Who are you voting for, for President?

[quiktaco]

well there was a pretty good article in "The Republic" i think it was durign the time hillary was still in contention for the democratic nomination.

Basically, the article said that the democratic party is the "part of the persecuted" and by putting up a black person (sorry, but he's BLACK, not this "African American" bullshit.  unless he was BORN IN AFRICA, came here and got naturalized, he's f%$kin black, period, end of story, but i digress...) against a woman splits the party because they cant decide which group has been persecuted more, and neither side can say "you dont know what its like to be persecuted".

The sentiment seems to run throughout those who affiliate with the democratic party.  Instead of being a member of the party because they believe on the whole in their ideology, they have given themselves a case of "tunnel vision" and vote for them simply because they want to end the persecution of blacks/jews/gheys/immigrants/insert-your-favorite-persecuted-group-here.

Do I think Obama has a better shot at giving gheys secular equality versus McCain?  Probably.  But at the same time, Obama's voting record on partial birth abortions scares the sh*t out of me.  To Cliff's Notes™ his position, he feels that if a doctor botches a partial birth abortion and the baby survives and is crying and able to breathe and survive on its own, its okay to still kill it.

Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, I think any sane person would agree that once a baby is born if it is able to survive on its own its a person and has the same human rights as everyone else.

Hence, even though I dont think McCain is a good choice for president, someone who condones murder like Obama is no choice at all, and I wont compromise my principles to get what I want (secular ghey equality) at the expense of another human life.

Some lines you just don't cross nomatter how much you want something.

Very good post

[quiktaco]

A little view on Obama's Economic past in Illinois...

...Striking result of our tour through Obama's Springfield days. Conventional wisdom has it that John McCain holds a political advantage over Obama on war and foreign policy issues, while Obama is favored to handle the economy. Yet Obama's economic experience is largely limited to social welfare spending. Indeed, precisely because of his penchant for spending, Obama's fingerprints are all over Illinois's burgeoning fiscal crisis.

The Illinois state budget has been in an ever-widening crisis since 2001. In an April 2007 report, a committee of top Chicago business leaders warned that the state was "headed toward fiscal implosion." Illinois's unfunded pension debt is the highest in the nation, while Illinois is sixth in the nation in per capita tax-supported debt. Yet the Illinois General Assembly-now controlled by Obama's Democratic allies-churns out at will exactly the sort of spending programs Obama pushed for, with only partial success, under the Republicans. The result is a fast-growing gap between revenues and expenditures (unimpeded by the statutory requirement of a balanced budget), rising fears of fiscal meltdown, finger-pointing, and political gridlock.

A watershed moment in Illinois's fiscal decline came in 2002, when crashing receipts and Democratic reluctance to enact spending cuts forced Republican governor George Ryan to call a special legislative session. While Ryan railed at legislators for refusing to rein in an out-of-control budget, the Chicago Tribune spoke ominously of an "all-consuming state budget crisis." Unwilling to cut back on social welfare spending, Obama's chief partner and political mentor, senate Democratic leader Emil Jones, came up with the idea of borrowing against the proceeds of a windfall tobacco lawsuit settlement due to the state.

This idea sent the editorial pages of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Chicago Tribune into a tizzy. Editorialists hammered cut-averse legislators for "chickening out," for making use of "tricked-up numbers," for a "cowardly abdication of responsibility," and for sacrificing the state's bond rating to "short-term political gains." As critics repeatedly pointed out, borrowing against a onetime tobacco settlement-instead of balancing the budget with regular revenues-would be a recipe for long-term fiscal disaster.

What was Obama doing while all this was going on? He was promoting the tobacco securitization plan in his Hyde Park Herald column, railing against the governor in the Defender for balancing the budget "on the back of the poor," and voting to override cuts in treasured programs like bilingual education. Actually, far from "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor," the governor had trimmed evenly across all the state's most expensive programs. In the end, Ryan did force a number of cuts, yet the resistance of Obama and his allies took a toll. When, just a year later, Democrats added control of the governorship and state senate to their existing control of the house, they revealed that the state deficit had reached $5 billion-far larger than most had feared. Since then it's been a swift downhill tumble toward fiscal implosion for Illinois. - Stanley Kurtz

[quiktaco]

Obama will force businesses to go out of the Country causing major job losses.  Taxes on so many things, including oil.  That means it's going to cost more to heat your home, or cook your food, or drive to work.  Look at his past, to see what he will do in the future.


