McCain or Obama

manny wrote:

troublezone wrote:

Obama's character is what's in question. Hanging with domestic terrorists and his known less than patriotic past is not the best choice in these "times".

William Ayers, the weatherman, a group of pot smoking hippies who at the time hated the goverment due to America's involvement in the Vietnam war, these group of morons than bombed federal buildings and promptly got themselves imprisoned. Obama has condemed their actions hundreds of times.

When Ayers and Obama met, Ayers was a college professor and they served on Woods Funds for Chicago an non profit organzation involved in school board issues, headed by Republican and Ronald Reagan's friend Deborah Leff. By then Ayers like alot of his generation was a yuppie no longer the bomb throwing hippie of the sixties.

If Obama really hung out with terriost, than by having Collin Powell endorse him, that would suggest that Collin Powell is commiting treason to a country he has fought and defended his entire adult life, Ayers is college professor who left that life behind years ago. No one cares about Ayers anyway, if McCain wants to win he should than talk about the issues, the economic crisis, Iraq war, jobless rate, not some 60 year old hippie professor and crimes that took place almost 40 years ago.

The issue is that Obama lied about his relationship with ayers - at first he was "just a guy in my neighborhood" (first debate) then "we just served on a board together" (2nd debate). On the third debate, Obama lied about launching his political career in ayers house - Ayers did throw the first fund raiser for obama. My issue is he lied about it.

The ability to lie is a prerequisite for anyone going into politics.

The Ayers thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as Obama's Robin Hood approach to wealth redistribution. With he and his Democratically controlled congress defining "rich".

In fact, I would vote for McCain just based on the "checks and balances" rule alone. Since it appears likely that the Democrats will not only control both sides of Congress but also have a filibuster-proof majority, I want a Republican for President. Otherwise, we're going to be like Rome where the Senate simply rubber-stamped everything Caesar wanted.

kmorg wrote:

I'm sorry to say, TT, you really do sound like you have
very little grasp on how things outside your country works.

If
our system isn't working, why are we ranked as the number 1 country to
live in, year after year? Becasue we are good slaves?

Because most people would prefer to have someone else take care of them rather than making their own decisions.

Quote :

The Ayers thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as Obama's Robin Hood approach to wealth redistribution. With he and his Democratically controlled congress defining "rich".

In fact, I would vote for McCain just based on the "checks and balances" rule alone. Since it appears likely that the Democrats will not only control both sides of Congress but also have a filibuster-proof majority, I want a Republican for President. Otherwise, we're going to be like Rome where the Senate simply rubber-stamped everything Caesar wanted.

Yes, that.

tohostudios wrote:

The ability to lie is a prerequisite for anyone going into politics.

The Ayers thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as Obama's Robin Hood approach to wealth redistribution. With he and his Democratically controlled congress defining "rich".

In fact, I would vote for McCain just based on the "checks and balances" rule alone. Since it appears likely that the Democrats will not only control both sides of Congress but also have a filibuster-proof majority, I want a Republican for President. Otherwise, we're going to be like Rome where the Senate simply rubber-stamped everything Caesar wanted.

Yes, the ability to lie does seem to be a prerequisite to go into politics. The let's "spead the wealth around" really worries me - you are successful, so we are going to punish you - doesn't that sound like what a school year bully does? Beats you up for your lunch money so he can go and buy what he wants? We're in real trouble if obama, pelosi and reed are running the country. Dennis Miller calls them the "gang of 3"

thejokeriv wrote:

manny wrote:

troublezone wrote:

Obama's character is what's in question. Hanging with domestic terrorists and his known less than patriotic past is not the best choice in these "times".

William Ayers, the weatherman, a group of pot smoking hippies who at the time hated the goverment due to America's involvement in the Vietnam war, these group of morons than bombed federal buildings and promptly got themselves imprisoned. Obama has condemed their actions hundreds of times.

When Ayers and Obama met, Ayers was a college professor and they served on Woods Funds for Chicago an non profit organzation involved in school board issues, headed by Republican and Ronald Reagan's friend Deborah Leff. By then Ayers like alot of his generation was a yuppie no longer the bomb throwing hippie of the sixties.

If Obama really hung out with terriost, than by having Collin Powell endorse him, that would suggest that Collin Powell is commiting treason to a country he has fought and defended his entire adult life, Ayers is college professor who left that life behind years ago. No one cares about Ayers anyway, if McCain wants to win he should than talk about the issues, the economic crisis, Iraq war, jobless rate, not some 60 year old hippie professor and crimes that took place almost 40 years ago.

