pictures, or show lack of understanding for what is going on overseas.. I don't think that his experience is helping him much. I think he has good advisors for speeches, but when it comes to live answers he sounds very clueless and I can't respect him at all for that.

As for Mccain's "independence", I think that's proven to be a bad quality for him, because his independent stances (that I have seen) go against what most americans think/want. That reminds me a lot of some other bad president we recently, or maybe even still have. As for him voting with bush 90% of the time, that's not shocking to me, nor is Obama voting with him 60%.

The way things stand, I did vote for bush to begin with for a reason, so I'm not completly against all his views either. Like I said, I am conservitive. But sadly in today's world, the bad is going to over shadow the good. Mccain openly supports bush on things I strongly disagree with, which is bad. In fact, hearing obama voted with him 60% of the time shows that Obama is reasonable and knowing that makes me more comfortable with my decision as it stands now.

[Jason1]

Okay, staying in Iraq until "the job is done" is rediculous. Mcain has said we should stay in Iraq 100 years if we have to. He backs this statement up by referring to the fact that we still have troops in Germany and Japan after world war II. WAKE UP PEOPLE, Germany and Japan arent Muslim countries! Thats the difference! As long as we have troops in Iraq, there will be terrorists plotting to kill americans. It really is that simple. Pull out of Iraq = stops terrorism.

And off shore drilling isnt a short term answer, and it isnt even a long term answer. Its a lose - lose situation. People act like off shore drilling will all of a sudden bring our gas prices down. Not going to happen. At the rates we are currently consuming, the worlds oil reserves will be completley gone in 50 years. Thats a scary though to me, we need to end our dependence on all oil, not drill ourselves out of the problem. We cant just drill more and expect this problem to go away forever.

[Professor S]

Honestly outside of this and the other two threads open here, I have been listening to you. The thing is though, I've found it to be clear that you dislike Obama more than you like Mccain. Even in your above post I asked for you to leave out Obama in your explanation if possible, which it does look like 'compared to your other posts' you tried. (/salute)

I was just looking for a clear viewpoint from a Mccain supporter. :P I am conservitive by my own beliefs, but I do not claim a party since what it implies is that I'd support them no matter what. I will openly admit that I did vote for bush in 2004, and I feel like at the time I voted for him that he was misleading about what he hoped to do in his second term.. And the events of his second term showed that he was misleading in his first to. So as it stands now I'm strongly against Mr. President.

I do have some comments though... For #1, your opinion on Iraq. In your personal opinion what would you define as the job being "finished" in Iraq? And do you honestly think we're going to reach this goal realistically with how we're handling the war out there now?

In my opinion, I don't see a resolution there anymore, I just see Americans endlessly babysitting the people there and endlessly causing a distraction for the rest of the middle east. I think eventually we just need to pull out and let them handle their own social issues. I think in time if we were to ever reach this so called "peace" in Iraq, that the other countries around them will simply turn on them and start killing them off again anyway.

As for the economy (only drawing references to Obama because you did), I don't think myself or my kids stand to benifit more from what Mccain wants to do. Obama seems to want big changes, but a lot of his changes are rooted in what America stood for in the first place. Being the true land of oppertunity, and being strongly in the interest of the middle/lower class people instead of trying to once again spread the gap between the middle and upper class.

As for experience, there's no denying that he has a lot of experience, but judging off of all the slip ups he's done and all the flip flopping on forgien policy.. And given the fact that I've seen him outright paint false pictures, or show lack of understanding for what is going on overseas.. I don't think that his experience is helping him much. I think he has good advisors for speeches, but when it comes to live answers he sounds very clueless and I can't respect him at all for that.

As for Mccain's "independence", I think that's proven to be a bad quality for him, because his independent stances (that I have seen) go against what most americans think/want. That reminds me a lot of some other bad president we recently, or maybe even still have. As for him voting with bush 90% of the time, that's not shocking to me, nor is Obama voting with him 60%.

The way things stand, I did vote for bush to begin with for a reason, so I'm not completly against all his views either. Like I said, I am conservitive. But sadly in today's world, the bad is going to over shadow the good. Mccain openly supports bush on things I strongly disagree with, which is bad. In fact, hearing obama voted with him 60% of the time shows that Obama is reasonable and knowing that makes me more comfortable with my decision as it stands now.


1) After reading this post, you're not a conservative. If you believe that anything that Obama says about the economy and taxes reflects what this country was founded on, your confusing the constitution with the communist manifesto. He is a redistribition of wealth, new deal liberal, and thats NOTHING new, just a reflection of past failed policies.

2) My policies has been obvious since I joined this forum, and most of them are reflected in McCain's policies. You should KNOW why I'm for McCain. There's no need for me to repeat it yet again. If I'm concentrating more on Obama its because:

a) There are a lot more vocal liberals on this forum than conservatives, so the topic has been Obama more than not. Plus the Dem convention just took place. Of course Obama will be the topic of conversation.

b) Obama is the unknown, not McCain. Plus, he stands for EVERYTHING I'm against and I believe an Obama presidency combined with a Pelosi and Reed controlled congress could transform out nation into something it was never intended to be, and never should be.

