this is America. we don't give a shit about what other counties think.Jenspm wrote:
Vote Obama if you want Europe to like you, tbh.
haha jk...but really though
haha jk...but really though
State Representative for District 67Kmarion wrote:
Jebediah Clampet?Flecco wrote:
Unrelated: HOLY CRAP, the Dems candidate for State Rep where Kezza lives...
His name is almost identical to mine.
The nominee for the dems, his name is Richard J. Jackson.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I don't really have anything constructive to add, other than you spelt tomorrow wrong in the title.
Bradley effect, and you thought there was nothing that could destroy your love for the IFVGod Save the Queen wrote:
vote for mccain so you could be a part of the bradley effect.
My Dad was having a drunken rant last night and said he thinks Obama will win the popular vote, but never get sworn in.
Idk, maybe it was the whiskey talking.
Idk, maybe it was the whiskey talking.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
It doesn't bother me. We are a mixed bag. We have no official language..Sup wrote:
lol sucks kmar. I wouldn't make voting ?paper? in any other lingo besides English if I were making the constitution-if you wanna live and vote here you can at least learn the official language! Right?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes you do. It's English. Stop trying to pretend the British didn't give you anything you ungrateful bastards.Kmarion wrote:
It doesn't bother me. We are a mixed bag. We have no official language.
What are you talking about?ghettoperson wrote:
I don't really have anything constructive to add, other than you spelt tomorrow wrong in the title.
An illiterate with a voters card I am.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Spanish has been spoke on the continent much longer than English . Especially in FL.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Yes you do. It's English. Stop trying to pretend the British didn't give you anything you ungrateful bastards.Kmarion wrote:
It doesn't bother me. We are a mixed bag. We have no official language.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/t … ack-obama/
Wow.. just wow. That is a whole lot of "why nots" against Barry. Unfortunately I've got nearly just as many against McCain.
Wow.. just wow. That is a whole lot of "why nots" against Barry. Unfortunately I've got nearly just as many against McCain.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'll see your quote and raise you one: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p2350133TheAussieReaper wrote:
Don't you? Here, I'll describe them for you:FEOS wrote:
Only if you don't know what Reaganomics actually are.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Reaganomics have failed.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p2350084
So no...you clearly don't know what Reaganomics actually are.
You've completely missed the point. Powell will be working for the Executive branch in that instance. The "working together" needs to come in the Legislative and between the Legislative and Executive branches. If both are controlled by the same party (with the Legislative having a filibuster-proof majority), it's the same song, different tune from 2001-2006. Unfettered spending by a Congress that rubberstamps the President's spending proposals.TheAussieReaper wrote:
They'll still work together. Have you not heard some of the names Obama has nominated to be his top advisers? The list includes people such asFEOS wrote:
So give Democrats unfettered power in both the Legislative and Executive branches so they don't have to worry about working together. Great plan.TAR wrote:
The bailout plan saw the Republicans and Democrats only work together when they were trying to fight the disaster "after" it was caused by a non-regulated economy.
"He (Powell) will have a role as one of my advisers. He has already served in that function, even before he endorsed me." Obama said on NBC's Today show.
Source
And he's also parted with his party on key party issues. Name one that Obama has done the same on.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Oh, I dunno. Maybe because he's supported Bush "actively and very impassioned"FEOS wrote:
Based on what?TAR wrote:
The disaster Bush's term has been, is going to continue with McCain and Palin.
He's campaigned for Bush. Voted for Bush. Stood by Bush time and time again. Has never spoken out about the Iraq war. Or any conflict the US has been involved in.
Look into the history of LBJ and his positions as a Senator vice his positions as President. When he was President, he had free reign, Party-wise, to implement what HE wanted. When he was a Senator, he was bound by what the Party wanted.
And all that has the square root of fuckall to do with the size of the military budget.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the start.FEOS wrote:
Obama hasn't said anything about cutting the military budget, either.TAR wrote:
The Republicans are going to stare down Russian, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and who knows where else by increasing the military budget. Your already in huge debt.