In The Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama Had A Record Of Voting For Higher Taxes

In The State Senate, Barack Obama Supported "Hundreds Of Tax Increases." ABC's Terry Moran: "

• bama was considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois. For instance, voting for most gun control measures, opposing efforts to ban so-called partial birth abortions and supporting hundreds of tax increases." (ABC's "Nightline," 2/25/08)
  In 2004, Barack Obama Voted For A $304 Million Tax Increase On Businesses In Creating The Tax Shelter Voluntary Compliance Act. (H.B. 848, Illinois Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed 30-28-1, 5/20/04, Obama Voted Yea; Dave McKinney, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)
  
  The Legislation "Triggered A Huge Outcry From Business Groups," Which Contended It Would "Drive Companies Out Of State" And Cost Jobs. "The governor's bid to raise taxes and fees by close to $400 million and reel in another $300 million-plus in corporate tax breaks has triggered a huge outcry from business groups, which contend the moves will drive companies out of state and cause Illinois to lose jobs." (Dave McKinney and Leslie Griffy, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)
  In 2003, Barack Obama Voted For A Bill "That Raised A Huge Number Of Fees And Taxes" On Businesses And Licenses. "Obama voted for a bill during the 2003 Illinois General Assembly legislative session that raised a huge number of fees and taxes for businesses and licenses to cover day-to-day expenses of state government." (Terrence L. Barnich, Op-Ed, "4 Partisan Questions For Obama," Chicago Tribune, 7/29/04)
  
  The Legislation Negatively Impacted Illinois' Trucking Industry, Costing The State 25,000 Licensed Trucks In 2005. "Almost 17,000 fewer commercial trucks and 2,700 fewer trucking companies have been registered in Illinois for 2005, fueling the trucking industry's claim that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is driving businesses out of the state with his new fees and business taxes." (Brian Wallheimer, "Governor's New Fees Are Driving Trucking Firms Out Of Illinois, Industry Says," St. Louis Post- Dispatch, 5/5/04)
  In 2003, Barack Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois. (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, www.ilga.gov, Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)
  
  The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Manufacturers. "The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich's budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas." (Kevin McDermott, "Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)
  Barack Obama Voted For The Natural Gas Tax, Which Threatened Jobs, At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. "Just as harmful to the state's economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state." (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, "Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses," Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)
  In 1999, Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of S.B. 1028 To Create The Illinois First Infrastructure Program, Which Raised 146 Taxes And Fees. (S.B. 1028: Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed, 58-0-0, 3/23/99, Obama Voted Yea; S.B. 1028: Senate Conference Committee Report, Passed, 42-17-0, 5/21/99, Obama Voted Yea; Editorial, "Jack Ryan Woefully Unprepared For Attack On Obama," The State Journal-Register, 4/18/04) [/i]- http://www.whitehouse.com/FullStory.aspx?NewsID=1058

[quiktaco]

Looks like the gaps are closing... per www.whitehouse.com - 12 independent polls averaged

McCain vs Obama:   McCain: 46.3  Obama: 46.3  Other: 7.8

[Cal76]

I like a close race, it keeps things interesting and keeps groups like us debating and gaining valuable knowledge. 

I read the entire article by Dennis Prager and it had good and bad points.  It is obviously biased and since the United Nations was formed in 1945 after WW2, I really don't see how they could have changed the Holocaust or WW2.  Prager is a Judeo-Christian whom is obviously anti-muslim (ie. Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress, where Prager basically claimed that an oath on the bible was more reliable than an oath on the Qur'an.)  I am sure the UN is not effective in solving all issues, but at least they try to go about problem solving in a diplomatic way that as many countries as possible can agree with.  Prager's views of the United Nation are like those of a conspiracy theorist, it just doesn't make since to say that "The communist genocides meant nothing to humanity. The Holocaust meant nothing."   It sounds like the same "the Goverment was responsible for 911" or any other of the zelot type ways of thinking.  You know, Davin Koresh and Charles Manson probably made decent points about some issues, but I do not believe I will use their teachings to prove a point.  The article, to me, was not much more than unsubstanciated musings of a Judeo-Christian moron.

I really hope the country rebounds from the economic crisis, no matter who is the next president (at this moment, it is definately anybody's game)  The economic crisis is the major issue in this election and, for me, Obama is the obvious choice.  I think if he was a white, community organizer, Senator from Illinois, this would be a blow out.  I really think the fact that he is black, is the main reasopn the election is close.  It may not be because people are racist, but it is an issue for some. 