3) You pick on me for not being clear enough on why I support McCain... but where is your criticism of the Obama supportrers who spend most of their time criticizing the Republicans and voting more against Bush than anything else? Its non-existant.

4) In a two party system, the opposition is just as important as the person running. Your voting not just for something you believe in, but against something you DON'T.

I find your entire critique of my posiiton to be disingenuopus at best, and while you say you're a conservative, I don;t see any conservatove beliefs reflective in your views. Your support of Obama defies all conservative belief. I declare shenanigans.

[Professor S]

Okay, staying in Iraq until "the job is done" is rediculous. Mcain has said we should stay in Iraq 100 years if we have to. He backs this statement up by referring to the fact that we still have troops in Germany and Japan after world war II. WAKE UP PEOPLE, Germany and Japan arent Muslim countries! Thats the difference! As long as we have troops in Iraq, there will be terrorists plotting to kill americans. It really is that simple. Pull out of Iraq = stops terrorism.

Two answer both your and Game's questions about the war: We leave when there is a strong, self-governing and self-sustaining government to fill the void. Its that simple. And Jason, your simplistic argument rfeflects more wishful thinking than reality. Most dems and republicans agree that if we left now Iraq would fall into chaos.

And off shore drilling isnt a short term answer, and it isnt even a long term answer. Its a lose - lose situation. People act like off shore drilling will all of a sudden bring our gas prices down. Not going to happen. At the rates we are currently consuming, the worlds oil reserves will be completley gone in 50 years. Thats a scary though to me, we need to end our dependence on all oil, not drill ourselves out of the problem. We cant just drill more and expect this problem to go away forever.

Who do you think saying that it will? Not anyone running for president. Both candidates want to invest in alternative fuels, but only one has a realistic plan to fill the gap until we get there. Thats McCain. There is not magic alternative fuel wand that will fix our energy crisis. We need a COMPREHENSIVE policy expoiting all reserves that we have an developing more for the day when we can move beyond carbon.

And simply ANNOUNCING we have opened up areas to drilling will plummet gas prices. When Bush annouced the removal of the presidential ban, gas started dropping, just because global speculation got nervous. Its basic economics.

[TheGame]

1) After reading this post, you're not a conservative. If you believe that anything that Obama says about the economy and taxes reflects what this country was founded on, your confusing the constitution with the communist manifesto. He is a redistribition of wealth, new deal liberal, and thats NOTHING new, just a reflection of past failed policies.

For one I am a conservative. Though if you're opinion that I'm not based on one election then that's your choice. And yes I would agree that Obama is definently not conservative, and I never said he was.. in fact he goes against the meaning of the word. But once again, that's why I don't define myself as a party, because eventually if someone gets into office and makes bad decisions, then someone needs to come in and clean up their mess.

Obama only appeals to me because I think that Bush did not do a good job. Even though Bush did bad I gave him a second chance because of social issues I agree with him on, and because I felt he'd handle the war better. I didn't know Bush couldn't make any realistic judgement on Iraq, and what really threw me off was how he is so much for linking Mexico, Canada, and the US more.

2) My policies has been obvious since I joined this forum, and most of them are reflected in McCain's policies. You should KNOW why I'm for McCain. There's no need for me to repeat it yet again.

And how many political threads have you seen me reply to? I'm only asking juding off of the DNC thread, Mccain VP thread, and this thread. Where you displayed being extremely anti Obama, and hardly could make any reasonable good case for Mccain.

If I'm concentrating more on Obama its because:

a) There are a lot more vocal liberals on this forum than conservatives, so the topic has been Obama more than not. Plus the Dem convention just took place. Of course Obama will be the topic of conversation.

When I look at most of what people are saying, they're directly attacking Mccain, then you turn around and try to place the spotlight on Obama quick without referencing the good in Mccain. And of course, most things that you claimed were good about him people quickly snapped back at and you'd leave it open ended with no answer. That's why I needed you to clarify it before.

b) Obama is the unknown, not McCain. Plus, he stands for EVERYTHING I'm against and I believe an Obama presidency combined with a Pelosi and Reed controlled congress could transform out nation into something it was never intended to be, and never should be.

And what would that be?

3) You pick on me for not being clear enough on why I support McCain... but where is your criticism of the Obama supportrers who spend most of their time criticizing the Republicans and voting more against Bush than anything else? Its non-existant.

That's obvious, its because I'm voting against Bush too. :P And sorry if you think I'm picking on you, if it helps I respect you a lot for being an open Mccain supporter. I kow he has a lot of supporters out there, but I've yet to sit down and have a conversation with one. In fact, outside of this forum and on the news itself, I've yet to see anyone claim openly to be a Mccain supporter.

4) In a two party system, the opposition is just as important as the person running. Your voting not just for something you believe in, but against something you DON'T.

And I can agree to that. But repeating what I said before, I knew from the gate you were against Obama and never questioned that. Nor do or did I expect to make any arguements that'd change you. I was just looking for a positive opinion on why you'd vote for Mccain.

I find your entire critique of my posiiton to be disingenuopus at best, and while you say you're a conservative, I don;t see any conservatove beliefs reflective in your views. Your support of Obama defies all conservative belief. I declare shenanigans.

