The Watering Hole

Seems both these fuckers haven't a damn clue. Yet, according to the news, this is the most exciting election in years. Seems like just a couple of fucking idiots trying to con Americans.....again. Damn, what a mess......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080909/pl_mcclatchy/3040652

Hookbender — Sep 10, 2008Seems both these fuckers haven't a damn clue. Yet, according to the news, this is the most exciting election in years. Seems like just a couple of fucking idiots trying to con Americans.....again. Damn, what a mess......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080909/pl_mcclatchy/3040652

Interesting thing if you read that article, though, is that even though you think Obama has insane spending plans—which I think we all agree won't all get implemented—McCain is still going to grow the budged deficit by $1.5 trillion more.

They are both bad news. What disturbs me the most is you and Tripper defending this man on the economy issue so strongly. Clearly, both these men don't plan to address one of the most important issues for the American people. Both are exactly like Bush as neither of them has a plan to do anything but spend money and cut taxes.

That just isn't good enough. Our country will go downhill fast with either candidate. Both these men are ignoring this issue.

Who would you rather me defend?  The one who is worse on the economy, or the one who is better?  The one who wants to give more tax breaks to the rich, or to the middle class and the poor?  The one who goes against science, or who goes for science?  We can't all hide our heads and the sand and choose to vote for no one.

Personally, I think Obama is a transcendent figure, one who can change the country for the better.  Whether it solves our short term economic issues is not the only factor affecting my vote.  

If I honestly thought our fucked up economy could be fixed in four years, I would expect my family to commit me to a psychiatric hospital.  That is just not reality.  

charger — Sep 10, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1221013743/0#0 date=1221013742]Seems both these fuckers haven't a damn clue. Yet, according to the news, this is the most exciting election in years. Seems like just a couple of fucking idiots trying to con Americans.....again. Damn, what a mess......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080909/pl_mcclatchy/3040652

Interesting thing if you read that article, though, is that even though you think Obama has insane spending plans—which I think we all agree won't all get implemented—McCain is still going to grow the budged deficit by $1.5 trillion more.

Don't confuse him with details - he wants to believe they're BOTH evil, and then vote for McCain because Obama had a shitty preacher.

(just messing with you, Hook... :) )
Tripper

Hookbender — Sep 10, 2008They are both bad news. What disturbs me the most is you and Tripper defending this man on the economy issue so strongly. Clearly, both these men don't plan to address one of the most important issues for the American people. Both are exactly like Bush as neither of them has a plan to do anything but spend money and cut taxes.

That just isn't good enough. Our country will go downhill fast with either candidate. Both these men are ignoring this issue.

I believe you are wrong. Obama talks about how important fiscal responsibility is and how to be fiscally responsible far more often than McCain. It is a MAJOR priority of his to shrink the deficit, and if some spending plans fall by the wayside, I think he's okay with that, so long as the economy continues to grow, people get jobs, and life improves for the average American.

It's clear that one guy wants to pay more attention to Joe Lunchbox than the other, and that guy is Barack Obama. If the other guy gave as much a shit, you'd hear a lot more about it from him. You don't - just a lot of false attacks on Obama's record, and a lot of ironic claims that he'll be an agent of change. Rove-style politics at its best...and no surprise, Rove's been secretly working with the McCain campaign for a while now - not surprisingly since it took its turn down the toilet in terms of respectability (and improved its numbers among the ignorant).

Tripper

Well, did Obama send lawyers to look for info on Palin, as the news reports? If so, that isn't a change in politics. Or Washington.

And again, if so, the only thing they come back with is a pregnant daughter and a sick child? What a waist of time.

Hookbender — Sep 10, 2008Well, did Obama send lawyers to look for info on Palin, as the news reports? If so, that isn't a change in politics. Or Washington.

And again, if so, the only thing they come back with is a pregnant daughter and a sick child? What a waist of time.

