You both are taking Rusty's "say something simple to say something intelligent" post all wrong. He's not saying that what the supporters chant at the respective candidates' speeches determines their morality/patriotism/etc. He's using that "simple" statement to note the differing focuses. /comun since Furthermore, Chips, in a possibly likewise fashion, you're saying that (supposed) protesters at McCain conventions make him not as awesome as Obama. Disregarding my issues with Obama, I would never base my opinion or state an opinion of him because of the actions of other people.
As of Sept. 29, 2008 Obama will win the election 306 EV - 232 EV.^1 As of Sept. 29, 2008 Obama will win the election 338 - 200. Obama is currently up 5.2 points, while McCain is down 4.7 points.^2 1. Based on Princeton electoral polls and studies. View 2. Based on Intrade stock exchange. (95% confidence level). View
**** Obama. **** McCain. Politics is irrelevant to anything worth while, and the illusion of democracy in America is an insult to our intelligence. In a capitalist system, there is no true democracy, and there never was. The Democratic and Republican parties are controlled by the same damn corporate lobbyists. The popular is artificially stuffed down our throats by the pre-filtered media. In an inherent system of corruption, the changing of political people every few years is truly irrelevant. Corporations control America. Corporations control the world.
K. All I can say is, enjoy yourself while you can because the NWO is coming soon. AT&T will be the first to assault the white house along with the oil companies. Once in power, they will systematically kill of everyone with the letter "B" in their names, quite possibly the most evil letter of them all. That is only the beginning. We have but a finite time left. But seriously, learn a little more about the workings of gov't before assuming in strange conspiracy theories.
I am absolutely amazed I managed to read my way through 19 pages of this crap. Nearly all the posts are either incredibly mis-informed, or incredibly off-topic. Feminism? Sex-Ed? Abortion? GTFO this thread, please. That said, I think it's pretty obvious that one of the major issues in this election is the picks for VP canididates. I think this election hinges on it, possibly moreso than any recent election before it. If I were to attempt to sum it all up for everyone here, I would like to call attention to DTL's post here. And Battyman's post here. So which pick seems to be the best for helping run our country? Obama picked Biden to help him run the country. Someone who is more experienced than him in certain areas, and who can look at the truth of a situation, the facts, and help make a decision on the best way to handle it. McCain picked someone who is unqualified for the job, in fact doesn't even know what that job is, as proven in this video and even as recent as the VP Debate when she said that the job of the VP is to rule over the senate. As Biden pointed out to her, that is NOT the job of the VP and in fact the VP is only to preside over the senate if there is a tie vote. I quote Biden here when I say that this notion that the VP is to rule over the senate, the Legislative branch, is not only wrong, but extremely dangerous and blatantly disregards the checks and balances that are the foundation to make this democracy work. So in short, Obama picked Biden as his VP to help him run the country as best and fairly as possible. McCain picked Palin as his VP as a tool to win the election. It is completely dishonest and does nothing to help the governing of our nation as a democracy. What? How is she going to make a fantastic VP? What qualifies her? All I've heard from you in this thread, and even from Palin herself is how she's a woman, has a family, and the typical blue collar American can easily relate to her. This is absolute nonsense, and I'm sorry to say, does nothing to help her lead this country as Vice President. I can understand that you may be making the point that politically speaking, she is an excellent choice because it makes the McCain canididacy more appealing and helps to garner more votes. But to say that she will be a great asset to leading our nation seems an incredibly ignorant statement to me. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it appears as if you have a certain emotional attachment to the woman and that you are not thinking of the facts that matter. (As someone else said, less than three, Rusty. I'm only debating here, nothing personal.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Another point I wanted to make, is how laughably ignorant the general American populace is concerning the election, politics, world affairs, and basically, probably just about everything else that I could name that holds any real value. When I'm watching news programs and I see them devote time to celebrities and entertainment news... Or I witness the general population's knowledge and opinions (or lack thereof) on important matters going on in our world... I can't find the words for the dissappointment and disgust I feel for what this nation has become. It's a ****ing joke. Americans know more about the lives of celebrities and the plots of their favorite tv shows than they do about what's going on in the damn world. Here is an example of something going on all around the world right now. Other nations are watching this election, as closely or more than many Americans are. I get this picture in my head that many of the countries in the world are watching us intently right now because they are scared. America is and has been one of the most powerful nations in the world, and what we do has a major impact on the rest of the world. They're scared and watching us to see if we continue what we've been doing, or if we are willing to make a positive change and restore the