Okay, then to make it clear. I'm pro life, anti gay marriage, I think that America should be proactive about war and squash problems before they get to big, instead of waiting for people to be fighting in our backyard. I'm also a christian, and I do not support any laws that go against my beliefs.. Which is a lot of what Democrats push for, which is why most of the time you're going to find I vote with the republicans.

But on the flip side, I'm not a millionaire. I'd consider myself in the lower to middle class tops as far as finances go, and I do support changes that I feel stand to benifit my group the most. From how I was raised, I had no choice but to work right out of HS, though I did go to college at the same time it didn't progress as easilly as I believe it should have.

I also believe that supporting the American people and giving them a good way of life is equally important as fighting to defend it. Not that I'm complaining about how we live now, but I do think that progress can be made.

And, while I said before that I'm all for being proactive on wars and squashing what could be considered threats, I feel that the war in Iraq itself started off of a false premise. And because of how the people will not stop fighting its obvious that Iraq never wanted our help. So in this case of war, I think we should back out of it in a timely manner, our presence there is causing more of a problem then its helping as far as gaining a resolution over there.

And I guess to further my views on war, I do not believe in political wars. I don't believe in wars aimed at one person or group, instead it should be focused on both the group and the people who support the group. If you're unwilling to kill the supporters, then there's no reason to fight because if they didn't want their leader bad enough they could simply have their own civil war and work out their own issues.

There that's my personal stance on politics, though a very dumbed down version without many examples.. But I'm not trying to write a term paper for the forums though. :P And as you may have noticed, my stance doesn't go in line with Mccain or Obama 100%, nor does it go alone with Democrats or Republicans 100%. The reason I'm voting for Obama right now, is because I belive he's is more capible of making the right decisions for the issues I feel are affecting me right now. And I'm well aware of what things I may regret.

[Fyacin]

I don't understand how you can be against abortion and vote for Obama. I don't understand how you can be a christian and vote for Obama. He is the most pro-abortion senator ever. Economic issues notwithstanding.

[TheGame]

Two answer both your and Game's questions about the war: We leave when there is a strong, self-governing and self-sustaining government to fill the void. Its that simple. And Jason, your simplistic argument rfeflects more wishful thinking than reality. Most dems and republicans agree that if we left now Iraq would fall into chaos.

Its a double edged sword though, if we stay there, there will also stay a state of chaos too. In fact, right now, with us there, there is chaos. So if we leave nothing changes except for the fact that there's no more American casualties.

If we somehow meet this unrealistic goal of the people there stopping their hate for americans and accepting a government we set in place there, Iraq is just going to turn into the new isreal and everyone is going to want to break in and kill them anyway. I think the only way the problem will reach a real resolution is if THEY resove it themselves among their own people, just like we resolved our issues ourselves after fighting off the "opressor".

And to be honest, my old opinion was like yours, that we could just make a government there and leave, But its NOT going to work. If it was going to work, and the people were going to accept it, then it'd already been done. But they will not accept Americans changing them.

[TheGame]

I don't understand how you can be against abortion and vote for Obama. I don't understand how you can be a christian and vote for Obama. He is the most pro-abortion senator ever. Economic issues notwithstanding.

As for the Abortion thing, time has shown that there's not going to be an outright answer enforced for it. There's always going to be enough pro life people out there to keep the fight alive. Since this is america, choice is going to win eventually even though I think its wrong. I didn't see Bush making any strong stands on it or making any changes to how its handled, nor do I expect Mccain to.

And last I checked both Mccain and Obama are christians.

[Fyacin]

See I am going to have to disagree there, abortion is a big enough issue for me that I will not vote for anyone that is for it. Don't want to derail this thread into an abortion debate though (or a religious one).

[Jason1]

I don't understand how you can be against abortion and vote for Obama. I don't understand how you can be a christian and vote for Obama. He is the most pro-abortion senator ever. Economic issues notwithstanding.

I cant believe that religion/abortion is always such a big issue. I could give a shit what religion either of the candidates are. And abortion is such a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. Its not going to change, no way no how. Get over it people, someones stance on Abortion has nothing to do with what kind of president they will be. Same with religion.

I would love to see an athiest win. It will never happen because there are way too many right wing nut job conservatives. I cant wait for Religulous to come out.

[TheGame]

I cant believe that religion/abortion is always such a big issue.

They always will be, though I agree in politics it probably shouldn't be. Abortion is something I've given up on for a while though, both views on it has valid points, I just personally think its wrong. I don't think any president is really going to make a strong stand on it.

As for voting based off of open promotion of one's religion, that was one of the big things that sold me for Bush. In the end, once he got back in office he stopped sounding like a chritian and I think just went back to his true self. All Bush did by doing that before, is made me turn religion into a non factor when it comes to my vote.

The only way I'd accept it as a factor again is someone who was running did openly deny christ and said they are an athiest. In the case of this year, I'm not gonna vote for mccain because he's "more openly christian" then Obama. Because the truth is that when they're open about any opinion like that, they're doing it for votes.

[Bond]

McCain has actually been historically very reluctant to talk about his religion.