I haven't heard that.  However, the press landed in Alaska in droves.  They must have expected this... no one in the country knew who the hell Sarah Palin was.  Remember, it wasn't Obama who came out with the news on the pregnant daughter.  That was Palin herself, in a press release.  The National Enquirer was the one that was going to break the story (but it wasn't some big secret--everybody in town knew she was pregnant).  The "sick" child... I assume you mean the child with Down's syndrome... again, not a sickness... that was publicized widely by Palin herself for months before and after the baby was born.  What the fuck does that have to do with Obama?

Hookbender — Sep 10, 2008Well, did Obama send lawyers to look for info on Palin, as the news reports? If so, that isn't a change in politics. Or Washington.

And again, if so, the only thing they come back with is a pregnant daughter and a sick child? What a waist of time.

Who is running the smear ads? McCain, NOT Obama.
Who is making unsubstantiated claims and not really addressing issues? McCain, NOT Obama.
Who has Karl Rove on his side? McCain, NOT Obama.

One is smearing, the other is being smart instead of pulling a John Kerry.

One guy is sticking to the politics he promised - not the same smear-merchant garbage, and one isn't.

Obama '08
Tripper

Come on Trip, that's BS and you know it. They are both guilty of all the above. Your starting to sound like a Christian defending God here, man.

Why defend someone you yourself said, can't get all the stuff he wants done implemented.  

Like it or not, McCains plans are more likely to be accomplished.  ;D ;D

Hookbender — Sep 12, 2008Like it or not, McCains plans are more likely to be accomplished.  ;D ;D

With a Democratic Senate and Congress?  Not likely.  Not likely even if it was a Republican Congress, since... John McCain has no plans.

Hookbender — Sep 12, 2008Come on Trip, that's BS and you know it. They are both guilty of all the above. Your starting to sound like a Christian defending God here, man.

Bullshit. Obama has been a million times more respectful than McCain and his surrogates...and if you paid any attention to the statements each campaign makes (which you apparently don't), you'd see that Obama's camp's statements live in reality and fact far more frequently than the McCain campaign's.

Why defend someone you yourself said, can't get all the stuff he wants done implemented.  

Because I'm realistic. I want him to do everything he can, and I don't expect that he will be able to, but I'd rather have the smart inquisitive guy rather than the ignorant one who thinks he's already got it all figured out.

Like it or not, McCains plans are more likely to be accomplished.  ;D ;D

Probably the biggest piece of bullshit you've ever posted. Let me get my shovel. :)
Tripper

Trip

You may not like McCain, but he's far from ignorant.

The last part....joking of course.

Hookbender — Sep 13, 2008Trip

You may not like McCain, but he's far from ignorant.

Explain, then, how he didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite sects?
Or how he keeps saying Iran has something to do with Al Qaeda (which they demonstrably DO NOT)?
Or how he keeps making the claim that Palin has always been against earmarks?
Or how he could say that the economy was doing great, when at the time, it was actually on a slide?

He's ignorant. Willfully ignorant. If he ISN'T, then he's a bona fide LIAR and a shameful excuse for a human being.

So the question really is, is McCain full of shit, or is he just numb? Because a lot of things he's said don't pass the "reality" test, and can only be statements made by someone either:
1. Stretching the truth for political gain
2. Ignorant of the truth

The last part....joking of course.

I figured...I just felt like responding as though you were making a point. It was fun, because that joke was stunningly bullshitty.

Tripper

There isn't any defense of McCain that will change your mind, and I may not want to attempt it anyway. Your hate for the man is something I don't want to debate. I've never seen you this illogical about a politician. Your emotions are really taking over with Obama and McCain. Dissapointing, coming from you.

Just wait for the debates! THAT will be one for the Bertcave classics! I think they will have bigger ratings for both debates than the Superbowl!! THEN you will see the truth come out. Palin just sticks to a script, totally obvious on the ABC Charlie Gibson interview. McCain just opts for photo ops rather than speaking of his "plans"... ::) ;D ;D ;D

cgtrox  8-)

p.s. Tina Fey on SNL was fookin' HILARIOUS!!!

cgtrox — Sep 15, 2008Just wait for the debates! THAT will be one for the Bertcave classics! I think they will have bigger ratings for both debates than the Superbowl!! THEN you will see the truth come out. Palin just sticks to a script, totally obvious on the ABC Charlie Gibson interview. McCain just opts for photo ops rather than speaking of his "plans"... ::) ;D ;D ;D

cgtrox  8-)

p.s. Tina Fey on SNL was fookin' HILARIOUS!!!