Think Biden is for or against the war? Watch this, direct from the Senate:
They want to be more cooperative with Pakistan. That's a known fact, probably something you've even argued they shouldn't be doing. In my opinion, it's better than raiding villages for AQ, crossing into Pakistan and killing civilians and\or getting shot by the Pakistani's trying to defend their borders.
McCain won't meet Russia, Iran, North Korea, anyone, without pre-conditions. I don't think many are going to even come to the negotiating table if that's the case.
Those with the bulk of the wealth also do the bulk of the spending.TheAussieReaper wrote:
The top 10% have over 70% of the wealth. Ease taxes on the low income earners will promote spending and speed up the economy.FEOS wrote:
The top 10% already pay 70% of the taxes. The top 5% pay more than 30%. How much more should they be taxed?TAR wrote:
You need to raise taxes for the highest income owners, increase bank regulation until the financial market stabilizes, ease taxes on the low income earners to promote spending.
Are you out of your damn mind?! Decreasing government spending will lower the deficit, and get us back to the 90's trend of budget surpluses, which will eventually lower the debt.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Spending cuts isn't going to help the economy, it will worsen it. Slower productivity and less Government created jobs will result in higher unemployment. Refer to here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p2350084 once again.FEOS wrote:
No he doesn't. He's the only one who hasn't provided any plans for spending cuts to offset his $800B+ spending initiatives.TAR wrote:
Only Obama has a plan for stimulating an economy that doesn't result in another budget deficit.
The Government doesn't create jobs. The private sector creates jobs.
Last time I checked, the President made the policy, not the VP. McCain's plan is clear, and it's not all that different than Obama's.TheAussieReaper wrote:
McCain's so called solution, is to cut back the reliance of fuels from the Middle East, by investing in green technology, but by also drilling the oil reserves. He's sitting on the fence on this one.FEOS wrote:
So does McCain.TAR wrote:
And he believes in global warming + finding a solution.
Palin however, well, she speaks for herself:
Global warming isn't man made? How is that finding a solution, if you don't understand the cause of the problem?
Ah, clairvoyance must be such a burden. What in McCain's extensive Legislative record leads you to believe he will advocate for teaching creationism in public schools? Nothing, that's what.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Haha, is McCain advocating a federal requirement? Not yet. But they WILL. With Republicans like this...FEOS wrote:
And so McCain is advocating for a federal requirement to teach creationism? Didn't think so.TAR wrote:
Evolution should be taught in schools. Not creationism. State and Church kept separate. Republicans will introduce intelligent design and dumb down your whole nation.
^That was from the GOP debate
And again, good ole Palin:SourceANCHORAGE -- Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And French, and Dutch. The Caribbean was even brought the language of Africa through the slave trade.Kmarion wrote:
Spanish has been spoke on the continent much longer than English . Especially in FL.
none of that is true... how dare you question the Messiah... beg for forgiveness.... lolKmarion wrote:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/
Wow.. just wow. That is a whole lot of "why nots" against Barry. Unfortunately I've got nearly just as many against McCain.
Love is the answer
Spanish surpasses them all in terms of European languages. The oldest city in the United States, St. Augustine, was settled by the Spanish.TheAussieReaper wrote:
And French, and Dutch. The Caribbean was even brought the language of Africa through the slave trade.Kmarion wrote:
Spanish has been spoke on the continent much longer than English . Especially in FL.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmarion wrote:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/
Wow.. just wow. That is a whole lot of "why nots" against Barry. Unfortunately I've got nearly just as many against McCain.
That's an interesting stat. First I've seen that.In fact, if Obama wins on November 4th—and serves one full term in the Oval Office—the Presidency of the United States would be the longest consecutively held full-time job he has ever held without seeking another.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Your haven't address that the Reaganomics have caused the current financial crisis. You keep going back to how they worked then, and also point out that the deregulation was nothing as widespread as it is today. My point, that you keep missing, is that the Reaganomics today have failed.FEOS wrote:
I'll see your quote and raise you one: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p2350133TheAussieReaper wrote:
Don't you? Here, I'll describe them for you:FEOS wrote:
Only if you don't know what Reaganomics actually are.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Reaganomics have failed.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p2350084
So no...you clearly don't know what Reaganomics actually are.