[TheGame]

McCain has actually been historically very reluctant to talk about his religion.

That's actually true from what I have seen. My point, however, was that religion is not going to sway my vote one way ot the other unles one canidate is openly denies christ. The Mccain point was merely an example, I could edit the names and switch them around and it still means the same thing.

[Professor S]

Game, I can see our differences in conservative belief then, and you're pretty much the exact opposite of me.

I'm very fiscally conservative and socially moderate, and you flip that, but please don;t state that when it comes to the economy Obama reflects a conservative nature. Our founders believed in individuals, not a collectivist government.

Personally, I don't believe the US government has much of anything to do with social issues. That is for the society that the goevrnment protects to decide, at leat to a point.

My social issues:

1) Abortion - No abortions after the 4th month. If the mother's life is in jeopardy after that time, then the doctor decides which is more viable if a coice must be made (which will likely be the mother). The point is, once a life is declared a life, they are all equal. Life is life.

2) Stem-Cell Research - I love it, just not from embyos. All the promising advances in this research come from areas other than embryonic stem cells, such as umbillical (sp?) cord stem cells. This is an abortion fight by proxy, and wile I'm moderate on abortion, the idea of creating the first steps of life for the intention of destroying it kind of sickens me.

3) Gay Marriage - If gay marriage threatens hetrero marriage, then marriage is a very weak institution. The truth is the anti-gay marriage ban is just a way to socially separate gays from straights. Its silly this is such a huge issue in politics.

4) Immigration - Forget the illegal immigrants, and go after the employers... HARD. If no one was hiring illegals, there wouldn't be so many here because there would be no reason for them to cross over. Until there is a solution that centers on businesses hiring the illegals, all this talk is nothing but lip service.

[KillerGremlin]

1) Abortion - No abortions after the 4th month.

2) Stem-Cell Research - I love it, just not from embyos.

Why not set up a program that harvests aborted stem-cells, seems like a win-win to me

3) Gay Marriage - If gay marriage threatens hetrero marriage, then marriage is a very weak institution. The truth is the anti-gay marriage ban is just a way to socially separate gays from straights. Its silly this is such a huge issue in politics.

agreed. from a social standpoint, marriage is just an institution between two people. never understood the opposition to gay marriage other than ignorance and discrimination.

[KillerGremlin]

I cant believe that religion/abortion is always such a big issue. I could give a shit what religion either of the candidates are. And abortion is such a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. Its not going to change, no way no how. Get over it people, someones stance on Abortion has nothing to do with what kind of president they will be. Same with religion.

I would love to see an athiest win. It will never happen because there are way too many right wing nut job conservatives. I cant wait for Religulous to come out.

Abraham Lincoln was a purported Atheist I believe. Maybe not by definition, but apparently he had religious doubts.

I suspect with minimal research you would find that many historical figures deemed themselves 'doubters' of religion.

[KillerGremlin]

And off shore drilling isnt a short term answer, and it isnt even a long term answer. Its a lose - lose situation. People act like off shore drilling will all of a sudden bring our gas prices down. Not going to happen. At the rates we are currently consuming, the worlds oil reserves will be completley gone in 50 years. Thats a scary though to me, we need to end our dependence on all oil, not drill ourselves out of the problem. We cant just drill more and expect this problem to go away forever.

I hate to burst your bubble (and thousands of other people who lurk around the dark corners of the Internet) but if there was an efficient, cheap and easy alternative to oil you would be using it right now. The fact of the matter is the eternal combustion engine is cheap and efficient. More to the point, there are millions of cars on the road right now, and they all need gas. The American economy runs on oil, the American war machine runs on oil, and so does the rest of the world. That said, we will need oil for at least the next 10 years. I'd rather tap our resources (like Alaska) and maybe see gas dip in price. Actually, part of why gas is so expensive is because of our dependency on foreign oil. Foreign oil is a huge fucking problem; our government, the lobbyists, and the Saudis are having a huge circle jerk.

That said...I LOVEEEE alternative fuel. I'm on board, have been for the past 10 years. Yeah, in 4th or 5th fucking grade we did a project on how plastic bags use petrolium and how it increases oil prices and we need to find alternate fuel sources. Here's some fucking beef: nuclear power. The biggest problem with electric cars is....

Tada! Electricity comes from using OIL!

Electricity also can come from using nuclear power....as for excess nuclear waste? Me, personally, I think we should just blast the stuff into outer space but I'm sure there is a reason we have not done so yet.

I'm not so sure hydrogen or ethanol are good long-term solutions. And, right now solar cells suck ass sooo.....

Personally, on the subject of energy, I'd lean towards the guy who had the most money on nuclear power. And on finding a way to lean less of foreign oil.

[KillerGremlin]

Okay, then to make it clear. I'm pro life, anti gay marriage

I won't even touch the issue but I hope you see some contradiction in this statement.

[TheGame]

agreed. from a social standpoint, marriage is just an institution between two people. never understood the opposition to gay marriage other than ignorance and discrimination.

I don't have problems with civil unions between 2 people, I just have a problem with calling it marriage. It mostly has to do with my religion though, how I see it, marriage is moral, homosexuality is immoral. Mixing the two is a perversion of what it originally means.