Don't underestimate them, though.  At this point it doesn't really matter what Palin does in the debates.  If the other politicians make her look bad, those sympathetic to her cause will say "of course, she's just a regular person."  If she does halfway decent, it will exceed everyone's expectations.  Most likely, she will answer a few questions with boilerplate, and then she will toss out a bunch of barbs and nasty zingers, to which Biden will be unable to respond, lest the right wing start labeling him a woman-hating sexist pig (sans lipstick).  There's really no way for Biden to come out on top in his debate, except for with those few voters who actually care about the issues.  

Now, the Obama-McCain debates are going to be interesting.  McCain has very little popularity without Palin at his side, and she won't be there.  Obama has incredible rhetorical gifts.  This has the potential of backfiring in the same way: if Obama comes off looking superb, that will be what is expected.  If McCain comes off looking decent, that will be beyond expectations.  I doubt that McCain is going to get down in the mud when looking at Obama eye to eye.  But you never know, this is, after all "McCain 2.0".  I think there will be some messiness and some drama.  On substance, I expect Obama to wipe the floor with McCain... he just has a platform for issues for which McCain does not.  However, McCain can look clever at times.  He's going to try very hard to make foreign policy the dominant issue in the debate, because he really has no economic plan that will appeal to middle and lower class voters.  Obama will try to do the opposite: focus on the economy and dance on foreign policy.  Neither of them has any credentials regarding "change" because McCain has changed his votes on most of his central issues, and Obama has only been in the Senate under a Republican president.  

If Palin debates while topless then I may tune in and use the mute button, otherwise I have better things to do (like watching paint dry, grass grow and flies gettin' busy).  ;)

Hookbender — Sep 15, 2008There isn't any defense of McCain that will change your mind, and I may not want to attempt it anyway. Your hate for the man is something I don't want to debate. I've never seen you this illogical about a politician. Your emotions are really taking over with Obama and McCain. Dissapointing, coming from you.

Please list the factual mistakes I've made with McCain because of how "illogical" I've been about McCain.

Did he not change his tune on the Bush tax cuts, conveniently when he decided it was time to try and run for President?
Did he not attack Obama for things Obama never did?
Did he not cozy up to the very man whose campaign spread vile lies about him and his family in 2000?
Did he not persist in making claims about Sarah Palin's record that were verifiably UNTRUE, even after it was pointed out to him their flaws?
Did he not graduate near the bottom of his class at Annapolis?
Did he not show some foolish decision-making during the Keating Five scandal (I know he was exonerated from criminal charges - he was admonished for being a dunderhead, though)?
Did he not confuse Sunni and Shiite numerous times THIS YEAR in regards to Iraq?
Has he not said something and said he said the exact opposite on multiple occasions?

As I've said before, I was a BIG FAN of John McCain in 2000. I was actually hoping for a McCain vs. Bradley presidential race, because I felt both men had a good shot at doing something good for America. I still think McCain's at his core, a good guy, but it's evident by his actions he's become a slimy political opportunist during this race, doing anything he can to seize power.

This is not emotion, Hook. This is reality. I just express myself in such a strong way that you confuse that with being emotional about it.

I said early on in this race that I thought McCain wouldn't be horrible, but the more I've learned about his policies (or lack thereof), and how little they really change anything, and when you combine that with the secrecy they operate under and flock of lobbyists that run his campaign, I can't imagine how anyone could think that making a choice for a guy who:
1. Doesn't really think things are so bad economically.
2. Doesn't think getting the troops out of harm's way is a priority.
3. Thinks that war is the way to win against terrorism.
4. Thinks that cutting taxes for rich individuals works better to grow the economy than cutting taxes for the middle class.
5. Thinks corporate welfare is okay, but individual welfare is evil.
6. Claims he'll "reform Washington" when just about his entire staff is lobbyists and he picked an earmark-seeking VP candidate whose idea of reform in Alaska was firing all the people (competent or not) and hiring all her friends from high school to ensure loyalty (a very Bush thing to do).