respect and dignity that we once had. Will we restore our reputation of being a mature, sensible, responsible leader of the free world? These posts here, are excellent examples of the ignorance that I am talking about. Absurd. But it serves to highlight the thinking of many Americans, which is absolutely terrifying. They don't give a **** what happens in the world. As long as other countries leave us alone and we can continue living in our delusional world of pretend, then we're fine. But if anyone disrupts that, or bursts our bubble, we attack them. "Kill the ****ers!", "You're either with us, or against us." Whatever happened to diplomacy? The political and democratic process? The truth is, is our democracy is in shambles. In fact, I don't know how it is still considered a democracy after everything the Bush regime did to tear all that down. What we need is someone who can restore our democracy and bring about change. Bush has run this country into the ground and we need someone to drag it out. Obama is certainly not without faults, but I believe he is the better pick to turn this country around. To quote Vice Presidential canididate Joe Biden once more: 'I have not seen how John McCain's policy differs from George Bush's.' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Where have you been the past 8 years? Do you know nothing about how our democracy, our constitution, and our legislative system has been utterly disregarded by President George W Bush? There's so much here I could go off on but truthfully I am just too dumbfounded by this level of apathy and ignorance to go further. Agreed 100%.
Really, the federal reserve (America's central bank) has power over the American government. The government has no power to say on how much money is in circulation in the country, the federal reserve has that power. If the Federal Reserve wanted to, they can bring this country to it's knees. Do you even know how the Federal reserve works? And learn your old U.S history. People like Rockefeller completely controlled mass markets at one point in time. He trumped the government.
Perhaps you would have been better off not watching the Zeitgeist Addendum. While the movie is powerful and does show our world for it is and can be I would like to point out many times in our past the government has stepped in the way of business. If Rockefeller was so powerful, why did the government bust his trust? Busniess does what business does. In the attempt to turn a profit they short change everyone and everything. This is why the effort must be taken to control how far we let business go. Regulations must be in effect to save ourselves and our environment. It may not be a resource based economic paradise, but it is the best we can do - for now. --Back on topic.
I haven't watched it just yet. My history teacher is a radical. And ya, the government busted his trust, but he still made ways around it.
Lust IS an animalistic desire because you ARE an animal. Lust can no more tear you apart than bulls can handle fragile antiques. What tore you apart would be your societal upbringing amongst a religious cult. The church told you what was bad for you and in return you donated your time and money for a chance at salvation. When in reality there is no basis or reason to be afraid of what should be considered a "god given" trait. Your inherited desire to breed is not be feared, not to be stored away, and certainly not to be considered the work of evil. You should embrace it as a sign of your humanity and as a sign of good faith that you yourself knows what is best[1]. A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan 1. When I say you yourslef know what is best, I mean the happenings in your brain that cause the desire. While you may not conciously control it, it is there and controlled by your body.
A new topic about sex and religion has been made here: http://www.forgehub.com/forum/debates/38495-sex-organized-religion.html#post499710 Please direct all replies you may have to that thread, and keep this one on topic. Thank you.
I honestly think some of the values of the Democratic party are wrong, but honestly, I'd rather people have people be ALLOWED (not forced, which is what some people think) to have abortions than have the economy completely destroyed. We would have been fine with Bush, not better but not worse, if 9/11 hadn't happened, but since it did there has been change needed in the economy that has never happened. I'm happy the originally planned bailout didn't happen, that wouldn't been more of a disaster than the "stimulus checks" sent out last spring.
9/11 is not to blame for these problems that face us today. It the Bush administration and their failed policies, and in a larger sense, the american people's fault for not participating in the government and holding it accountable.
I realize this is a double post, but it's been two days without a post, and I don't want to start a new topic for something that should go here. Anyway, did anyone watch the 2nd Presidential Canididate Debate tonight? It was pretty good, and I'm interested to see what the thoughts were. I'm already seeing a lot of people say that Obama won, which is interesting because McCain has been pushing for this style of debating the entire time because it was to his advantage; which, as I hear he really needed because he's not doing so well right now in the campaign overall. A very interesting part of the debate was when they sorta threw out the rules that McCain set for the debate. Another was when McCain broke out of the debate structure and spoke out of turn with a (childish, I thought) remark trying to discredit Obama's economic policy regarding healthcare insurance. A big mistake on McCain's part I think. The debate will re-air sometime tonight on CNN if you missed it, and key parts from the debate will be played like all week I'm sure.