As for my stance as being pro life, to me its just common sense. I don't believe people should have the right to kill their own children. Of course there are special circumstances that I can sympathise with, but unless the child poses a health threat to the parent, or has no chance of coming out medically sound, then I'm against it.

My question would be, where do you find the contradiction in the one liner you quoted? They're completly different subjects.

[Professor S]

Why not set up a program that harvests aborted stem-cells, seems like a win-win to me.

If its privately funded, ok, but not funded by the government. The danger is in the global marketplace, where there could be "phetus farms" with government money involved. In much of the world, people are still a commodity ot be trafficked, and I'd hate for our tax dollars to somehow get involved. Embryonic stem-cell research is a swamp that I don't think we should wade in.

The truth of the matter is embryonic stem-cell research has no real future. If it did, private money would be in it, and there is none. Public money should follow private, as that is where the true promise lies... investing in stem-cell research that shows promise and not just political bluster.

[KillerGremlin]

I don't have problems with civil unions between 2 people, I just have a problem with calling it marriage. It mostly has to do with my religion though, how I see it, marriage is moral, homosexuality is immoral. Mixing the two is a perversion of what it originally means.

A definition is simply semantics. I would think, at the very least, in an effort to project a fair and equal image, that you would extend the term "marriage" to the homosexual community. After all, in my eyes, a "homosexual union" is equal to a "marriage."

You are still entitled to your belief that homosexual marriage is a "perversion of what it originally means." However, defining it as a "union" or a "marriage" is simply semantics, and in this golden day of age I personally feel we should treat everyone on common, equal terms.

To get philosophical, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." :p

homosexuality is immoral

You have my attention, and so I ask, what religion do you practice? I have gathered that you believe in some form of Christianity. (I myself was raised Roman Catholic).

Just so you know, it is fairly accepted amongst the scientific community that homosexuality is a biological predisposition (a completely natural one) that is either the result of literally, a "gay-gene," or some psychological predisposition in the developmental years.

I'd love to start a side-thread and argue morals, especially morals pertaining to biological occurrences. Here's some light reading to consider, just some food-for-thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals


My question would be, where do you find the contradiction in the one liner you quoted? They're completly different subjects.

I think taking an anti-gay marriage stance is taking a passive role in society that hinders the social progress of humanity. Maybe a better comparison would have been to point out that you are pro-life but think the US should be involved with the rest of the world. You said:

I think that America should be proactive about war and squash problems before they get to big

I think wars are about as anti-Christian as you can get. Ignoring the Old Testament, the New Testament gets all preachy about loving thy neighbor and not killing people. The invention of the "terrorist" is 21st century fear-mongering by our United States government. True story. I don't know, I can't outright attack you because I am pro-life and pro-some wars, like World War 2 and the Civil War, but I can't help but notice the irony in your comment. And it's not just you, it's Bush, McCain, and a whole lotta other Republicans.

[Fyacin]

Ethanol doesn't work, it is far to expenise (the only thing keeping the price low is government subsidaries) and not very effecient, since the tractors that harvest the corn run on deisal fuel (which comes from oil!) not to mention it doesn't run nearly as nice as real fuel. And of course it raises the price of corn alot, which is good for farmers, not so good for people who actually like eating corn. Which is like, Mexico.

Go go nuclear power! Seriously, why haven't we done this yet?

edit* Wow this thread had like 5 posts in the 4 minutes it took me to write my post lol.
Love the wikipedia article to support your stance :lol:. Because we all know wikipedia is such a great source.

Alot of animals are cannibalistic too, should we eat eachother now? I didn't read it by the way, just assuming from the title.

Don't really care what gays do, just as long as they don't try to make me a supporter. Gay rights is an odd issue, because while I am against it itself, I am definetly for people doing what they want, and government not bothering us, so I am not sure.

Right, because the london bombings, warfare in Iraq and September 11th are "fear-mongering" I hope you just don't realize what you just implied.

[KillerGremlin]

Ethanol doesn't work, it is far to expenise (the only thing keeping the price low is government subsidaries) and not very effecient, since the tractors that harvest the corn run on deisal fuel (which comes from oil!) not to mention it doesn't run nearly as nice as real fuel. And of course it raises the price of corn alot, which is good for farmers, not so good for people who actually like eating corn. Which is like, Mexico.

Go go nuclear power! Seriously, why haven't we done this yet?

Amen, brother! Amen!

You're preaching to the choir man, I <3 nuclear power.

[Professor S]

I think wars are about as anti-Christian as you can get. Ignoring the Old Testament, the New Testament gets all preachy about loving thy neighbor and not killing people. The invention of the "terrorist" is 21st century fear-mongering by our United States government. True story. I don't know, I can't outright attack you because I am pro-life and pro-some wars, like World War 2 and the Civil War, but I can't help but notice the irony in your comment. And it's not just you, it's Bush, McCain, and a whole lotta other Republicans.

Terrorism is not a 21st century invention at all. Its been around for centuries, if not longer. The British boarded up churches filled with women and children and then burned them down. Just because it was the military, doesn't make it any less of a terrorist act.

Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament in 1605.