It's not anything different from what we've got RIGHT NOW, except that now Bush is starting to engage the world and take a more Obama-esque foreign policy (and, SHOCK, it's actually working), talking to people they previously wouldn't have and setting "horizons" so Iraq will actually take care of itself eventually.

But call it emotional if you want...I know that makes more sense to you than facing the facts.
Tripper

That's the funniest thing I've seen so far... that Bush is suddenly approaching foreign policy from an Obama standpoint.  Something he was dead set against before.  Look at this stuff--timetables in Iraq, Condoleeza in Libya?  It's shocking.

charger — Sep 16, 2008That's the funniest thing I've seen so far... that Bush is suddenly approaching foreign policy from an Obama standpoint.  Something he was dead set against before.  Look at this stuff--timetables in Iraq, Condoleeza in Libya?  It's shocking.

Well, he doesn't want his legacy to be of complete failure with the exception of his HIV/AIDS in Africa policy...

It just makes me sad that it took them so long to come around to diplomacy. But that's their thing - fail for a while at their own shit, then do what the opposition would have done to try and save their ass. Like Reagan's massive tax hike after his big tax cut.

Republicans know how to get elected, they just don't know how to govern...and people are still stupid enough to buy the canard that they can.

We'll see if Democrats can do any better...hopefully in January.
Tripper

The crunch may well dwarf all other issues come the election.

Tripper — Sep 16, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1221013743/0#14 date=1221500251]There isn't any defense of McCain that will change your mind, and I may not want to attempt it anyway. Your hate for the man is something I don't want to debate. I've never seen you this illogical about a politician. Your emotions are really taking over with Obama and McCain. Dissapointing, coming from you.

Please list the factual mistakes I've made with McCain because of how "illogical" I've been about McCain.

Did he not change his tune on the Bush tax cuts, conveniently when he decided it was time to try and run for President?
Did he not attack Obama for things Obama never did?
Did he not cozy up to the very man whose campaign spread vile lies about him and his family in 2000?
Did he not persist in making claims about Sarah Palin's record that were verifiably UNTRUE, even after it was pointed out to him their flaws?
Did he not graduate near the bottom of his class at Annapolis?
Did he not show some foolish decision-making during the Keating Five scandal (I know he was exonerated from criminal charges - he was admonished for being a dunderhead, though)?
Did he not confuse Sunni and Shiite numerous times THIS YEAR in regards to Iraq?
Has he not said something and said he said the exact opposite on multiple occasions?

As I've said before, I was a BIG FAN of John McCain in 2000. I was actually hoping for a McCain vs. Bradley presidential race, because I felt both men had a good shot at doing something good for America. I still think McCain's at his core, a good guy, but it's evident by his actions he's become a slimy political opportunist during this race, doing anything he can to seize power.

This is not emotion, Hook. This is reality. I just express myself in such a strong way that you confuse that with being emotional about it.

I said early on in this race that I thought McCain wouldn't be horrible, but the more I've learned about his policies (or lack thereof), and how little they really change anything, and when you combine that with the secrecy they operate under and flock of lobbyists that run his campaign, I can't imagine how anyone could think that making a choice for a guy who:
1. Doesn't really think things are so bad economically.
2. Doesn't think getting the troops out of harm's way is a priority.
3. Thinks that war is the way to win against terrorism.
4. Thinks that cutting taxes for rich individuals works better to grow the economy than cutting taxes for the middle class.
5. Thinks corporate welfare is okay, but individual welfare is evil.
6. Claims he'll "reform Washington" when just about his entire staff is lobbyists and he picked an earmark-seeking VP candidate whose idea of reform in Alaska was firing all the people (competent or not) and hiring all her friends from high school to ensure loyalty (a very Bush thing to do).

It's not anything different from what we've got RIGHT NOW, except that now Bush is starting to engage the world and take a more Obama-esque foreign policy (and, SHOCK, it's actually working), talking to people they previously wouldn't have and setting "horizons" so Iraq will actually take care of itself eventually.

