agreed, palins only qualification for vp is the fact that she hunts, because unlike **** cheney, she won't miss and hit a foreign offical.
There's also a ridiculous amount of evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to lead the country. But that's besides the point. As vice president they essentially only have two powers, 1. Serve as president of the senate and vote only in the event of a tie and 2. Take over if the president is to die or what have you. Both VP candidates have already said that in the event the president is killed or dies or whatever, they will carry on the president's policies. Both presidential candidates have confirmed that their VP candidates share the same views that they have. So what I have to say about the whole thing is the whole Sarah Palin thing, while important is still not something to get worked up about. It's not like someones appointing her dictator if McCain gets elected. She's still held in check by the other two branches of government. So no one should be getting their panties in a twist over this issue.
You're still trusting of the government? Bush has effectively turned this country into a dictatorship in some ways, and has tore down the checks and balances that are supposed to hold the Executive branch in check. It was one of the fears of our founding fathers that the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief, and the Executive branch could get too powerful and the Legislative and Judicial branches wouldn't be able to hold it in check. That's what's been happening the past 8 years. Bush has been doing whatever he wants. He's signed laws into action and then broke them. Stating in the clause that he was not bound to follow them. He's been living above the law and the checks and balances can't touch him. With that said, why do you think that all that's going to stop Palin should she become President? She seems to be very radical and irrational in my opinion, and I think if someone were to logically dissuade her from something she would ignore them and do it anyway, just like Bush. So I think it's very important that attention is placed on the VP canididates. By the way, did anyone watch the last debate last night? Remember what McCain said when asked how would Palin help him and make a good president should he die? Basically he said that she "fought corruption in Alaska" (what about that abuse of power scandal that she's been found guilty of?) and that she's a soccer mom who understands the American people. Ridiculous.
Palin will be the downfall of McCain's campaign, and I think he's beginning to realize it now. She was picked in hopes of grabbing some democratic Hillary supporters and energizing the republican campaign with something fresh and new..... it has unfortunately backfired. Some republicans are no longer voting for McCain because of his poor choice for his Vice President. She is viewed as unprepared for the job, and quite frankly I agree with that. Even with experience, I don't believe she'd have what would be necessary to be Vice President. Her personality and demeaner do not seem fitting of someone holding such a powerful position.
K yeah bush has gotten to do a lot of what he wants because there was a republican congress during much of his presidency. So naturally a lot of his policies are going to pass, the only serious abuse of power I have seen is the declaration of war. Otherwise it's been following the governmental process more or less the way the founding fathers intended. So why would Palin be different? There's currently a democratic congress (12% approval rating I might add), so it would be much easier for her (or more likely, McCain) to be held in check. This would also, allow for more of the bipartisanship McCain has been talking about, because both republicans and democrats would have to come to a consensus in order to get stuff done. In addition, it's already been proven McCain is the most liberal republican on the senate, increasing the chances of an argreement to be made. Obama on the other hand would essentially be in the same position Bush was a few years ago. He'll get to do whatever he wants because there's a democratic congress who will support him. He's also proven to be the most far-left democrat on the Senate. McCain may have voted along republican party lines (and unsuprisingly with bush) 90% of the time, but Obama's voted with the democratic party 97% of the time. I don't think America can allow this to happen. Especially when obama has over a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) in new spending proposals that - in the situation i just described - most of which get will be passed. This may sound like a smear fact, but here's a list of most (but not all) of Obama's spending proposals directly from Obamas website: An Energy Plan that costs over $150,000,000,000 over 10 years A National Infrastructure Re-Investment Bank that costs $60,000,000,000 over 10 years Early Education K-12 $18,000,000,000 a year Home Forclosure Prevention Fund $10,000,000,000 a year National Service Plan $9,500,000,000 a year Increase Foreign Assistance by $25,000,000,000 a year Global Poverty Act $85,000,000,000 a year through United Nations State-Paid Leave Systems $1,500,000,000 a year Transitional Jobs and Career Pathway programs $1,000,000,000 over 5 years (these programs already exist) Increase Medicare Drug Spending Authority by $39,000,000,000 a year National Network of Public/Private Business Incubators for $250,000,000 a year Restore Funding to Community Development Block Grant Program $2,500,000,000 (additiona funding) a year Amend Higher Education Act of 1965 $200,000,000 over 4 years (without actually improving schools) Double Federal Funding for Basic Research $112,000,000,000 over 4 years Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act $528,000,000 over 3 years Religious Organizations to Help the Disadvantage $500,000,000 a year Double the Manufacturing Extension Partnership $90,000,000 Additional Mortgage Revenue Bonds $10,000,000 Extend Trade Adjustment Assistance Double Funding for Job Access Commute Program Our government is one of limited enumerated powers. I think we should keep it that way. Unless you think that all these programs are an absolute necessity to America's well being, and unless you think Bush's proposal free-for all with his republican congress was awesome, I don't think a vote for Obama would be in your best interest. Sorry I got a little off-topic but it still connects back to the initial comment made about sarah palin.