The IRA operated for decades in the 20th century, as did the PLO, Hamas and any number of fundamental islamic groups in reaction to their advancing culture and technology.

To say that terrorism is an invention of the 21st centuries ignores both history and logic. Are there elements that want to exploit terrorism? Sure, but I think they've failed completely. I don't know any American who operates out of fear of terrorism, but it is a clear and present danger. Should we simply ignore the fact that there are people trying to kill civilians? There is a difference between fear and pragmatic awareness of a real situation.

Statements like the ones you've made about terrorism are only an excuse to pretend it doesn't exist or can't effect us. To do so would be to invite more attacks, and thats common sense talking, not fear.

[KillerGremlin]

Terrorism is not a 21st century invention at all. Its been around for centuries, if not longer. The British boarded up churches filled with women and children and then burned them down. Just because it was the military, doesn't make it any less of a terrorist act.

Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament in 1605.

The IRA operated for decades in the 20th century, as did the PLO, Hamas and any number of fundamental islamic groups in reaction to their advancing culture and technology.

To say that terrorism is an invention of the 21st centuries ignores both history and logic. Are there elements that want to exploit terrorism? Sure, but I think they've failed completely. I don't know any American who operates out of fear of terrorism, but it is a clear and present danger. Should we simply ignore the fact that there are people trying to kill civilians? There is a difference between fear and pragmatic awareness of a real situation.

Statements like the ones you've made about terrorism are only an excuse to pretend it doesn't exist or can't effect us. To do so would be to invite more attacks, and thats common sense talking, not fear.



See...in my opinion, terrorism is an ideal. It is an abstract. It is not a clear-cut thing and there is no solution for it. And, what defines someone as a "terrorist" becomes a complex argument. I believe that there are clear-cut "acts of terorism" but actually defining a "terrorist" is a difficult task.

Let me remind you that this war in Iraq is a "War on Terrorism." What a load of bullshit that is. I wonder how many American people, even today, understand why the Al-Qaeda targeted us on 9/11.

Our current administration painted this wonderful image. "They are attacking us because we have freedom, and we are a democracy!" And thus, we deemed the Al-Qaeda "evil" terrorists and we are the White Knights of Freedom (never mind the thousands of civilian casualties we inflicted from bombing Iraq). One topic never discussed in American politics is did we have the 9/11 atacks coming. I'd say yes. Was it moral or right of the Al-Qaeda to kill thousands of Americans? No. But, the attack was not random, and in a way it was probably not all that surprising (aside from the execution, which was clever and surprising).

The Al-Qaeda are not upset because we have freedom and Democracy, they are upset because of our involvement in the Middle East. Our pre-Iraq involvement. It seems like we are perpetuating the terrorism problem by continuing our involvement with Iraq. It seems very cyclical in nature. We "create" the terrorist who wants us out of the Middle East, we stay in the Middle East for oil, the terrorist gets upset and attacks us, and we "wage war on the Terrorist" and get more oil.

Our government, on the heels of 9/11, used the terrorists as a reason to go to war with Iraq. Iraq had WMDs...they were helping out the Al-Qaeda! They were aiding those terrorist bastards who wanted to take away our FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY! Talk about massive propaganda. And thus, the American public was at least 50/50 for this "War on Terrorism."

This still negates the fact that terrorism is an ideal. You yourself just illustrated that over the span of hundreds of years terrorism has always existed. Terrorism, like racism, stems from ideals and beliefs. There is no cure for terrorism. There is no war that can be waged against a terrorist. There will always be someone who stands against the status quo.

Presumably, this War on Terror is a War to Get Oil, not a war to smash an ideal.

But, hey. Terrorism is ancient. The Pilgrims were terrorists (die Native Americans!). Christians are terrorists (let's wage war agains the Pagans!). Or, maybe it was the Native Americans or the Pagans that were terrorists.

Acts of terrorism are as old as time. You listed a bunch of examples. Hell, how about Unit 731 and the Japanese and German experiments during World War 2. Or concentration camps. Or Prisoners of War.

It is the current US Administration that has taken the tall order of defining who is the terrorist. And they've done a good job (/sarcasm). And, I actually think they have struck fear in the hearts of some Americans.

But...the bottom line is...regardless of what War you start, who you oppress, who you kill, someone will always rise to the challenge and execute an Act of Terror. I assure you, there WILL be another act of terror, people will die, and it will be a tragedy. You can't stop it. As history has indicated. Unless you want to ignore history.

------------------

By the way...I don't know any Americans who operate out of fear of terror either. But, immediately after 9/11 people sure were rattled. It took a major war, several trillion dollars spent, 4000 American casualities, a huge increase in gas prices and THOUSANDS of Iraqi casualities for the American people to realize that maybe this war isn't about terrorism.

[Professor S]

KG, I think your views on terrorism and why we were attacked show a general lack of understanding that many have when it comes to the Middle East.

We've been attacked by middle eastern terrorists since the late 60's, not just since the original Gulf War. The main contention between the West and the Middle East is not oil or Americans on some sand dune somewhere... its that they feel their culture is under assault from Western culture. They feel that our culture was and is slowly attracting more and more away from the word of Allah and towards that of a more moderate/progressive view of islam. This is why those organizations tend to hate the Saudi's and Jordan almost as much as they hate us. To them the song "I Kissed a Girl (and I liked it)", is just as devastating as a tomohawk missile, if not moreso.