But call it emotional if you want...I know that makes more sense to you than facing the facts.
Tripper

I'm not gonna go back and search out every post you made lately and quote things like, McCain is ignorant, etc. I don't have the time. Nor the care to do so.

You expressing yourself in such a strong way is the result of emotion, not logic. If you were being logical about this, you could have a conversation without insulting either man in this race personally. And if you look at the facts closely, neither man is addressing pressing issues this country has right now. They are to worried, both of them, about putting up fronts such as vp choices to avoid having to discuss the real issues. Neither of these fuckers, like it or not, have a plan. The same damn thing we've bitched about concerning Bush. They have ideas, but not plans. You can't tell me over and over, after admitting you know Obama can't do half the stuff he wants, that your being logical about your choice. Your choosing on emotion. What you think and hope will occure, while ignoring the shit is not going to happen. Then you don't call that lying. So shit man. What do you want me to think. Your a good American that is informed, logical, skeptical, your voting for Obama knowing he can't do what he wants, but don't believe in Jesus or God because he can't do anything........and that's illogical.

Your believing in, and trusting your country, with a person that starts off lying to you and you defend him. Don't bitch about the results of your decision then. Your voting for a person who isn't telling you the truth. You have the opportunity to stand by your good traits, your logic, skeptical mindset....and you say piss on it. I'll take the one that tell the least lies. Shit. I'm confused.

I'm not trying to be hateful Trip....or an ass...but this just isn't your usual reasonable self. I can't beat you in a argument, nor do I have the desire to win or whatever. But I do expect more from you. Now get your shit straight son. ;D
:)

Hookbender — Sep 17, 2008I'm not gonna go back and search out every post you made lately and quote things like, McCain is ignorant, etc. I don't have the time. Nor the care to do so.

Because you can't. I may have come down harder on McCain than Obama, but he has deserved it because he has turned his back on his principles, and has lied repeatedly about his opponent, his campaign, and his running mate. I don't like bullshitters, and McCain has become the #1 bullshitter in politics.

You expressing yourself in such a strong way is the result of emotion, not logic. If you were being logical about this, you could have a conversation without insulting either man in this race personally.

Point out the inaccuracies in my statements about McCain, then perhaps this fallacious argument will bear some fruit. I've said repeatedly how fond I was of McCain, and how I still think at his core he's a good man who's being driven to being a slimeball by his end-of-life quest for power. That's not emotional, and I can't imagine how you could say it was.

And if you look at the facts closely, neither man is addressing pressing issues this country has right now. They are to worried, both of them, about putting up fronts such as vp choices to avoid having to discuss the real issues.

You think that's what's going on? Wow...too many pundits for you, young man. One guy's been detailing the direction in which he wants to take the country, and occasionally dealing with attacks made by the other one, who's been spending a lot of time attacking the one guy and defending the major flaws in his running mate (sometimes with comic mendacity).

Neither of these fuckers, like it or not, have a plan.

Definitely questions need to be answered...let's hope the debates shed some light.

The same damn thing we've bitched about concerning Bush. They have ideas, but not plans.

We shall see.

You can't tell me over and over, after admitting you know Obama can't do half the stuff he wants, that your being logical about your choice. Your choosing on emotion.

One last time: WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Here is why I'm voting for Barack Obama:
Obama believes in open government - so do I. McCain does not (well 2008 McCain, at least).
Obama believes in taxation policies that benefit the majority of Americans instead of a few. McCain does not.
Obama believes in the separation of church and state, and is against the implementation of state-sanctioned religious policies (like gay marriage). McCain is in favor of a ban.
Obama does his homework and cares about making rational decisions. McCain has shown throughout his history he's more prone to not doing his homework and to making gut decisions and not thinking things through (Keating Five, picking Sarah Palin, not understanding the difference between Sunni and Shiite, etc.) Bush does that. We don't need more of that.
Obama believes in the participation of every American in our collective future as a nation - everyone has a stake, everyone (that can) works for their benefits. Bottom-up, not top-down. McCain doesn't really seem to care about any of that...

