Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
But paying through taxation insures that everyone gets the same and equal access to those essential services.
But some people don't need it. And why should they get services they don't pay for. It's a strain on the economy...and parasitical on people that actually earn money.
Oh, and IT IS STEALING!!!
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
But paying through taxation insures that everyone gets the same and equal access to those essential services.
an adult with no child does not have the same access to education as those with a child
an adult without physical or mental problems does not have the same access to institutions designed to treat these people
boys do not have the same access to girls sports leagues as girls do to traditional leagues
equal access, is by definition, impossible.
Originally posted by Strangelove
National polls don't mean shit. It's the electoral college that matters, as 2000 taught us.FiveThirtyEight.com currently has the Electoral college prediction at Obama 279.6 to McCain's 258.4
Mm-hm. And this is based on what exactly?
Reading that map, they're giving Co (still a toss-up in polls), IA, and NM to Barack on the map.
And while it's true that some polls in all those states are close, they aren't leaning heavily to Obama.
And Bush won all 3 states in 2004.
If McCain continues to do well in the debates like he did at Saddleback, and if Obama doesn't step his game up, I don't see McCain losing NM, CO, and IA. (states that went GOP last time)
Now Obama may win, and as a McCain supporter I'm not ignorant of that fact. I've stated as much on these boards before.
But it's foolishness to say that Obama "has it in the bag" like XYZ does, or even to assume at this point that Obama will sweep all these GOP states.
You ignore the daily polls saying that they don't matter, but even today after the announcement of Biden, Gallup still has a tie of 45% each among registered voters asked if the election was today who they'd pick. And I looked into it, they do call cell phone users along with land-line users. (Backfire had brought up a good point about not calling cell phone users/young people/Obama supporters and it skewing the numbers a bit)
And again, I'll admit that Obama may win. It's going to be close. But he's got a lot of work to do.
For Obama supporters to dismiss McCain and think that empty rhetoric with little experience is going to get him the presidency in a landslide is truly, an audacity of hope. ( I made that up. 🙂 )
Originally posted by sithsaber408I do not trust Gallup poll, or any nationwide poll.
Mm-hm. And this is based on what exactly?Reading that map, they're giving Co (still a toss-up in polls), IA, and NM to Barack on the map.
And while it's true that some polls in all those states are close, they aren't leaning heavily to Obama.
And Bush won all 3 states in 2004.
If McCain continues to do well in the debates like he did at Saddleback, and if Obama doesn't step his game up, I don't see McCain losing NM, CO, and IA. (states that went GOP last time)
Now Obama may win, and as a McCain supporter I'm not ignorant of that fact. I've stated as much on these boards before.
But it's foolishness to say that Obama "has it in the bag" like XYZ does, or even to assume at this point that Obama will sweep all these GOP states.
You ignore the daily polls saying that they don't matter, but even today after the announcement of Biden, Gallup still has a tie of 45% each among registered voters asked if the election was today who they'd pick. And I looked into it, they do call cell phone users along with land-line users. (Backfire had brought up a good point about not calling cell phone users/young people/Obama supporters and it skewing the numbers a bit)
And again, I'll admit that Obama may win. It's going to be close. But he's got a lot of work to do.
For Obama supporters to dismiss McCain and think that empty rhetoric with little experience is going to get him the presidency in a landslide is truly, an audacity of hope. ( I made that up. 🙂 )
NM and Iowa are leaning Obama, and I don't remember Iowa ever going for McCain, NM on the other hand, McCain has bean lucky enough to only tie with Obama or have a 1% lead.
Obama has 50 state wide campaign, Obama has way more campaign funds than McCain, and more people are realising FOX is full of shit.
Obama has a slight lead, and in retrospective, this is a downfall, in June, he was leading in VA, IN, OH, NC, SC, MI, AR, NV, MT, FL and even AZ as well as all the states he's leading in now. A 50 state campaign and with a good debator like Biden could turn those states back to Obama. He has this in the bag.
Originally posted by sithsaber408The fact that NM, IA and CO all went for Bush in 2004 means nothing. Less than nothing, in fact. Gore won both IA and NM in 2000, and Kerry outperformed Gore in CO in 2004. Bush beat Kerry in NM by only 6,000 votes, and IA by less than 10,000. Things change from election to election, in case you didn't know.
Mm-hm. And this is based on what exactly?Reading that map, they're giving Co (still a toss-up in polls), IA, and NM to Barack on the map.
And while it's true that some polls in all those states are close, they aren't leaning heavily to Obama.
And Bush won all 3 states in 2004.