We're talking about a group of people who have no areas of compromise. They believe that the US and Israel are to be destroyed, not negotiated with. Israel attempted for YEARS to negotiate, and every time they gave a little they were rewarded by esclalated attacks.

Fundamentalist terorrists find honor and salvation in death. Their view of their religion is one where death is held higher than life, and the only true path to glory is dying while killing the heretics. They strap bombs to the mentally handicapped and pregnant women and target people waiting for a bus, not military or political targets. There is no objective, there is only the continued fight to the death.

Now you could just ignore everything I've written here as racism, but know that my opinion does not come from ignorance, but an accute observation and study of this situation over many years. my opinions have only become more harsh and polar the more I've learned.

I'm always saddened when I hear equivocating arguments like yours, failing to see issues that are simple as they are, and instead complicating them with ethnocentric opinion based on an assumption that the cause must be something a Western mind can relate to. Sometimes understanding is irrelevant, inconsequential and impossible, and there is only the recognition of the enemy and the need to defeat that enemy.

If you want a clear definition of terrorism, here it is: When the specific target of the action is not military or polticial, but instead simply meant to cause fear (hence, terrorism). Using this definition, 9/11 was an obvious terrorist attack. The insurgency in Iraq is not, as it is specifically aimed at our military for a specific outcome aimed at the target party. That doesn't make them right, it just means they're not terrorists, just as the Nazi's were not terrorists.

[KillerGremlin]

I agree for the most part...I agree that a "terrorist" is someone who targets innocent or unarmed people, and usually attacks are done for some gain or reason (such as fear). I also agree that the Al-Qaeda are beyond reasoning and beyond negotiating. I am also aware of pre-Gulf War attacks, but I wasn't aware that they started as early as the 60s. That is new and interesting information, and I thank you for presenting it. I'd like to think there is some deeper political meaning behind the terrorists other than fear of westernization. I understand that our western culture is very much so in conflict with the Middle East. However, what is our primary motivation for originally getting involved with the Middle East? Perhaps I need to do more research, but at the current time, we are in the Middle East "spreading Democracy" and getting oil.

That's my limited view. As for the suicide-bombing, and the 70 virgins or whatever...I think it is all crazy. Most of the people who partake in the suicide bombings are mentally unstable as you said, and brainwashed. Truly a tragedy.

I'm not advocating terrorism, or suggesting I agree with the Al Qaeda. I just think a "War on Terror" is a flawed way to go about dealing with the issue, and I think it was deceptive advertising by our current administration.

[Professor S]

To answer your question, I first got interested after 9/11, because I wanted to know more about fundamentalist muslims and their motivations. The more I learned, the more shocked I've become. I was looking for some commonality, something within the society that gave hope for a future without such hatred and violence, and I've only found one answer: Reformation.

The key problem with Islam today, and not just extremist sects, is that it is still considered the absolute literal word of God. There is no interpretation. It is what it is, and everything else is heretical and will come to Allah either willingly or by force.

The problem with this view is that there ARE different interpretations of Islam, and so we have Suni's and Shites at each other's throats for a thousand years. To give you an western allegory; it would be like Methodists and Lutherans shooting RPG'as at each other.

Cristianity USED to be like this, and there is a long sad history of horror caused by the Catholic church, but after the reformation much of this changed. All Christian faiths became much more tolerant of each other in time, and in turn other religions as well, and the Western world has benefitted greatly from this.

In the same time period, the Middle East has essentially remained in the dark ages, relying on Western technology and know how to even get their own oil out of the ground. It is a sad history of a sado-masochistic culture that is in desperate need of change. There are some that want to change it, but unfortunately the "no interpretations" clause still gets in the way. Too many moderates refuse to publicly denounce and work towards global islamic reform because they completely separate their form of Islam from all others, not realizing that the worst makes the good seem bad.

[TheGame]

I think wars are about as anti-Christian as you can get. Ignoring the Old Testament, the New Testament gets all preachy about loving thy neighbor and not killing people. The invention of the "terrorist" is 21st century fear-mongering by our United States government. True story. I don't know, I can't outright attack you because I am pro-life and pro-some wars, like World War 2 and the Civil War, but I can't help but notice the irony in your comment. And it's not just you, it's Bush, McCain, and a whole lotta other Republicans.

I'm not being suckered into a religious belief debate. I've tried it long ago, and not going to allow this thread to go there. However, I'll mention that I am a christian.

As for sciences "discovery" that people are pre disposed to being homosexual.. My reply to that is according to my beliefs humans are pre disposed to being evil and immoral. The people who I feel do the "right thing" are the ones who fight such tendancies, and/or recognize that they're doing something wrong and ask for forgiveness for their sins and try to change.

That's what I believe, and for the sake of this thread I'll plege the low road and not fight it. And say I will not acknowlege any further attempts to prove I'm wrong because of where it will take things. I'll read it, just no further acknowlegement.