This is not emotion. he's the guy who lines up best with my beliefs. I'm inspired by him, though, because I think he's far less full of shit than any politician we've seen on the national stage in a while.

What you think and hope will occure, while ignoring the shit is not going to happen. Then you don't call that lying. So shit man. What do you want me to think.

I just want you to THINK. You haven't been doing that all that well...at least not critically. My Obama support is not emotional. It's fundamental to my philosophy on where the country needs to go and how we need to fix the issues we have. The emotions come in only when I think people are being fucking morons...and when you attack me for something that is fundamentally untrue, I shit on you for being a moron.

Your a good American that is informed, logical, skeptical, your voting for Obama knowing he can't do what he wants, but don't believe in Jesus or God because he can't do anything........and that's illogical.

Why the fixation on an offhand comment I made about Obama? I've already explained numerous times what I meant, but you still ignore it. Why? That's far more fucking illogical, my friend. :)

Your believing in, and trusting your country, with a person that starts off lying to you and you defend him.

When did he lie? Because he didn't remember hearing nasty shit like the "God Damn America" sermon, and then when he thought about it, he said he had heard stuff LIKE that, but not exactly the same, and was disappointed, but considered the source? That's a lie?

Don't bitch about the results of your decision then. Your voting for a person who isn't telling you the truth.

We won't know if he's telling the truth until we elect him, like any situation. McCain's lies are obvious and demonstrable. So far, Obama's are speculative and RARE.

You have the opportunity to stand by your good traits, your logic, skeptical mindset....and you say piss on it. I'll take the one that tell the least lies. Shit. I'm confused.

Because you're being really myopic. There is a bigger picture here. I am skeptical of anything any politician says, because they make a lot of promises they often have a hard time keeping. Therein lies the skepticism of whether Obama will be able to do anything. HOWEVER, since my political outlook is more aligned with what Obama is saying, and we can't afford to vote for a third-party candidate this year (though surely my state will be McCain country, because of how many morons live here), I will vote for Democrat Barack Obama, even though I am anti-partisan and think that, in general, neither party, at its core, operates in the best interests of the nation. I think the man Barack Obama is willing to look past his party more than most and find solutions that work for everyone...the most reasonable and rational ones. This version of McCain will NOT do that, because his level of partisan rancor is so high at this point that unless his election transforms him into 2000 John McCain, we'll have four more years of Bush policies.

I'm not trying to be hateful Trip....or an ass...but this just isn't your usual reasonable self. I can't beat you in a argument, nor do I have the desire to win or whatever. But I do expect more from you. Now get your shit straight son. ;D
:)

Well, I hope that my explanation here got YOUR shit straight, because you're simply fucking wrong about me in every way on this subject, except that I am for Obama. It's NOT an emotional choice. Do I have to remind you (again) I wasn't an Obama supporter at the start, but through hours upon hours of research (and a lot of Hillary Clinton's BULLSHIT), I became a supporter?

That speech he made on race (which he wrote - HIS OWN WORDS) really made me turn the corner on him - it was brilliance...and it's a shame more people didn't get the message, instead focusing on the trivial bullshit surrounding it (uh, Rev. Wright?).
Tripper

Hook, here's an analysis of the respective candidates' health care plans.  Note that both cost the same, but only one covers a significant number of the uninsured.

Perhaps neither can really get anything done, but wouldn't it be reassuring to know that if they are both going to spend the same amount, one actually has a smart plan for what to do with that spending?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/new_studies_report_wide_dispar.html

This current financial crisis will put paid to any existing plans the candidates have to fund spending or cut taxation by borrowing.

Setting out detailed plans (naively) sounds like something a leader should be able to do, but unfortunately the world simply doesn't work like that, it is a volatile place where the logic of even the best laid plans can be swept away and look ludicrous in a single week.

Voting in a president is much more akin to voting in the captain to navigate a ship in stormy seas.

Expert  experience is overrated - a President should not be an expert at anything other than leading people.
A President has access to as much experience in any field he needs to make calls on.

It is all about his judgement and skills as a leader.