"Unfettered spending by a Congress that rubberstamps the President's spending proposals" is what you need at the moment. I'll point out why as I address another question below. But govt. spending on infrastructure creates jobs.FEOS wrote:
You've completely missed the point. Powell will be working for the Executive branch in that instance. The "working together" needs to come in the Legislative and between the Legislative and Executive branches. If both are controlled by the same party (with the Legislative having a filibuster-proof majority), it's the same song, different tune from 2001-2006. Unfettered spending by a Congress that rubberstamps the President's spending proposals.TheAussieReaper wrote:
They'll still work together. Have you not heard some of the names Obama has nominated to be his top advisers? The list includes people such asFEOS wrote:
So give Democrats unfettered power in both the Legislative and Executive branches so they don't have to worry about working together. Great plan.TAR wrote:
The bailout plan saw the Republicans and Democrats only work together when they were trying to fight the disaster "after" it was caused by a non-regulated economy.
"He (Powell) will have a role as one of my advisers. He has already served in that function, even before he endorsed me." Obama said on NBC's Today show.
Source
Here we go. The "maverick tag". A maverick is not going to be a stabilizing factor that you currently need as President. You want someone who will listen to the advice given and not just stand against it to look good.FEOS wrote:
And he's also parted with his party on key party issues. Name one that Obama has done the same on.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Oh, I dunno. Maybe because he's supported Bush "actively and very impassioned"FEOS wrote:
Based on what?TAR wrote:
The disaster Bush's term has been, is going to continue with McCain and Palin.
He's campaigned for Bush. Voted for Bush. Stood by Bush time and time again. Has never spoken out about the Iraq war. Or any conflict the US has been involved in.
Look into the history of LBJ and his positions as a Senator vice his positions as President. When he was President, he had free reign, Party-wise, to implement what HE wanted. When he was a Senator, he was bound by what the Party wanted.
You wanted one example of Obama not sticking with Democrat convention? Fine:
"Barack Obama's August 1 speech outlining an aggressive anti-terrorist policy is part of the Illinois Senator's larger campaign strategy, demonstrating his willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy -- defying teachers' unions, proponents of racially based affirmative action, and Democratic constituencies wary of the use of force."
Oh look, source is from the Huffington. You know, the right leaning Republican source?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/0 … 58815.html
Do you understand what staring down a diplomatic rival entails? How about an arms race, increased military presence, more troop deployment, economic sanctions, all of which McCain has said he will do.FEOS wrote:
And all that has the square root of fuckall to do with the size of the military budget.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the start.FEOS wrote:
Obama hasn't said anything about cutting the military budget, either.
Think Biden is for or against the war? Watch this, direct from the Senate:
They want to be more cooperative with Pakistan. That's a known fact, probably something you've even argued they shouldn't be doing. In my opinion, it's better than raiding villages for AQ, crossing into Pakistan and killing civilians and\or getting shot by the Pakistani's trying to defend their borders.
McCain won't meet Russia, Iran, North Korea, anyone, without pre-conditions. I don't think many are going to even come to the negotiating table if that's the case.
No, they don't actually. Why? Because they have all the tax breaks. The consumer that drives the economy, is the average income earner. You know, the 100's of millions who consume every day products, buy cars, housing (oh look, there's a housing crisis at the moment because these people couldn't afford to pay their mortgage)FEOS wrote:
Those with the bulk of the wealth also do the bulk of the spending.TheAussieReaper wrote:
The top 10% have over 70% of the wealth. Ease taxes on the low income earners will promote spending and speed up the economy.FEOS wrote:
The top 10% already pay 70% of the taxes. The top 5% pay more than 30%. How much more should they be taxed?
