|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Aug 30, 2008 15:47:54 GMT -8
But what about the voters? From what I've read, Palin seems like a good person, but I'm a little confused as to why evangelical conservatives are enthused by this pick. Is it because of her abortion views. How can VP Palin affect anything related to abortion? The abortion issue is pretty stagnant right now. The only thing that could effect is the passing of a John Paul Stevens, or something like that. Mc Cain is no George Bush, in the sense that he would actually listen to advice from a VP. The Mac ("Mack is back! Mack is Back! Mack is back!) will make his own decisions. Palin. Obama. They offer change. A change to what... a different kind of face? At least Hillary could be viewed as being a change agent for a nationilized healthcare system. Obama needs to define his change, to recconnect his liberalism to previous "liberal" presidents of the 20th century. He needs to strike at the heart of traditonalism... -CG NP:El Cid
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Aug 31, 2008 11:22:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Aug 31, 2008 13:19:51 GMT -8
I don't see how that's any worse than McCain speaking at Falwell U, or whatever it's called.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Aug 31, 2008 14:17:43 GMT -8
I don't see how that's any worse than McCain speaking at Falwell U, or whatever it's called. That's not much of an argument. McCain spoke at an accredited university. Scandal! How would that be any different if Obama spoke at Princeton, etc.? All colleges are the same. They are either liberal as hell or conservative as hell, but in the end they teach the same thing. You just have to decide which political viewpoint you want to tolerate while choosing colleges. Anyway. Carlton seemed to be pointing out that Obama hasn't really defined what he means by "change" so I gave as good of an explanation as anyone else has come up with: once he gets caught with ties to nasty people he switches his opinion on them--"that's not the [insert name here] I knew!" And another observation about Palin would be I think she may have saved the most historical embarassment of both the Republicans and Democrats in the history of the planet. I think a lot of the conservatives threatening third party support will now support McCain. If they went ahead and voted for a third party, along with the decent amount of liberals that usually vote for someone like Nader or Perot, a third party may have won this election. Now all the conservatives will probably fall in line, along with the liberals, and vote for their regular parties making this a close election like the last two. But, I think if there was a strong third party candidate this year they may have won (or at least gained some huge numbers). I also don't know what these four candidates are even going to argue about at the debates (it's gonna be like 2000 all over again with Bush and Gore pretty much going, "I agree."). Palin has literally taken away all arguments the democrats had. Palin and McCain will both have sons serving in Iraq next month so the liberals can't argue: "why don't you send your own kids over there!" Palin is a woman so Obama can't use his minority status as a point. Both sides now have a candidate with almost zero experience (not that I care about that, but most people seem to). Obama can't really knock drilling in Alaska, when Palin has lived there her entire life and knows the situation better than he ever will. Palin is the only one of the four candidates that's not a millionaire (at least not that I know of, but with the combined income of her husband and her governor income they probably make at least $200K. At least if my math is correct--does anyone know her yearly income? It would be nice for once if all the candidates weren't always millionaires, but it seems that will never happen). Both side really don't have any kind of message yet. But, to me it seems like McCain is going to forcus mainly on energy vs. Obama on "change." (whatever that means?).
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Aug 31, 2008 14:27:24 GMT -8
That's not much of an argument. McCain spoke at an accredited university. Scandal! How would that be any different if Obama spoke at Princeton, etc.? All colleges are the same. They are either liberal as hell or conservative as hell, but in the end they teach the same thing. You just have to decide which political viewpoint you want to tolerate while choosing colleges. I thought your point was that Obama means change in the sense that he'll reverse his position so long as it suits him and is politically beneficial. Well, McCain sorta called Falwell and agent of hate (or something) and gave the impression he was a bad guy in the media, then went on campus and gave a speech as if all the hate "was all in the past". All politicians do that. That's why neither yours (or mine) are arguments for or against a particular candidate, but for proving the point no one is a blameless white dove floating in and endless stream of hope and courage.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Aug 31, 2008 15:00:38 GMT -8