Leadership Judgement is required in order to pick through as wide as experience as he can handle and the often contrary arguments/advice and make the calls, he needs to be pragmatic and open to advice as the world doesn't work to ideological principles, but at the end of the day - he alone makes that final call - someone has to.

Leadership Skills are required to unite people to work together to implement and sell the policy to the wider audience whether it is US domestic or a Worldwide one.

At this stage of an election - the making and selling of plans is really like sitting a mock exam based on past papers and is subject to being made obsolete by events, it is part of the beauty contest required to get elected.

They both know that once elected the real exam will start and will involve a constant flow of new questions subject to the reality of volatile events.
Dealing with that is a test of leadership.

That was fucking BRILLIANT, Fingers (in both senses of the word "brilliant").
Tripper

Thanks - been a stressful week so far - I am sitting watching this shit unfolding at close hand at work.

I am pretty philosophical about things and the authorities have made the calls right as far as I can tell so far.

But it seems a Sun Tzu moment in history.

I'm completely at a loss as far as who I would vote for.

I kinda wish I wouldn't have started reading up on this shit.

It was much easier to be ignorant of all the issues and details and just vote on gut feeling. Of course, I still know little, and to find correct answers concerning politics is almost impossible. Everyone thinks they are right.

Obama has said he's about change, and I kinda agree with Tripper, he seems more rational. I actually think he thinks about stuff, I must admit, and it would be a nice thing to have a thinker in office for a change. That may be change enough for me.

I'll just watch the debates, and decide if I'll vote at all.

I'm tired of talking about this shit. ;D

Since I live in Alabama, I may just vote for Obama. It won't make any difference anyway. ;D

When these debates started, I cared who got elected, now......I don't think I really give a damn. ;D

Both are pretty competent, as far as I can see.

factcheck.org is your friend, Hook. They are fair and very accurate - they cut right through the spin.

Which is part of the reason I've tempered my enthusiasm for Obama and increased my frustration (resulting in my vitriol) about McCain.

McCain of 2000 would be embarassed by McCain of 2008. He wouldn't believe what he had become just to get elected...I'm convinced of that, especially on the Palin issue.

Rational isn't what America's looking for, unfortunately, explaining why the Obamorons think he can cure cancer and the McCainiacs think he's the only one who can stop Osama from raping their daughter and forcing her to have a terrorist baby (because abortion is ALWAYS wrong, at least to their new hero Sarah "it needs some fixin'" Palin...)

I just see Obama as the only chance we have of not being competely fucked, barring a major change in McCain's policy ideas.

After all, this deregulation bullshit that has led to all these bank failures and bailouts is something that only one of these two men has consistently supported, and it ain't Obama...

Tripper

I was talking to Pick today about this vote thing.

I think we need Obama on some issues, while McCain would be better on others. We need Obama as far as being willing to talk to anyone, friend or enemy. We need our relationship with the world repaired, and that ain't gonna happen with McCain.

This notion that we are the King of the world and everyone should be like us and do what we say.....that shit is simply wrong. I'm absolutely sick of the mindset that we think we can pick and choose our friends because we are better and more powerful than everybody else.

I've said consistently that I like right down the middle, centrist type thinking. I like ideas both parties have.

McCain use to be that way, to a degree. I guess the 2000 McCain you mentioned. I'm not so sure he's changed all that much. Some, yes. But he is trying to get elected right now. He needs the religious idiots to vote for him. So, he picked a religious idiot as vp. I get that. Because he didn't stand a chance to win  without religious support.

I don't understand what this country is doing right now. We are in debt to our ass and then some. Yet we continue to spend like hell. Bailing out companies, spending billions of dollars on this war, etc. Fuck, we don't have the damn money. These idiots need to be cut off.

Now, we have two men that both want to cut taxes and their economy plans have shown that they will put the country in even more debt. WTF???? So we choose the one who's debt will be less than the others??? Damn that's sad. And neither man has even mentioned debt. That in itself is irresponsible and unacceptable.  

Hookbender — Sep 18, 2008And neither man has even mentioned debt. That in itself is irresponsible and unacceptable.  