[quiktaco]

I really hope the country rebounds from the economic crisis, no matter who is the next president (at this moment, it is definately anybody's game)  The economic crisis is the major issue in this election and, for me, Obama is the obvious choice.  I think if he was a white, community organizer, Senator from Illinois, this would be a blow out.  I really think the fact that he is black, is the main reasopn the election is close.  It may not be because people are racist, but it is an issue for some.

The economy will probably be the largest issue when people actually cast their votes.  However, I can not see how you think Obama is the obvious choice for that.  His speeches say one thing, and it sounds all good and grand, but his actions in his past say a whole different story.  The only thing that will happen with the economy, under Obama, is tax cuts for the lower middle class, but tax hikes on everything else.  These tax hikes will make businesses leave the country, and drastically downsize.  This will lead to loss of jobs, and less income for this lower middle class.  Not to mention the cost of everything else will increase.  Major taxes on oil will make everything that relies on oil have their prices go up.  Even groceries need oil to transport their food to the stores.

Everyone needs to look past "tax cuts for the middle class, and helping the poor", and see what it will really do to the economy.  It's not just, "yeah! tax cuts for us!"  When people will be loosing their jobs, and more people on welfare and unemployment, and the pride of milk is 7 dollars a gallon, and gas meets or exceeds that.  The poor will get poorer, and the middle class will get poorer.  And guess who gets richer.  The Rich.  That's exactly what you think you're fighting against.  But you have it completely backward.

[The Buddha]

OK that's it guys, I would like to withdraw my nomination for the president. Yea, it has been fun, but I realised that the GS500 has no room in today's democracy ... demo-crazy ...

Now beat it, I am going to get on my Kat Fe, GSXR shock, kat rear wheel, GR motor and GSXR 36mm carbs equipped GS500 and go for a ride ... sheesh ... so unfair.

Cool.
Buddha.
Buddha for president - not any more ...

[Cal76]

I am in Engineering and not Economics so, it is definately possible that I do not understand everything there is to know about politics.
I know for a fact that the economy was great when Clinton was president and I know for a fact it sucks now.  I do not know for a fact what McCain or Obama will do.  In fact, neither will probably do anything close to what they say they are going to do.  I am confused about one thing.  If Obama will tax businesses that rich people own, how exactally will they get richer??  I am for a responsible amount of taxing in all classes.  I am not for cutting all taxes and borrowing from China to off set the expense.  


I would definately vote Buddha for president!!  He seems to me to be a realist and has a firm grasp on the world as it is seen from Buddha's eyes. 

[quiktaco]

They will keep their income at a constant level (or raise), and lower everyone else's with pay cuts and layoffs.

Bush's economy has actually grossed more income with his tax cuts.  20% more than Clinton did (5% if you take inflation into account).  The reason the economy seems so bad is because of 9/11 and the wars.  If the wars weren't going on, then everyone would see that Bush's economy is actually better.  However, there is a price for freedom.  Sometimes we have to go to war to ensure our freedom.

[bettingpython]

The economy began declining during the Clinton years. Reagan inherited a horrible economy with record inflation from Carter's administration. Economic growth began during the Reagan administration continued through Bush 1 and was inherited by Clinton. I am old enought to remeber sky high interest rates during carters adminstration and the early part of reagans. Inflation and interest as well as unemployment declined during the 80's and early 90's leveled out during the 90's and artificially appeared to be great during the dot com boom.

[quiktaco]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/art04_36/0436_46news.gif

This is a good comparison between the two economies.  I'm not saying that Clinton's was bad.  It was a very good economy.  However, take a look at the 'real disposable income' and 'ten year treasure interest rate' - these two would be some of the most telling of the economy.  Bush's economy was post 9/11 when economic confidence was really low, however it still thrived.  Don't discount Bush's economic policies.  Underneath his incompetent exterior, he is a very smart man.

[The Buddha]

<snip> The reason the economy seems so bad is because of 9/11 .<snip>

Ooooohhhhh this is the Bushies favorite lie ... he just lets that one slip in ... "our economy slipped into recession following the september 11th attacks" ... very nice ...
I wont blame bush for the 01 recession, yes it started dring clinton's time, but I am surprised he is squirming when he had to cover it a few years ago.
However The "ownership society" BS is the cause of this recession, though I'd blame Alan Greenspan more than bush ... Greenspan was a short term thinker who was hoping some of his holdings will become more valuable, and more than likely bush was too stupid to second guess him and was looking toward the war and the wealth effect of people to sweep him back to power.
Economic cycles while bad news for the president if he's seeking a re-election are not really under the president's contol ... or even anything he can affect ...
The issue really is the mass exodus of jobs, and the influx of oil and our dependence to it.
The first issue I'd call it a tie between democrats and republicans ... Unions are bad for job creation - creation, not maintenance - remember we cannot compete with china here unless we cut down overhead, republicans are with the business leaders who want to avoid unions ...
The oil issue - oddly its a close one I'd give to democrats. Why close. Cos the oil companies have bought both sides and almost equally so ... So why still democrat ... they are a bit more aligned with tree huggers ... some tree huggers have infiltrated the party pretty good. OTOH, ron paul was republican ... so maybe libertarians infiltrated that one ...