The Government doesn't create jobs? That's ridiculous comment. They do create jobs. You know, like public works projects? Where do you think most of the infrastructure money is coming from when roads are built, schools, public hospitals, etc?FEOS wrote:
Are you out of your damn mind?! Decreasing government spending will lower the deficit, and get us back to the 90's trend of budget surpluses, which will eventually lower the debt.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Spending cuts isn't going to help the economy, it will worsen it. Slower productivity and less Government created jobs will result in higher unemployment. Refer to here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p2350084 once again.FEOS wrote:
No he doesn't. He's the only one who hasn't provided any plans for spending cuts to offset his $800B+ spending initiatives.
The Government doesn't create jobs. The private sector creates jobs.
Yes it is. McCain's targets for reduction are far more into the future than Obama's are.FEOS wrote:
Last time I checked, the President made the policy, not the VP. McCain's plan is clear, and it's not all that different than Obama's.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Global warming isn't man made? How is that finding a solution, if you don't understand the cause of the problem?
Did you not look at any of the above I posted. The Republicans are representative of the religious right. Guess what, the Religious right are pushing for creationism, and if more likely to get it with McCain\Palin than Obama\Biden.FEOS wrote:
Ah, clairvoyance must be such a burden. What in McCain's extensive Legislative record leads you to believe he will advocate for teaching creationism in public schools? Nothing, that's what.
And the point that you keep missing is that the economic policies today are not Reaganomics. They are an altered form of the policies, with the alterations being the key problem areas: deregulation of the financial markets and mortgage markets.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Your haven't address that the Reaganomics have caused the current financial crisis. You keep going back to how they worked then, and also point out that the deregulation was nothing as widespread as it is today. My point, that you keep missing, is that the Reaganomics today have failed.FEOS wrote:
I'll see your quote and raise you one: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p2350133TheAussieReaper wrote:
Don't you? Here, I'll describe them for you:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p2350084
So no...you clearly don't know what Reaganomics actually are.
No, unfettered spending is the LAST thing we need at the moment. Obama isn't planning on spending the money on infrastructure...he's spending it on social programs. And the private sector still creates the jobs for those government contracts, btw. It's private companies that employ those workers, not the government.TheAussieReaper wrote:
"Unfettered spending by a Congress that rubberstamps the President's spending proposals" is what you need at the moment. I'll point out why as I address another question below. But govt. spending on infrastructure creates jobs.
Way to marginalize and completely oversimplify McCain's record. Don't bother actually researching it or anything. Too damned inconvenient.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Here we go. The "maverick tag". A maverick is not going to be a stabilizing factor that you currently need as President. You want someone who will listen to the advice given and not just stand against it to look good.FEOS wrote:
And he's also parted with his party on key party issues. Name one that Obama has done the same on.
Look into the history of LBJ and his positions as a Senator vice his positions as President. When he was President, he had free reign, Party-wise, to implement what HE wanted. When he was a Senator, he was bound by what the Party wanted.
Speeches. How about legislation? That's what lawmakers are supposed to do, you know. Actions > words.TheAussieReaper wrote:
You wanted one example of Obama not sticking with Democrat convention? Fine:
"Barack Obama's August 1 speech outlining an aggressive anti-terrorist policy is part of the Illinois Senator's larger campaign strategy, demonstrating his willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy -- defying teachers' unions, proponents of racially based affirmative action, and Democratic constituencies wary of the use of force."
Oh look, source is from the Huffington. You know, the right leaning Republican source?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/0 … 58815.html
Yes. None of those things listed involve the military budget, either. You know, the original point you were trying to make that somehow Obama was going to cut the military budget? None of that supports your argument.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Do you understand what staring down a diplomatic rival entails? How about an arms race, increased military presence, more troop deployment, economic sanctions, all of which McCain has said he will do.