The issue is that Obama lied about his relationship with ayers - at first he was "just a guy in my neighborhood" (first debate) then "we just served on a board together" (2nd debate). On the third debate, Obama lied about launching his political career in ayers house - Ayers did throw the first fund raiser for obama. My issue is he lied about it.

The issue isn't that he lied about his relationship about Ayers, it was the fact that McCain brought him up claiming that Obama and Ayers were as close as ass and underwear. They served on the board together which was run by a Republican. No matter cared about Ayers and he is a relic from the era of tie dyed shirts, love ins, and protesting the Vietnam war.

Time magazine and noted Ayers critc Michael Kennsley wrote ( and not an Obama fan) wrote:

If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others — including Republicans and conservatives — who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues...Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd.

There is no evidence that they were friends and Obama did not begin his career in his living room. Even if he did who cares? It means nothing. McCain made Ayers an issue because he has no plan.

If Obama pals around with terriost wouldn't that make guilty of treason, and if that is the case is Collin Powell advocating treason by supporting him?

How about McCain who was paling around with Keating 5, which cost the tax payers billions in the S & L scandles in the 80's, maybe McCain really didn't do anything wrong but does that make you question his ethics?

manny wrote:

How about McCain who was paling around with Keating 5, which cost the tax payers billions in the S & L scandles in the 80's, maybe McCain really didn't do anything wrong but does that make you question his ethics?

McCain was one of the Keating 5 and absolutely DID do something wrong in that whole mess. I may agree with him more on some issues, but I don't like him and don't plan on voting for him.

tohostudios wrote:

The ability to lie is a prerequisite for anyone going into politics.

The Ayers thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as Obama's Robin Hood approach to wealth redistribution. With he and his Democratically controlled congress defining "rich".

In fact, I would vote for McCain just based on the "checks and balances" rule alone. Since it appears likely that the Democrats will not only control both sides of Congress but also have a filibuster-proof majority, I want a Republican for President. Otherwise, we're going to be like Rome where the Senate simply rubber-stamped everything Caesar wanted.

That is not a bad point, look what happened when we had a Republican majority in the House and Senate and the Preidency which lasted til 2006, we got an Iraq war, record job losses, loss of prestige overseas, etc, despite this good point I am going for Obama, I feel McCain has no vision for this country.

I too am for Obama, but I have no say in the matter, which is bullcrap!

Schbopo wrote:

I too am for Obama, but I have no say in the matter, which is bullcrap!

What do you mean? You're 18.

Tall Tyrion wrote:

Olafsto wrote:

You need to take a trip abroad to widen your horizon my friend!!!!
Maybe we are misunderstanding eachother. As I tried to make clear, a social democrat is not a sosialist.

Well, I'm up to being corrected on the terms, but Socialism is
"ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of
capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Quote :

We have a number of political parties in Norway, actually one of
the largest ones is a right wing party much like your own republican
party.
If they win, they are in office for four years.
We have total political and religious freedom here.

That's fine, but do you have economic freedom? If you earn a dollar,
how much of it is confiscated by the government? Are there limitations
of what you can or cannot buy with what you are left with?

Quote :

You sound like a smart man TT, but calling us slaves, shows a level of ignorance beyond belief.
Your next vacation should definitely be Europe..

I'd love to go, but I suspect I would find a lot less economic freedom
than we have here in America (although we are well on our way here).

OK, final round (I hope) :
The system you describe in your first paragraph is communism.
We have a sosial democracy.
Sosialism is somewhere between communism and social democracy.
The sosialist party in Norway is a minor party that gets around 5 % of the votes, but as all the others they too have some influence.
You have the world view of a stereotype american redneck. That`s fine, but dissapointing coming from you.
A question, don`t you pay one single cent of tax in your country?
If you do, you too are a slave, according your own definition of the term.
Of course we have economical freedom, I can spend my money exactly the way I want to. To even think that our government has anything to say in my personal spending, shows again that you have no clue what you are talkin about.
We have public schools, and private schools.
We have public kindergardens, and private kindergardens
We have public healthcare, and private healthcare.
I could go on, but you get my point.
Maybe we are happy and satisfied because we get the best of both worlds?

Tall T: I think we average somewhere paying about 30% of our income in taxes. If you earn less, you pay less, if you earn more, you pay more. There are flaws in every system, and in Norway we do get a little pissed when we pay 30% taxes, then go on paying taxes on the food, taxes on the gas, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, taxes on using the roads etc. BUT, we have economical freedom on what the goverment doesn't gat for our taxes, of course! Why would you even think differently? Also with your system you have to pay insurance money up the whazoo to get help when you are sick, for the dentist etc. So in a way you spend your money both ways, it's just more stress to take care of it yourself. Hust look at how many uninsured people there are in the US. And worse your off jobwise, or income-wise, the worse it gets' Is it really fair that you get less help just becasue you're poor?