On the issues, I am against abortion but slightly pro gun, very pro ghey rights. I was more pro McCain before the Palin choice ... he was atleast a maverick before, he now is a pandering fool. I then think O bama's pick Biden is nearly on the nose ... I think Obama has the ability and inclination to hire people who are much smarter than him ... so while he was too slick before, atleast he has the smarts to know where his slickness wont take him.
Mccain of 2000 would have been great, The new McCain is a publicity stunt.
I doubt either of these 2 will fix the economy, but Obama may slightly slow our decline to being addicted to foreign oil. Of course the soaring oil prices will rapidly slow our decline ...
BTW - I think we will be addicted to motor oil loooooong after we have broken the gasoline addiction.
Cool.
Buddha.

[supazuk]

i have never understood anyone that is into motorsports, yet supports the party that wants to take our rights to use them away.
liberals are on a mission to ensure that we are babaysat by big government

[The Buddha]

I think $10 a gal gasoline will promptly reverse that ... and republicans are the best ones to arrange for that ... so you've got a good point.
Cool.
Buddha.

[Cal76]

Like I said, Buddha 08'  A no nonsense, no party comment.  With alot of facts and very little opinion.  I am working on debating with more fact and less opinion.  The funny thing is;  if I am debating a topic that I do not believe in, I do much better.  However, someone has to take an opposition to righty in this thread and it just so happens that I am in agreeance with most everything I have written.  

Soon, I have to write a resolution from Burkina Faso's point of view on "Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories".  The Burkies, being the third poorest nation in the world, probably don't much care about Palestine or Israel so, it may be tricky.

Back to the topic:  I agree with Buddha that McCain was a bit more appealing before Palin.  She is just too much.  She says things that are humorous but have no truth behind it.  She is not trustworthy and is very vindictive.  Heres an example of her vindictive nature.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sqWkaGv89E

[quiktaco]

Yeah, she is definately a little more on the right of McCain, but that's what makes me like her more.

The thing that bugs me about this video that you linked is...."Horrible Palin - bad - Troopergate - bad - evil - look down upon her - bad" news  reports.  This is an issue that is still even being investigated, that may not even have any merit.

Now on the other hand, Obama news.  I mean CBS, NBC, ABC, etc, etc, never have anything bad to say about Obama.  He has so many scandalous things that are so overly relevant to being president, and no one is paying any attention.  But when the Republicans do something that may or may not have happened, then it's the end of the world.

Lets see...

Obama
• Aligns and Supports Communists/Socialists/Marxists
    • Wright
    • Ayers
    • Frank something
    • Louis Farrakhan
    • Tony Rezko
    • Auchi
    • Coon
    • Malcolm X
    • Odinga
    • Che Guevara
    • and many more
• Voted against reform of the corruption in Chicago
    • Potentially made money off of the corruption there
• Wife worked as a head at a corrupt Hospital
    • charged patients without insurance more than the ones with, to get more money out of their Medicare coverage.
• Has no accomplishments of any worth in his years in any office position
• Votes FOR After Birth Murder.  I mean partial-birth abortion.

Palin (which isn't even the presidential nominee who you're comparing here)
• May have been involved, but denies, and no proof yet, of possibly getting someone fired.


LOOK HOW CORRUPT AND HORRIBLE AND EVIL YOUR CANDIDATE IS!!!

[quiktaco]

Here's a good Barack Scandal for all of you.  He should actually be jailed for this.  He broke a law that was created in the 1700's that's there to protect the US.  Why aren't people talking about this?  Why is it all about Troopergate?  Or Babygate?  Or Hairdogate?

Talking to Iraq on a visit there, he is negotiating with Iraq to keep the troops in the country so that he can take the credit when he's president.

This link also talks about troopergate too.  Gives a little more info on the TRUTH about that scandal....THE GUY TAZERED A 10 YEAR OLD!!!

