Obama vs. McCain

The Bee's Knees wrote:

FK wrote:

The Bee's Knees wrote:Obama is winning the poll!

Suck that McCain.

Yet no Obama voter on that poll has come up with a good argument for him.

Ok. You haven't argued why McCain will be the greatest president in the world. Whatever I would argue you would denie saying McCain is better. So explain your reasoning.

McCain is better than Obama, I already stated why Obama would be a bad president.

FK wrote:

The Bee's Knees wrote:

FK wrote:

The Bee's Knees wrote:Obama is winning the poll!

Suck that McCain.

Yet no Obama voter on that poll has come up with a good argument for him.

Ok. You haven't argued why McCain will be the greatest president in the world. Whatever I would argue you would denie saying McCain is better. So explain your reasoning.

McCain is better than Obama, I already stated why Obama would be a bad president.

No you just denied my claims of certain things Obama will touch on while he is president. Now how about YOU explain how McCain will be a great president.

The Bee's Knees wrote:

FK wrote:

The Bee's Knees wrote:

FK wrote:

The Bee's Knees wrote:Obama is winning the poll!

Suck that McCain.

Yet no Obama voter on that poll has come up with a good argument for him.

Ok. You haven't argued why McCain will be the greatest president in the world. Whatever I would argue you would denie saying McCain is better. So explain your reasoning.

McCain is better than Obama, I already stated why Obama would be a bad president.

No you just denied my claims of certain things Obama will touch on while he is president. Now how about YOU explain how McCain will be a great president.

-He'll create more jobs
-He'll invest in nuclear power
-He doesn't have a radical plan for Iraq
-He'll try to overturn Roe vs. Wade
-He's against gun control but for tighter restrictions
-He's Republican

FK wrote:

The Bee's Knees wrote:

FK wrote:

The Bee's Knees wrote:

FK wrote:

The Bee's Knees wrote:Obama is winning the poll!

Suck that McCain.

Yet no Obama voter on that poll has come up with a good argument for him.

Ok. You haven't argued why McCain will be the greatest president in the world. Whatever I would argue you would denie saying McCain is better. So explain your reasoning.

McCain is better than Obama, I already stated why Obama would be a bad president.

No you just denied my claims of certain things Obama will touch on while he is president. Now how about YOU explain how McCain will be a great president.

-He'll create more jobs
-He'll invest in nuclear power
-He doesn't have a radical plan for Iraq
-He'll try to overturn Roe vs. Wade
-He's against gun control but for tighter restrictions
-He's Republican

Now what flaws does he have because I know you only listed the things you agree with him on.

-He's old
-He's a moderate (good for you, bad for conservatives)
-His border policy and stance on illegal immigration

FK wrote:-He's old
-He's a moderate (good for you, bad for conservatives)
-His border policy and stance on illegal immigration

Arn't they putting a fence up near New Mexico?

Obama.

Let me put this in easy terms.

A vote for Obama is a vote for Socialism.

I'm sure Obama will make a good president, just like he made a good senator

i love how no one who voted Obama has a reason for it. Fail.

Well....he did...so much....for us here in...Illinois....

FinishingKick wrote:i love how no one who voted Obama has a reason for it. Fail.

I like how I stated them earlier but you proceeded not to read them. Fail for you.

I just found out yesterday that McCain was 71. I thought he was in his 60s.

I was a Clinton fan, but I have to go with Obama because I'm a pretty die-hard liberal and there aren't many republicans I could support.

For the record though I don't much like Obama either, AND I'm even from Illinois.

Let me explain to you the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

As we all know, Democrats are supporters of increased government size and spending, and wish to accomplish this by raising taxes, or changing the taxation system.

Republicans on the other hand, believe in limited government, and that The government that governs least, governs best". They often believe in at least part with the theory of laissez faire economics.

Now let me tell you what exactly makes the Republicans correct where the Democrats are incorrect. The Democratic platform is central around the idea of government growth and spending. One of the biggest resource sinks the Democrats support is social security. Social security is the policy our country has that guarentees citizens that if they get injured and can't work, or reach a certain age, or can't support their family despite their job, the government will provide for them some resources to help them cope with the situation. Now, if you are a democrat, there is a very good chance you support some form of social security.

Social security is a policy which only stays in place thanks to the fears of Americans. It is the fear that you might be injured and can't work, or that your skills might not be marketable enough, that people support social security. It is their belief that is someone puts them self in a situation in which they can't function normally in society, the government, and by proxy the tax payers, should bail them out. This is the result of insecurity in the skills of the people who choose to be democrats to support themselves for their entire lives. They wish for the government to force every American to purchase a security policy which, lets be frank, is only used the majority of the time by societies lowest common denominator, and that is unmotivated people.

This attitude of governmental intervention which has begun to define 20th and 21st century Democrats is essentially a form of limited socialism.

Let me say that again.

Democrats support socialism. They wish to give the government more and more control over the assets of the people of this country, and through that, they wish to eliminate liberty.