Sure, if you consider paying the vast majority of the income tax paid in this country having "all the tax breaks". The bulk of consumer spending comes from the same group that pays the bulk of the taxes. That's a fact. They also provide the majority of the jobs of the other 90% of the income earners in the country.TheAussieReaper wrote:
No, they don't actually. Why? Because they have all the tax breaks. The consumer that drives the economy, is the average income earner. You know, the 100's of millions who consume every day products, buy cars, housing (oh look, there's a housing crisis at the moment because these people couldn't afford to pay their mortgage)
Those are projects that are planned out years and years in advance. They don't create new jobs, they utilize the existing labor force...which is employed by private sector companies. The only jobs that the government actually "creates" are those that are paid government positions.TheAussieReaper wrote:
The Government doesn't create jobs? That's ridiculous comment. They do create jobs. You know, like public works projects? Where do you think most of the infrastructure money is coming from when roads are built, schools, public hospitals, etc?
According to whom? Obama, right?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Yes it is. McCain's targets for reduction are far more into the future than Obama's are.
No, the Republicans are representatives of the conservatives in the country. The neocons are representative of the religious right. McCain is not a neocon, and he is a strict Constitutionalist when it comes to those types of issues. He would never support a breach of the First Amendment like that.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Did you not look at any of the above I posted. The Republicans are representative of the religious right. Guess what, the Religious right are pushing for creationism, and if more likely to get it with McCain\Palin than Obama\Biden.FEOS wrote:
Ah, clairvoyance must be such a burden. What in McCain's extensive Legislative record leads you to believe he will advocate for teaching creationism in public schools? Nothing, that's what.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The government of Minnesota, for one.oug wrote:
1. So what did that ever change?FEOS wrote:
1. We have had at least one governor (state executive) from a third party (Libertarian). The reason the other parties don't do well is that their "big ticket" concepts typically get adopted by either the Dems or Reps as platform planks.
2. There is a HUGE difference between the two parties, at least philosophically. The neocons have hijacked the Republican party at this point, which explains why many are disillusioned with them. Generally, the Republicans are for lower taxes (both individual and business), smaller government, fiscal constraint, community-based social programs. Democrats are for increased taxes (particularly on high earners and businesses), larger government, fiscal largesse (using increased tax revenue), government-based social programs.
So yeah...just alike.
Seriously, if you're going to make definitive statements like that about US governmental issues, you really need to learn more about the US system of government and the actual platforms of the major political parties.
No. The bottomline is actually the exact opposite of that. If you truly knew all that, you wouldn't say otherwise.oug wrote:
2. I know all this. But bottom line is that both parties adhere to the same set of basic principles.
No, that's not proof at all. The universal health care proposals put forward by the Dems have been completely unaffordable and unworkable. That's why they didn't pass. Additionally, the margin of majority is key in getting proposed legislation out of committee and scheduled for a floor vote.oug wrote:
Proof is that we've reached 2008 and still talking about universal health care and other major reforms that would have been implemented years ago if the Dems at least fitted your description.
If they were truly the same, as you assert, then all proposals by both sides would sail through the House and the Senate. Pretty sure that happens rarely enough that it's considered the exception rather than the rule.
Just what "universal standard" would that be? Are socialists considered right-wing by this undefined "universal standard"?oug wrote:
Truth is that by universal standards the Dems are a right-wing party. That leaves the US with virtually no left wing representation - save Ralph maybe... As far as the two major parties are concerned, it is a corporatocracy - to use a popular term as of late.
And if you think for one second that the businesses of Europe don't influence law makers of all parties over there, I've got some prime beach property in Arizona for sale...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
There is still long lines at my precinct.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So have you voted then? Or by the lines you mean you haven't because you can't be bothered to wait for ages?
I like the looks of that neighbourhood. Nice place you live in it seems.
lol, whats it look like where you live?.Sup wrote:
I like the looks of that neighbourhood. Nice place you live in it seems.
Vote for Obama, so that Diebold has to spend a little extra time changing your vote to McCain.Kmarion wrote:
Tell me why I should vote for either candidate with out attacking the other.
The disdain for the heartland is a bs reason, and at least three others cannot be considered why-nots with McCain's involvement in them. I don't think its really as convincing of an argument as it could be.Kmarion wrote:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/
Wow.. just wow. That is a whole lot of "why nots" against Barry. Unfortunately I've got nearly just as many against McCain.