This is getting way off topic, so I'm going to keep this short. I don't how aware you may be of what's been going on in the government the past 8 years, and I certainly don't claim to know a lot, but to say that the government has been functioning as the founding fathers intended is absurd. We have an out of control Executive branch, that's been taking power unchecked. Anyway, you seem to be the type that supports Republicans no matter what they do, so I don't think you and I will be agreeing much here.
neverless wonder you didn't even read his post did you republican pres. + republican congress = lots of things getting passed only the "police action" or whatever you want to call it in iraq was out of bounds
Exorcism of Sarah I don't even need to say anything about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj-on3kfWuE
Yes, I did. I read everyone's posts. But there's a lot more going on, and a lot more that I'm talking about than just Iraq. There's a lot more going on than just "republican president + republican congress".. It's something that's going to take a lot of time and effort to go into and explain, which will bring this topic further off track, so I'm not going to go into it. Stick to the topic.
I'm conservative when it comes to the major issues this election but otherwise I would would probably either classify myself as a libertarian or moderate. What policies, besides the war, has bush been abusing his power with? I don't think you realize that if he is extremely out of line, the judicial branch can rule his actions unconstitutional or the legislative can vote against it. For some reason no one called him out on the war, but what else has there been? Secondly, it does relate because someone made the claim that if sarah palin is in office we'll have the "crazy policy making of bush".
Damn, y'all can't take a hint can you? Well since you're persisting in keeping this offtopic, I'll go into it with what little I know. First, I'm going to say that I have a basic understanding of government and politics, but I am no expert, and I do not typically spend my free time researching this stuff. I do however, try to stay somewhat informed on what's going on from time to time. So I'm not claiming to be an expert, or know-it-all. Second, I (like Sarah Palin - LOL) get my information from a vast variety of sources. Mostly newspapers and the internet. So I can't direct you to certain things that I would like to. Well, I could maybe, but I'm not going to spend hours looking it all up because you didn't bother to stay more informed on what's going on in your own government. Here's something I can show you though. Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush Another thing I can point you towards, that is an excellent compilation of sorts for what I'm trying to explain here, is 'The Assault on Reason' a book by Al Gore. In the book are numerous examples, facts and evidence of the Bush Administration's complete disregard of the Constitution and the founding father's ideal on how this country should be run. An excellent read, I reccomend you try it out. Here are some quotes from the New York Times article that I linked: Remember a little something called the National Security Agency, USA Patriot Act, and the Homeland Security Act? How about the torture that took place in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? That was allowed because of the policies of the Bush Administration and the undermining of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Aaaaand finally...
Ok, so Palin is religious. What about Obama's crazy fricken pastor that hates the white man. Look I'm not really happy with either of the canidates, but I believe that McCain Palin is definently the lesser of the two evils. Obama has too many socialist ideas. All he wantsto do is take from the rich and give to the poor. Now I'm not saying thats totally bad, but for the most part, people who have money work harder intellectually than the poor. If you are poor, the chances are that your either a college student who hasn't started his/her career yet, or you never went to college. So really, he's punishing you for doing well with your life.
In the same way that Robin Hood did? Stole from corruption. If the corporate big shots don't like getting a 20 million dollar pay check instead of a 25, then I really have no sympathy for them. They may very well work hard, but they don't work 25 million hard. Even so, it's not as if Obama is directly taking it from their paychecks, besides income tax of course, which you can blame Republicans for. He is making them offer better medical care and wages. Which I see no problem with. The less poverty, the more education. The more education, the better our existence.
@ Neverless Wonder, I don't have time to read your long post right now but I'll get to it eventually and post back, maybe later tonight so check back.
Seriously. Thank you Nitrous. I'm so tired of hearing people say that Obama is a socialist or communist. It's ridiculous. Obama's tax raise, is only a 3% raise. And it's only for people who make a quarter million dollars a year or more in income. A 3% tax raise for those kinds of people is not going to dramatically change or affect their lifestyle. And even if it was as dramatic as Nitrous' example of going from $25 million paychecks to $20 million - Who the hell cares besides the rich people? That money is going towards helping this nation get on it's feet financially. I don't give a damn whether Steve Jobs or Brad Pitt can afford another luxury yacht or ferrari. And I don't give a damn if a family that makes half a million dollars a year can afford a second 3-story home or a third BMW. These people may or may not have worked hard to get the kind of money they have now, just like the poor may or may not be poor because of bad life choices. Now what makes more sense? Taxing the poor, who, by definition do not have much; they are losing their jobs, can't put their kids to school, and are in danger of losing their homes. - OR - Taxing the rich, who have more money, and will not by negatively affected much by the tax raise. So what if they can't afford a gold encrusted iPhone. I don't care. GTFO.
What kind of person is more religious: The one who's old friend was religious, or the one who is religious? I'm sure I didn't put it out nearly as well as it could've been. Bah, too lazy to retype up my old argument against this, so I'll copy and paste it from that other thread.
While the rich work harder, and the poor are probably deserving what they get, you have no right to criticize them. It's like saying "Whoever has more money is the better person." That statement is false. Why not lend a hand to the poor, instead sitting with your snot nosed face keeping all the money to yourself. You never know why a person is poor. A person could be poor from a robbery, or maybe their parents couldn't support them. You never know what could have caused them to be poor. Sometimes it's not their fault for being poor. While your statement may be true, you shouldn't hate the poor people for not succeeding.
no, as a matter of fact, i cant tell you why any of the candidates are a good choice Obama=socialism McCain=lots and lots of poor people Why choose the lesser of two evils? Vote Cathulu!