[Professor S]

Game, I won't argue with you on your stance on homosexuality. Instead I'll simply tell you my point of view.

I've had a friend since childhood who always had a rough time. He never seemed comfortable in his own skin, but he dated occasionally and we just thought little of it. Three of us went to college together, and the reasons for his uncomfortability became pretty evident. He stopped dating, and pretty much became reclusive, and was often VERY defensive about jokes pertaining to his sexuality. We knew he was gay, but couldn't say anything. How do you tell a friend "Dude, you're gay. Go bang dudes and stop killing yourself."

He came out after college, and thank God he did. He was so much happier, and it wasn't until after talking to him that we discovered he was suicidal when he was in the closet.

To me, sexuality is not a choice for 95% of people. We are the way we are, and to fight it simply hurts ourselves terribly as our sexuality is a huge part of our identity. My friend could not choose to be straight any more than I could choose to be gay. I am what I am, and he is what he is, and no amount of hoping and praying and fighting can change this for most people, IMO.

[The Germanator]

I'm not advocating terrorism, or suggesting I agree with the Al Qaeda. I just think a "War on Terror" is a flawed way to go about dealing with the issue, and I think it was deceptive advertising by our current administration.

I totally agree with this and I had a professor who explained pretty well why the idea of a "War on Terror" is flawed. It's flawed because terrorism is a type of war tactic, like trench warfare in WWI for example. To declare war on a specific tactic itself just doesn't make sense. It's too abstract. Wars against a specific foe are can be just, but wars against abstract tactics of war ("terror/terrorism") go against rationality.

[Professor S]

I totally agree with this and I had a professor who explained pretty well why the idea of a "War on Terror" is flawed. It's flawed because terrorism is a type of war tactic, like trench warfare in WWI for example. To declare war on a specific tactic itself just doesn't make sense. It's too abstract. Wars against a specific foe are can be just, but wars against abstract tactics of war ("terror/terrorism") go against rationality.

Your professor was arguing semantics and concentrating his objection on small points and not the greater issue. The "War on Terror" is a three word name for a complex issue. We're not fighting the tactic, we're fighting those that use the tactic.

[Vampyr]

Game, I can see our differences in conservative belief then, and you're pretty much the exact opposite of me.

I'm very fiscally conservative and socially moderate, and you flip that, but please don;t state that when it comes to the economy Obama reflects a conservative nature. Our founders believed in individuals, not a collectivist government.

Personally, I don't believe the US government has much of anything to do with social issues. That is for the society that the goevrnment protects to decide, at leat to a point.

My social issues:

1) Abortion - No abortions after the 4th month. If the mother's life is in jeopardy after that time, then the doctor decides which is more viable if a coice must be made (which will likely be the mother). The point is, once a life is declared a life, they are all equal. Life is life.

2) Stem-Cell Research - I love it, just not from embyos. All the promising advances in this research come from areas other than embryonic stem cells, such as umbillical (sp?) cord stem cells. This is an abortion fight by proxy, and wile I'm moderate on abortion, the idea of creating the first steps of life for the intention of destroying it kind of sickens me.

3) Gay Marriage - If gay marriage threatens hetrero marriage, then marriage is a very weak institution. The truth is the anti-gay marriage ban is just a way to socially separate gays from straights. Its silly this is such a huge issue in politics.

4) Immigration - Forget the illegal immigrants, and go after the employers... HARD. If no one was hiring illegals, there wouldn't be so many here because there would be no reason for them to cross over. Until there is a solution that centers on businesses hiring the illegals, all this talk is nothing but lip service.

So bizarre we have the same opinions on a vast majority of the issues, and choose to vehemently defend the two different candidates.

Could this two party system be broken? Are American politics bizarre and worthless? /rhetorical questions.

And to some of the other people here: stop using your religion as a backdrop for who you choose to vote for. Religion is something to live your life by, not rule a nation by, and it's certainly not something you should try to put onto other people by using your right to vote to put in someone who may not be the best one for the job simply because he will continue to propagate your own religious beliefs.

It is incredibly selfish and egotistical, and the reason I hate so many voters.

I remember back in high school in an engineering class were were talking about the Bush/Kerry election, and I stated that I was for Kerry. Some other guy there was like, "Man, you're for the gays?!" And I -still- hear shit like that -every day-.

I wanted to punch him, and everyone else I hear saying stupid things like that, in the face.

PS: Does it not bother any of the people here that are supporting McCain that if he DOES win, it will be because of the people I just described? Some of you have some pretty decent reasons for supporting him, but there are not NEARLY enough of you to vote him in. If he wins it will be because of super-right wing, bible thumping, gay-hating, racist, bigoted people. Because there are -a lot- of those people.

[Professor S]

So bizarre we have the same opinions on a vast majority of the issues, and choose to vehemently defend the two different candidates.

Well i think that comes down to fiscal differences (I'm a supply-sider, which is trickle down without all the spending that ruins it) and a confusion between federalism and states rights.

Social issues are for people, and at the most, states to decide. Thats why I'm against Roe vs. Wade, which is not law, but legislation from the bench. I'm not anti-abortion, I just don't believe it's a federal issue, and overturning RvW would return that decision to the states.