I thought your point was that Obama means change in the sense that he'll reverse his position so long as it suits him and is politically beneficial. Well, McCain sorta called Falwell and agent of hate (or something) and gave the impression he was a bad guy in the media, then went on campus and gave a speech as if all the hate "was all in the past". Yes, that is mildly similar but I doubt McCain had Falwell sermons on his iPod and debated Falwell's behavior before the media told him he had to (even before Falwell's 9/11 comments). With Obama you have him enjoying Ludacris from the beginning (knowing full well the stupidity of his lyrics), making it public Ludacris is on his iPod (probably thinking that would make him look cool to the Madden crowd), and only having an aide denounce Ludacris' lyrics after the media makes a stink about it when the lyrics attacked both of Obama's politcal rivals. And as far as I know he has appeared (or the plan was to do so) in another rapper's music video (Q-Tip) who has bad lyrics as well. Has McCain spoken at Liberty more than once? I don't remember. As for the reason McCain spoke at Liberty University after he bashed Falwell: I have no idea (most likely to appear hip and cool to the RTS/Sid Meier Civilization crowd). ;D True, but some do it more than others ("That's not the Jeremiah Wright I knew!" ). Of course they are. Some people are better candidates than others. Maybe we need better examples though. No one said they were. If McCain was actually in the news I may find more faults in him, but since I see Obama all the time it's kinda hard not too. P.S. Let's go people! This should be our one political argument thread of the year. Let's get it out of our system before the election so when we come here for peace in November we don't have to hear about it.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Aug 31, 2008 18:18:07 GMT -8
I think this is what he means by change: "He's not the Ludacris I knew!" (these need to be read in order): I should point out that I don't have a TV (yet), and I've been listening to talk-radio (Bob Grant, Laura Ingram, etc) and reading the occasional newspaper/magazine, for the last few weeks. Maybe Obama has defined his change, but it just hasn't filtered down to us via the media. I did watch part of his convention speech (online), but it doesn't seem like Obama's, or Mc Cain's, candidacy has been defined by any major issue. At least Hillary Clinton was viewed as the "health-care" candidate, and John Edwards, leaving his phoniness aside, was perceived as the "two-America's" candidate. Mc Cain and Obama are both trying to run on a change agenda, but they... well, I guess it is a little too early. Anyway. Carlton seemed to be pointing out that Obama hasn't really defined what he means by "change" so I gave as good of an explanation as anyone else has come up with: once he gets caught with ties to nasty people he switches his opinion on them--"that's not the [insert name here] I knew!" Well, I wouldn't expect Obama, or any smart politician, to stay on a sinking ship. Nate, what do you want him to do? When someone he has associated with makes a boo-boo, should he just say, "Hey that's my crazy uncle. Ah, what did he say again? Ha, let me put my stamp (of approval) on that." Or should he say, "So-and-So is my friend. I disagree with what he said, and those comments are not indicative of the person I have come to respect as a friend." Should Obama keep the same opinion of someone like the brothel-addicted governor of New York, Mr. Elliot Spitzer... No, he should not! Also, Hook brought up a good point. Mc Cain said Farwell and other figures of the right were "agents of intolerance" (or something like that); then Mc Cain goes out of his way to court Farwell, so that he could get more political support from the (far) Right. Mc Cain voted against the Bush tax-cut, and now all of a sudden he supports them. What, did he change his philosophy on tax cuts? Nate, you can say that the Obama situation is similar, but it is on a smaller scale. Does Obama really know Luducrais? Probably not. So, why the big fuss about him changing his view about a particular person. Btw, the pastor thing is completely different... I'll give my take on it, if you want me to. What are the important legislative issues in front of us. What are you voting for, damnit? Really, are you voting for a particular issue? Come on, tell me. Sigh! Uh, did I ever mention how bad Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 451 documentary was. This argument is lame, and the flip side of it is lame too. Should Palin and Mc Cain get medals because their sons are serving on the front-line? I think Biden has a son serving too, but this is irrelevant. A more interesting question is, "Would Mc Cain be Cain be willing to raise taxes to finance the ongoing conflict/rebuilding effort in Iraq?" Can he knock drilling in Yellowstone? What is Mc Cain's energy policy? More Drilling. More Drilling. More Drilling. Should there be a gas tax to encourage less consumption of gas? Should their be more tax breaks for alternative power sources? (Solar power is becoming more and more efficient) Where does the "Mac" stand? -CG
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Aug 31, 2008 18:40:37 GMT -8