You keep saying this...too bad it's not true...Obama addresses it directly on his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

John McCain doesn't really cover it on his website (at least I couldn't find any mention of it), but his website is very light on detail compared to Obama's, echoing the fact that McCain voters don't tend to be policy wonks or care too much about the details...


Tripper

Tripper — Sep 18, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1221013743/25#30 date=1221768171]And neither man has even mentioned debt. That in itself is irresponsible and unacceptable.  

You keep saying this...too bad it's not true...Obama addresses it directly on his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

John McCain doesn't really cover it on his website (at least I couldn't find any mention of it), but his website is very light on detail compared to Obama's, echoing the fact that McCain voters don't tend to be policy wonks or care too much about the details...


Tripper


If you call that a plan, a responsible plan with goals, you've lost your mind. Respectively, of course.

There is no mention of cutting the debt. There is no goal mentioned at all for a balanced budget.

Not even one mention of having the debt cut in half by X time.

Nothing.

And add the new programs to this wonderful plan in which he plans on spending billions more and you have the increased debt we've already discussed. It's pitiful....I stand by my previous statement, as it seems very accurate.

You said they hadn't mentioned it. I pointed out that that's not true. That's all.

I agree the plan outlined is quite thin as to almost be transparent...but I think picking the guy who seems think the Bush plan of tax cuts works, when it clearly hasn't (McCain) is foolish compared to picking the guy who has an apparently better plan for increasing federal revenue (and thereby fixing this cash flow problem).

And let's not forget - McCain doesn't even mention it at all...at least Obama pays it even a teeny bit of lip service. ;)
Tripper

Not sure the tax cuts themselves didn't work.

What didn't work is deregulation, a war with Iraq, absolute piss poor management of government, a republican congress that argued with idiot dems., "The Bush Doctrine", cutting off communication with people you don't agree with(countries) part of the BD., and a Texan cowboy as President with a greedy money hungry VP. ETC., Etc....

Who gets the tax cuts and who doesn't won't ever be agreed to. Lets just hope whatever is done next, works.

I'm just damn confused about why these two men, both of them, think tax cuts are gonna help the country right now. Other than the fact their trying to get elected, of course.

Hookbender — Sep 20, 2008Not sure the tax cuts themselves didn't work.

Really? Seriously? They didn't work. They were a band-aid on a four-inch laceration.

What didn't work is deregulation, a war with Iraq, absolute piss poor management of government, a republican congress that argued with idiot dems., "The Bush Doctrine", cutting off communication with people you don't agree with(countries) part of the BD., and a Texan cowboy as President with a greedy money hungry VP. ETC., Etc....

True...and we'll have an Arizonan cowboy as President and a VP that is a scary cross of Bush (dumb evangelical mentality) AND Cheney (secrecy and vindictiveness).

Who gets the tax cuts and who doesn't won't ever be agreed to. Lets just hope whatever is done next, works.

True. Obama's plan is smarter, though, because it actually doesn't decrease revenue even though it puts more money into the hands of 81% of Americans.

I'm just damn confused about why these two men, both of them, think tax cuts are gonna help the country right now. Other than the fact their trying to get elected, of course.

I think that is a good point. I think that one guy's got the brain and the character to pick smart people to help him make those decisions, and the other guy didn't even bother to vet his VP candidate.

Tripper

Great idea, give the government more taxes.  You guys must be pretty naive to think that they would actually use the influx to pay off their debts.  If people kept more of their money then maybe some wouldn't have to be foreclosing on their houses (then again, maybe not - they'd probably just buy a big screen and try to get a government job).

CraigBert — Sep 22, 2008Great idea, give the government more taxes.  You guys must be pretty naive to think that they would actually use the influx to pay off their debts.  If people kept more of their money then maybe some wouldn't have to be foreclosing on their houses (then again, maybe not - they'd probably just buy a big screen and try to get a government job).

Well I never said that...in fact, what I said was that it'd put more money into the hands of more people, and my take is they'd probably spend it, which would help the economy, while still ensuring that the federal government takes in more revenue than it does now.

But you're right - big screens and gov't jobs are definitely on most Americans' wish lists.

Saving is for pussies, apparently, in this America.
Tripper