Quote :

Obama has condemed their actions hundreds of times.

Of coarse he would because it would hurt his camaign otherwise. There is a thing called lying.

troublezone wrote:

Quote :

Obama has condemed their actions hundreds of times.

Of coarse he would because it would hurt his camaign otherwise.
There is a thing called lying.

True there is also a thing called distraction, calling attention to non issue like Ayers instead having voters focous on the fact have no economic, foreign poilicy plan

Quote :

no economic, foreign poilicy plan

And what kind of plan will Obama have with his extensive experience? The ability to talk a good game is one thing but to deliver is another. If it wasn't for Bush Obama wouldn't have had a chance winning this. He should have a way bigger lead than he has considering how much Bush is disliked and that Obama is his polar opposite.

troublezone wrote:

Quote :

no economic, foreign poilicy plan

And what kind of plan will Obama have with his extensive experience? The ability to talk a good game is one thing but to deliver is another. If it wasn't for Bush Obama wouldn't have had a chance winning this. He should have a way bigger lead than he has considering how much Bush is disliked and that Obama is his polar opposite.

He probably would if he wasnt an idiot.

DeathCult wrote:

troublezone wrote:

Quote :

no economic, foreign poilicy plan

And what kind of plan will Obama have with his extensive experience? The ability to talk a good game is one thing but to deliver is another. If it wasn't for Bush Obama wouldn't have had a chance winning this. He should have a way bigger lead than he has considering how much Bush is disliked and that Obama is his polar opposite.

He probably would if he wasnt an idiot.

Or the people writing his policies for him.

troublezone wrote:

Quote :

no economic, foreign poilicy plan

And what kind of plan will Obama have with his extensive experience? The ability to talk a good game is one thing but to deliver is another. If it wasn't for Bush Obama wouldn't have had a chance winning this. He should have a way bigger lead than he has considering how much Bush is disliked and that Obama is his polor opposite.

I am not sure about him having a bigger lead or not than McCain but I will conced he is the polar opposite of George W and for that I get on my knees and thank sweet baby Jesus.

As for his foreign policy experince now that is a legit issue that voters should question their leaders on, experience is nice but some of more popular presidents had no military or foreign policy experince when they were elected and did fine such as Reagan and Wilson to name two. Where do they stand on those issues, do they understand the politics of these nations, and hundreds of other things to take to account. I will agree that foreign policy, taxation, those are important issues, Ayers belongs to the history books.

I gotta say something about this thread.

It's up to 13 pages and I've yet to see any flaming; nothing but civil discourse even though there are lots of differences of opinions.

I can't think of any other board where this would happen. It sure blew up over at Rock Island when we tried it.

Kudos to the members of HoM!

tohostudios wrote:

I gotta say something about this thread.

It's up to 13 pages and I've yet to see any flaming; nothing but civil discourse even though there are lots of differences of opinions.

I can't think of any other board where this would happen. It sure blew up over at Rock Island when we tried it.

Kudos to the members of HoM!

Yeah!!!!! And Kudos to the admins for keeping the blabbermouth 15 year old types off our board!!!! Nothing worng with having a healthy, political discussion - no reason we can't all go out and have a beer or 2 afterwards!!!!! We did that in college - both side would argue a point in class, but we could all go and have beers together afterwards.

And skeebo - good job on not posting blabbermouth type posts (aside from think it's wrong for a 15 year old not being able to vote! You'll be able to vote in the next presidential election - that's the law and I have no issues with it)

tohostudios wrote:

I gotta say something about this thread.

It's up to 13 pages and I've yet to see any flaming; nothing but civil discourse even though there are lots of differences of opinions.

I can't think of any other board where this would happen. It sure blew up over at Rock Island when we tried it.

Kudos to the members of HoM!

I've noticed that as well. Too often people demonize people because they disagree with their politics and it's good to see that despite our differences we can remain friendly with each other. As for me, on Monday I will vote to keep Dumbo and The Dummy (Obama & Bidden) out of the White House.

Quote :

As for me, on Monday I will vote to keep Dumbo and The Dummy (Obama & Bidden) out of the White House

I agree its been cool that no one's flamed each other, Joker, toho and I have rarely agreed but we have been civil about our disagreements, now if only politicans could be as civil during elections.

Dallas I to use Spec's term will be voting to keep Geezer and Gams from the White House.

I gotta admit that "Geezer and Gams" line cracked me up.