With Obama you have him enjoying Ludacris from the beginning (knowing full well the stupidity of his lyrics), making it public Ludacris is on his iPod (probably thinking that would make him look cool to the Madden crowd), and only having an aide denounce Ludacris' lyrics after the media makes a stink about it when the lyrics attacked both of Obama's politcal rivals. And as far as I know he has appeared (or the plan was to do so) in another rapper's music video (Q-Tip) who has bad lyrics as well. Has McCain spoken at Liberty more than once? I don't remember. As for the reason McCain spoke at Liberty University after he bashed Falwell: I have no idea (most likely to appear hip and cool to the RTS/Sid Meier Civilization crowd). ;D The Obama-rap controversy is simple. It's just like the Mc Cain-Falwell situation. Mc Cain spoke at Liberty and he reached out to Falwell because he realized that he would need the support of the Christian Right in order to win the Presidency (and his Party's Primary). So, Mc Cain's quabbles with members of the Right, you aren't going to hear about them. Meanwhile, Obama has reaced out to Ludacris (put him on his Ipod, had a meeting with him) because he wants to try to expand the pool of potential African-American voters. So, just like on the Mc Cain scenario, it's possible that Obama does have problems with rappers (the lyrics), but he can't really broadcast them.... The whole pastor thing was blown out of proportion. I still don't see what the big deal is. I guess I've been to too many African American churches. The church is part of a community. You just don't abandon it, like a pair of pants, because you disagree with things that the pastor has said. Now, was the image of Jeremaih Wright that was portayed by the media (and the selected sermons), was that the whole Jeremiah Wright? Probably Not. So, it's probably safe to assume that this is not the Jeremiah Wright that members of his church knew. This is like Palin wearing a Pat Buchanon button. Does this means that she supports Buchanon's stance on the Jews? Probably not. Do you see faults in his take on the issues? Or Mc Cains? -CG PS: Check your messages.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Aug 31, 2008 19:18:04 GMT -8
but it doesn't seem like Obama's or Mc Cain's candicacy has been defined by any major issue. Yep. Seems like it. If I had to pick what they were going to run on I predict Obama will run on the fact he isn't George W. Bush and McCain will claim there is an energy crisis and talk about his "plan" to fix that. That's not even the point. The problem is he seemingly relates to nasty people only disowning them when the media goes kuckoo over it. He knew all along what his pastor was saying, but didn't take action until it was turned into a news story. He's had the association with Ludacris (and obviously he knew about his lyrics before talking him up), but didn't disown him until he had to. It's like the non-apology apology people like using: "I'm sorry IF I offended someone" (which implies you're sorry because you got caught) instead of saying "I'm sorry I've offended people." (which implies some things are wrong if you're caught or not). That's not even on the same scale. Obama only changed his mind when caught by the media and instantaneously. He didn't all of a sudden go, "maybe I shouldn't associate myself with rappers when I'm running for president" and just decide he should end his Ludacris hyping. He was bragging to the media, having his face all over Rolling Stone, etc. showing how hip he was following rap music. But, of course the media wants a good scandal and when Ludacris' released his "Politics as Usual" "song" the media goes, "Obama didn't you have Ludacris on your iPod playlist and meet with him at your office saying you respected him?" To make a long story short we get this: "He's not the man I knew!" McCain had almost eight years to think about his stance on tax cuts. Maybe he changed his mind because he wanted to be president? Maybe he changed his mind because his constituents did? Maybe he's better at hiding his political maneuvers than Obama? And honestly, I think it's childish for a man who could be president to listen to rap music (Now someone will tell me than McCain has his mother cut the crust off his peanut butter and jelly sandwiches still). I didn't even know he had one. I have no clue if he really knows Ludacris. But, he definitely has a problem associating himself with rappers (Q-tip as well). If he was using the rappers for political purposes to think he could get more votes he obviously doesn't know what he's doing. Why not associate with rappers that have a cleaner image like Will Smith or Mc Hammer! ;D I would find it worse, but explain. Honestly, the only thing I really care about is lower taxes, war on terror, and supreme court judges (and I'm also voting just to vote against Obama, who also happens to be my mamma). Can't say I've caught that one yet. I agree. I only brought it up because they can't use that as an issue on either side. That was my point. Palin seems to take away a lot of the stuff democrats often use to debate about. Hence, my "what are they going to talk about at debates" quote. Palin admists to smoking pot when it was legal in Alaska, but Obama did the same thing thus cancelling each other out. It goes on and on! Yes. Yes. My question would be will McCain have to guts to cut all the pork and fund the crap we actually need with the money we have now. Actually I think McCain will use that as a debate point as well. He seems to like saying he always cuts the pork. Has someone actually proposed that one!? I'm probably one of the few conservatives against drilling in ANWAR. What's the point of making a wildlife refuge if you're just going to ignore that they are. I'm sure Palin can come up with better places to drill in Alaska (didn't we just give Russia back some land near Alaska so they can drill for oil there, but then we don't). I seem to remember him saying: drilling, windmills, solar energy, and nuclear energy. I think he said something like becoming like the France of nuclear energy. No. There is no other alternative in this giant country. Until will come up with something equal to gas we need to keep doing what we're doing and start drilling more here. This isn't intimate little europe where everything is close together and there are nice trains. Literally everything is spread so far apart you have to drive. Solar power may be efficient, especially with the sun acting up the last few years, but it seems to be prohibitively expensive. Windmills are the dumbest idea, possibly, ever.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Sept 1, 2008 16:16:41 GMT -8