Let me say THAT again.

Democrats wish to eliminate liberty.

I haven't even touched upon the social engineering the Democrats attempt to undertake (I'm being fair by leaving that out, that isn't a uniquely democratic feature, and it is more the result of the way our media works that the result of the Democratic party's actions)

So, I will put it all together for you. If you wish to support Barrack Obama, the most populist presidential candidate we have ever seen, you are supporting a man who seeks to eliminate liberty. That is in addition to his other flaws, (Chiefly his lack of experience) of which we are all aware.

The rise of the Democratic party, and with it the elimination of Liberty, is directly the result of the weakening of the US Dollar. People feel they are losing buying power, and as a result, they become more afraid and insecure. As such they flock to the Democratic party, and reduce the USD's strength even more. It is a viscious cycle, and this age of media fed teenagers who seem to buy so far into this idea is only going to exacerbate the issue down the line.

Half of that explanation was unnessary.

ProtestTheZero wrote:Let me explain to you the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

As we all know, Democrats are supporters of increased government size and spending, and wish to accomplish this by raising taxes, or changing the taxation system.

Republicans on the other hand, believe in limited government, and that The government that governs least, governs best". They often believe in at least part with the theory of laissez faire economics.

Now let me tell you what exactly makes the Republicans correct where the Democrats are incorrect. The Democratic platform is central around the idea of government growth and spending. One of the biggest resource sinks the Democrats support is social security. Social security is the policy our country has that guarentees citizens that if they get injured and can't work, or reach a certain age, or can't support their family despite their job, the government will provide for them some resources to help them cope with the situation. Now, if you are a democrat, there is a very good chance you support some form of social security.

Social security is a policy which only stays in place thanks to the fears of Americans. It is the fear that you might be injured and can't work, or that your skills might not be marketable enough, that people support social security. It is their belief that is someone puts them self in a situation in which they can't function normally in society, the government, and by proxy the tax payers, should bail them out. This is the result of insecurity in the skills of the people who choose to be democrats to support themselves for their entire lives. They wish for the government to force every American to purchase a security policy which, lets be frank, is only used the majority of the time by societies lowest common denominator, and that is unmotivated people.

This attitude of governmental intervention which has begun to define 20th and 21st century Democrats is essentially a form of limited socialism.

Let me say that again.

Democrats support socialism. They wish to give the government more and more control over the assets of the people of this country, and through that, they wish to eliminate liberty.

Let me say THAT again.

Democrats wish to eliminate liberty.

I haven't even touched upon the social engineering the Democrats attempt to undertake (I'm being fair by leaving that out, that isn't a uniquely democratic feature, and it is more the result of the way our media works that the result of the Democratic party's actions)

So, I will put it all together for you. If you wish to support Barrack Obama, the most populist presidential candidate we have ever seen, you are supporting a man who seeks to eliminate liberty. That is in addition to his other flaws, (Chiefly his lack of experience) of which we are all aware.

The rise of the Democratic party, and with it the elimination of Liberty, is directly the result of the weakening of the US Dollar. People feel they are losing buying power, and as a result, they become more afraid and insecure. As such they flock to the Democratic party, and reduce the USD's strength even more. It is a viscious cycle, and this age of media fed teenagers who seem to buy so far into this idea is only going to exacerbate the issue down the line.

If I read past the first 4 words, I'd probably +1 it.

T B K wrote:Half of that explanation was unnessary.[sic]

See, that is a lie, because you CLEARLY don't understand anything about politics. It wasn't unnecessary

ProtestTheZero wrote:

T B K wrote:Half of that explanation was unnessary.[sic]

See, that is a lie, because you CLEARLY don't understand anything about politics. It wasn't unnecessary

i agree it was necessary. good overview. ugh i feel like obama could be a hitler for our country but not as vicious. he is very inexperienced and is a smooth talker. it want carry over after the election. i still dont like mccain tho. sucky candidates all around.

ptz, let me guess.

You're a republican?

ProtestTheZero wrote:

T B K wrote:Half of that explanation was unnessary.[sic]

See, that is a lie, because you CLEARLY don't understand anything about politics. It wasn't unnecessary

no when you were going on about social security, when I'm pretty sure everyone knows what it is, that was a teeny bit unnecessary.

but the whole thing was one sided.

Pinthin wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

T B K wrote:Half of that explanation was unnessary.[sic]

See, that is a lie, because you CLEARLY don't understand anything about politics. It wasn't unnecessary

no when you were going on about social security, when I'm pretty sure everyone knows what it is, that was a teeny bit unnecessary.

but the whole thing was one sided.

Fine, explain why liberty is so bad and you want to stamp it out of society. Explain your side of the argument.