The format was pretty terrible (let's have the people ask question's directly (by which we mean have both candidates revert back to their talking points)), and the questions were just as bad. Like when Brokaw asked what the candidates thought their area of inexperience was. Not only is that heavily slanted in McCain's favor, but it's the kind of question that will obviously be dodged. And the one Brokaw prefaced with "give a yes or no response", come on now, how silly. "Senator, yes or no, have you stopped hitting your wife?" And what's with the "baby's first debate" rules? Last thing we want is for the candidates to actually engage with one another, or worse, to give answers with substance. "Alright Senator, quick response here, you've listed nuclear as a energy option, could you explain the equations that pertain to splitting an atom? You have thirty seconds." But Obama won outright, no contest. Oh and the healthcare part you mentioned, Neverless, that was Obama's best. He absolutely destroyed McCain with his response, just like Biden destroyed Palin on healthcare in the VP debate.
I agree completely. I would have rather seen an actual debate going on, or at least better questions asked. What's funny to me though, is that this was McCain's choice. It was his favored style of debating, which is to say, not debating at all, because he would lose. All I'm seeing from the McCain party is purposefully misleading information, vague answers given that don't properly address the question asked, and repetitive Obama slandering. It was shown in this debate, and it was shown in Palin's debate against Biden. Neither of them have shown to me that they can answer a question without talking negative about Obama, or dodging the question. Which, is almost the opposite for Biden and Obama. In these debates they calmly addressed the points in their arguments with solid fact and completely shut down their opponents. It's a definite win for Obama's camp.
but when you think about it the way politics are now the republican party is just trying to help the republican party and the democrat party is trying to help the democrat party. doesn't seem like they are focused on the nation right now. Also you cant be sure that they can accomplish what they say they are gonna do until they are president and take action or not against the issue.
My initial stance is in defense of small business. My dad is a second-generation roofing contractor. After graduating, I took up the job myself, and I'm currently planning on taking it over someday. Obama's stance on healthcare for the "common American" is that his only change will be a lowering of the price or enabling those who don't have insurance to buy it through their employer or government funding. My issue is the "employer" part. That's my family. He states on his website... Now, that sounds jolly, right? We (family) support an average of four employees at a time, not including my dad and his wife. That's what you'd consider small business, right? Obama doesn't. He considers any company that handles over $250,000 to be large business. Don't believe me? Check out the notes of a well-known Democratically based broadcasting network, CNN... Ok, so now we understand that companies/families handling $250,000+ dollars a year will have an increase in tax. Although our family supports few employees, we handled over $400,00 dollars last year. This is so because most small business handle over $250,000. By standard, our bill to the customer is separated into thirds. 1/3 -Payroll 1/3 -Material 1/3 -Profit Ok, so of that 400K, we didn't make enough to support an increase in tax. As it is, I make $10.00 an hour. It takes our company $18.00 after Workman's Comp. and General Liability to pay me. After Obama's increased tax rate, we'll have to shut down. This is completely disregarding his plan to fine what he considers "large businesses," if we're unable to provide healthcare for our employees (which we can't). Should he be elected, my family's business and millions of others will have no other option than to shut down. His plan gives the drunken bums more opportunity to sit on their ass and charges those of us who earn every dollar in our pocket. He doesn't mention that, although we technically make over $250,000, we don't put that in our pocket at the end of the year.
Actually Dented Drum, you've misread that information. Your income is money that isn't reinvested into the company. So even if your business makes over $250,000, its unlikely that you're actually income is $250,000. Even then Obama was talking about family income tax, not small business tax. Small businesses are usually given tax breaks to help them grow. Obama is referring to large business owners who are incredibly wealthy but refuse to give their employees better benefits just so their own payroll is higher. No one is going to **** on small business, its too important to our economy.
Then, as a politician, why has he not clarified that? It seems like too much gray area to me. From what I gathered, you're interpreting the 250K to be net profit, and I'm interpreting it to be gross profit. I checked through every one of his health care plans (they were in bullet-ed form on his site), and I saw nothing to clarify between the two. So, I'd like to respectfully request that you show me where he's shown a distinction between the two in relevance to his plan. Also, I saw him dodge and laugh off McCain's two requests for the amount of the fine, should a business refuse his plan.