No. There is no other alternative in this giant country. Until will come up with something equal to gas we need to keep doing what we're doing and start drilling more here. This isn't intimate little europe where everything is close together and there are nice trains. Literally everything is spread so far apart you have to drive. This made me laugh because today I drove 134 miles and I never even left the city. The Phoenix metro area defines sprawl. ;D To me, McCain/Palin is kind of the reverse of Bush/Cheney. McCain is the old experienced one and Palin is the up-and-coming governor. It's just interesting to watch. I'll be in Europe for much of this heavy campaign season - my prediction is that Europeans will ask me not who I'm voting for, but rather how much am I excited that Obama will be the next president since I'm guessing the media coverage of McCain is even less over there than it is here. I'm looking forward to some interesting conversations. If this thread turns into a political discussion, then let's just try and be intellectually honest. Carlton, McCain's energy plan is far more detailed than "drill drill drill" and he repeatedly articulates his desire to develop as many alternative energies as possible. He's also repeatedly made it quite clear why he voted against Bush's tax cut and it wasn't because it was a tax cut - he voted against the fact that it was a tax-cut combined with large amounts of unnecessary spending. McCain's alternative bill (which wasn't enacted) was also a tax-cut, but it also reigned in spending. So while he didn't get what he wanted in the spending department, he is still in favor of the tax-cut that occurred and that's why you'll hear him today in favor of keeping them permanent. Muckle, Obama is a media-loving grand-stander (come on...a Greek temple set for your speech? Really?) but he's done a bit more than just claim he's not George W. Bush. He's fully articulated his desire to take money from oil company profits and give it to the general public, he's fully articulated his desire to give a tax-cut to his definition of 'middle-class' Americans by massively raising taxes on the rich and corporations, and he's been very specific on the fact that he's biased against constitutionalist judges. My advice to anyone is to listen to the speeches, but especially watch the debates and then turn off the radio/TV immediately after they're done speaking and decide for yourself what you thought of the candidates' speeches/comments without a 'commentator' telling you how to think. As I've done this, I find that both candidates are severely lacking when it comes to explaining just how it is they plan to pay for all the things they're talking about. Whoever's details have fewer devils, that's who should be President. -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 1, 2008 17:33:42 GMT -8
The latest rumor is that Sarah Palin is covering for her teenage daughter, the real mother of her baby with Down's. I give this one about two or three days more of life, before we see a video bio of her (with pictures) hospitalized and carrying this child in her arms at the convention. If this thread turns into a political discussion, then let's just try and be intellectually honest. Carlton, McCain's energy plan is far more detailed than "drill drill drill" and he repeatedly articulates his desire to develop as many alternative energies as possible. He's also repeatedly made it quite clear why he voted against Bush's tax cut and it wasn't because it was a tax cut - he voted against the fact that it was a tax-cut combined with large amounts of unnecessary spending. McCain's alternative bill (which wasn't enacted) was also a tax-cut, but it also reigned in spending. So while he didn't get what he wanted in the spending department, he is still in favor of the tax-cut that occurred and that's why you'll hear him today in favor of keeping them permanent. Reminds me of the people who get all smug and call McCain a hypocrite because he talked at the place where Martin Luther King was shot and yet he voted against MLK day. Yeah, maybe he secretly hates black people and is just now pandering to them or maybe he voted against yet another federal holiday because it's a waste of money and that's exactly why conservatives vote against such things, not deep-rooted racism? Bush owes China more than anyone can imagine. I believe the next president will do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Sept 2, 2008 8:57:29 GMT -8
Honestly, I learn more about this election from you guys than I do from CNN.
|
|
|
Post by Southall on Sept 2, 2008 9:46:01 GMT -8
I think Bristol Palin is probably the finest name any human being has ever had.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Sept 2, 2008 10:11:52 GMT -8
Better than Carl Shutt? Inconceivable!
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 2, 2008 11:50:54 GMT -8
The latest rumor is that Sarah Palin is covering for her teenage daughter, the real mother of her baby with Down's. I give this one about two or three days more of life, before we see a video bio of her (with pictures) hospitalized and carrying this child in her arms at the convention. Rumor dead. Her daughter is pregnant, though. Her 17-year-old didn't make much use of that abstinence only education, I gather.
|
|