First of all I dont think democrats are trying to get rid of liberty. I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion.
Second I'm not a democrat, so I dont have a "side" , I usually disagree with republicans but not all the time. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A DEMOCRAT =] , JUST LIKE how I'm NOT and ATHIEST. haha sorry angry outburst

ProtestTheZero wrote:Let me explain to you the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

As we all know, Democrats are supporters of increased government size and spending, and wish to accomplish this by raising taxes, or changing the taxation system.

Republicans on the other hand, believe in limited government, and that The government that governs least, governs best". They often believe in at least part with the theory of laissez faire economics.

Now let me tell you what exactly makes the Republicans correct where the Democrats are incorrect. The Democratic platform is central around the idea of government growth and spending. One of the biggest resource sinks the Democrats support is social security. Social security is the policy our country has that guarentees citizens that if they get injured and can't work, or reach a certain age, or can't support their family despite their job, the government will provide for them some resources to help them cope with the situation. Now, if you are a democrat, there is a very good chance you support some form of social security.

Social security is a policy which only stays in place thanks to the fears of Americans. It is the fear that you might be injured and can't work, or that your skills might not be marketable enough, that people support social security. It is their belief that is someone puts them self in a situation in which they can't function normally in society, the government, and by proxy the tax payers, should bail them out. This is the result of insecurity in the skills of the people who choose to be democrats to support themselves for their entire lives. They wish for the government to force every American to purchase a security policy which, lets be frank, is only used the majority of the time by societies lowest common denominator, and that is unmotivated people.

This attitude of governmental intervention which has begun to define 20th and 21st century Democrats is essentially a form of limited socialism.

Let me say that again.

Democrats support socialism. They wish to give the government more and more control over the assets of the people of this country, and through that, they wish to eliminate liberty.

Let me say THAT again.

Democrats wish to eliminate liberty.

I haven't even touched upon the social engineering the Democrats attempt to undertake (I'm being fair by leaving that out, that isn't a uniquely democratic feature, and it is more the result of the way our media works that the result of the Democratic party's actions)

So, I will put it all together for you. If you wish to support Barrack Obama, the most populist presidential candidate we have ever seen, you are supporting a man who seeks to eliminate liberty. That is in addition to his other flaws, (Chiefly his lack of experience) of which we are all aware.

The rise of the Democratic party, and with it the elimination of Liberty, is directly the result of the weakening of the US Dollar. People feel they are losing buying power, and as a result, they become more afraid and insecure. As such they flock to the Democratic party, and reduce the USD's strength even more. It is a viscious cycle, and this age of media fed teenagers who seem to buy so far into this idea is only going to exacerbate the issue down the line.

The democratic party does not wish to eliminate freedom you dumbshit. Even suggesting that is idiotic.

You completely made up the last paragraph unfortunately, but don't worry I will enlighten you.

The weakening of the USD is a result of the Iraq War and over spending by the government without the tax dollars to back it up. Without tax dollars, the US gov is forced to borrow from foreign entities in order to fund this multi-billion dollar war. The current US deficit is at 9.5 trillion dollars! This means that 9.5 trillion dollars are owed to countries such as our friend China. Now, the US continues to spend and borrow, but has no way to pay it back because taxes keep going lower and lower. Unfortunately, many elitists refuse to see that taxes are necessary for a government to remain functional i.e. not be plunged into a 9.5 trillion dollar deficit. Tell me how this is the result of the Democratic party's fault.

For the record I have problems with both parties, although I am more sided to the left at the current moment.

SourWorms wrote: *bitching*

First off, they might not think they are eliminating liberty, but they are. As you get to the radical left, such as environmentalists who want to pass legislation that will make the emissions standard even more harsh, it is obvious that they wish to put in place laws which restrict the economic flow of the country. In the same sense, they wish to limit our personal liberty by increasing how much we pay into the government in taxes. They may provide us with benefits, such as social security, but in the end, we are being forced into accepting them, not given the choice of how we wish to spend our money. The more radically you subscribe to theory of increased taxation, the more in line with socialism your philosophy is. Socialism is not freedom.

And you act like the only thing the government spends money on is the war. Well, the truth is, we spend more on Health and Human Services than we do on the war. The war isn't going to be there forever, eventually, be it next term, or two decades from now, we will no longer have significant involvement in the middle east. When that happens, where is it we are throwing our money into? It isn't even close, we will be spending it on Social Security. Last year Social Security spending was 6 times as much as that of the department of agriculture (The next most expensive department), and ~100 billion dollars more than on the war. The answer to the issue of the government budget is NOT increased taxes. That is a short sighted solution. The answer is decreased government spending. The problem is still there is they raise or adjust the tax rate, nothing has been solved, there is just less money for the American people (who the government is supposed to represent)

And lets not forget which party started deficit spending policies. Satan.

I think I finally share your opinion on one thing (almost). I am not Democrat or Republican at the moment, but I have to say I am more Republican if I had to choose. I still just wish Ron Paul would have gotten the support and funding he deserved, it's about time we had an economic and foreign policy expert libertarian in the white house. I know I have said this before...but I can't help but wish it still.