Also talks about the Sex Ed in school.  Not age appropriate information.  STD's in Kindergarten?!?!  That's Insanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGRoZTWUcPA

[The Buddha]

Yeah, she is definately a little more on the right of McCain, but that's what makes me like her more.

The thing that bugs me about this video that you linked is...."Horrible Palin - bad - Troopergate - bad - evil - look down upon her - bad" news  reports.  This is an issue that is still even being investigated, that may not even have any merit.

Now on the other hand, Obama news.  I mean CBS, NBC, ABC, etc, etc, never have anything bad to say about Obama.  He has so many scandalous things that are so overly relevant to being president, and no one is paying any attention.  But when the Republicans do something that may or may not have happened, then it's the end of the world.

Lets see...

Obama
• Aligns and Supports Communists/Socialists/Marxists
    • Wright
    • Ayers
    • Frank something
    • Louis Farrakhan
    • Tony Rezko
    • Auchi
    • Coon
    • Malcolm X
    • Odinga
    • Che Guevara
    • and many more
• Voted against reform of the corruption in Chicago
    • Potentially made money off of the corruption there
• Wife worked as a head at a corrupt Hospital
    • charged patients without insurance more than the ones with, to get more money out of their Medicare coverage.
• Has no accomplishments of any worth in his years in any office position
• Votes FOR After Birth Murder.  I mean partial-birth abortion.

Palin (which isn't even the presidential nominee who you're comparing here)
• May have been involved, but denies, and no proof yet, of possibly getting someone fired.


LOOK HOW CORRUPT AND HORRIBLE AND EVIL YOUR CANDIDATE IS!!!

This is nice BS ... look who's tripping over themselves to work on the 700 billion dollar wall street rescue to see who the socialist is ...
The republican philosophy is ... privatize the profits, socialize the losses ... The democrats even if they are socialists are socialists all the time ... Its gonna encourage less productivity than true free market, but it will encourage more productivity and less fraud than the republican philosophy.
Its just a perfect ending ... start with enron failure, and end with a wall street hand out.
Hopefully the buckering will kill the bill ... and the clock is gonna run out ... dear god lets hope that.
Of course everyone is counting on a slice of the 700 billion pie ... everyone is expecting a bail out. Home owners who bought 21 condo's while working as a car rental clerk all the way to goldman sachs CEO's ... That's bushies ownership society ...
And no they cannot feign they didn't know this would happen ... several blogs (housingpanic.com and housingbubble.com among the 2 most popular ones) and economists Nouriel Roubini and Peter Schiff hit it with alarming accuracy ... Only a corrupt administration could have missed this.
Cool.
Buddha.

[Cal76]

You have been posting unsubstanciated videos since this thread began.  Videos and essays published by extremists and closed minded hipocrites.  I know the "troopergate" <--hilarious name BTW, is ongoing, but at least it is valid.  It is in an actual court not a radio talk show, and it has factual based evidence instead of propoganda and hearsay.

STD's to kindergarden students----When do you suppose we educate our youth.  At 16 when they are pregnant?  or 13 which, is the age some girls are having sex?  Or how about no education at all--I guess that would be the christian way of doing things.  After all, we can't go around educate our youth so that someday they may actually learn to think for themselves.  I do not think there is a time too early to educate our youth.  It doesn't mean that it needs to be explicit and vulgar.  Kindergarten aged children are not going to understand calculus and teaching them it at such a young age is most likely going to confuse them, but that doesn't mean we do teach math at all until college.  You start out slow by teaching them to add and subtract.  It is the same thing with Sex ed at an early age, start slow and we may be able to convince teenagers that Bobby the 24 yr old HS drop out bagboy at the local harris teeter is probably not in love with her and may not be the greatest mate to go into a financial partnership with.  She may just learn that there are other ways to get attention without mini skirts and tube tops.   

[yamahonkawazuki]

Well TBH i wouldnt start sex ed at kindergarten. like you said, prolly too young to understand. or too young to comprehend WTF teacher is talking about. wait a few years. not to 16, a bit earlier than that, but you get my drift. the sub prime thing, begain during clintons tenure, and bush gets blamed for it. lmao, like i said in posts previous, two of the executives, of fannie/freddie, are on obamas economic team/advisors. and yet he criticises executives, or company profits. now on an unrelated note, oil profits. do you realise the govt makes almost twice as much, and has to do nothing to get it?. GOD ill be glad when this election is over. and the partisan bickering slows. hell its been goin on 5+ years now. shaZam! i wanna go to canada or elsewhere. and forget for a bit