If McCain continues to do well in the debates like he did at Saddleback, and if Obama doesn't step his game up, I don't see McCain losing NM, CO, and IA. (states that went GOP last time)
Now Obama may win, and as a McCain supporter I'm not ignorant of that fact. I've stated as much on these boards before.
But it's foolishness to say that Obama "has it in the bag" like XYZ does, or even to assume at this point that Obama will sweep all these GOP states.
You ignore the daily polls saying that they don't matter, but even today after the announcement of Biden, Gallup still has a tie of 45% each among registered voters asked if the election was today who they'd pick. And I looked into it, they do call cell phone users along with land-line users. (Backfire had brought up a good point about not calling cell phone users/young people/Obama supporters and it skewing the numbers a bit)
And again, I'll admit that Obama may win. It's going to be close. But he's got a lot of work to do.
For Obama supporters to dismiss McCain and think that empty rhetoric with little experience is going to get him the presidency in a landslide is truly, an audacity of hope. ( I made that up. 🙂 )
As for Saddleback, a) it wasn't a debate, it was a forum, and b) McCain was in friendly territory, of course it looked like he "won". Lines like "life begins at conception" may work with your crowd, but they hurt with independents, and the country as a whole, which has much more liberal views on social issues than Fox News would have you believe. Once Obama and McCain get into actual debating, I think the halting speech of Czechoslovakia-still-exists McCain will be too easy for Obama to win.
You put too much stock in national polls. As before, 2000 showed us that a President can still be elected despite a majority of Americans going in the other direction. It's state-by-state polls that matter, and if you want to look at those, there is no better website than 538.com. It takes all recent state polls, and then weights the results by the reliability of the polling agency, and then averages them together, giving you the best possible predictor of the state's orientation at the time. You may not like the results, but it's better than anything a national poll like Gallup will give you.
Originally posted by KidRock
Biden is a little RIAA whore..**** him if he thinks he can prosecute me for stealing music online.n April, he proposed spending $1 billion in U.S. tax dollars so police can monitor peer-to-peer networks for illegal activity.
Really? 1 billion dollars to track down people downloading songs? That 1 billion dollars can't be spent else ware (in before IT WILL COME FROM THE ENDLESS SUPPLY OF MONEY THAT WILL RAIN FROM THE SKY WHEN WE LEAVE IRAQ!)?
Yeah. Crazy guy, him. Thinking we should get people in trouble for doing something illegal.
You realize it's not just music he's thinking about, right? It wasn't even the basis of his idea. The basis was tracking down people downloading and uploading child pornography on P2P networks.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Mm-hm. And this is based on what exactly?Reading that map, they're giving Co (still a toss-up in polls), IA, and NM to Barack on the map.
And while it's true that some polls in all those states are close, they aren't leaning heavily to Obama.
And Bush won all 3 states in 2004.
If McCain continues to do well in the debates like he did at Saddleback, and if Obama doesn't step his game up, I don't see McCain losing NM, CO, and IA. (states that went GOP last time)
Now Obama may win, and as a McCain supporter I'm not ignorant of that fact. I've stated as much on these boards before.
But it's foolishness to say that Obama "has it in the bag" like XYZ does, or even to assume at this point that Obama will sweep all these GOP states.
You ignore the daily polls saying that they don't matter, but even today after the announcement of Biden, Gallup still has a tie of 45% each among registered voters asked if the election was today who they'd pick. And I looked into it, they do call cell phone users along with land-line users. (Backfire had brought up a good point about not calling cell phone users/young people/Obama supporters and it skewing the numbers a bit)
And again, I'll admit that Obama may win. It's going to be close. But he's got a lot of work to do.
For Obama supporters to dismiss McCain and think that empty rhetoric with little experience is going to get him the presidency in a landslide is truly, an audacity of hope. ( I made that up. 🙂 )
1. It's obvious that they're basing this on how the states currently stand - hence why it's a prediction.
2. The Saddleback wasn't a debate, it was not comparable to a debate in any shape, let's make that perfectly clear. No one was sitting there challenging McCain immediately after he spoke, as Obama will do in the real debates. The real debates also won't inherently favor McCain as the Saddleback discussion did by taking place in an obviously conservative place.
Originally posted by Strangelove
The fact that NM, IA and CO all went for Bush in 2004 means nothing. Less than nothing, in fact. Gore won both IA and NM in 2000, and Kerry outperformed Gore in CO in 2004. Bush beat Kerry in NM by only 6,000 votes, and IA by less than 10,000. Things change from election to election, in case you didn't know.As for Saddleback, a) it wasn't a debate, it was a forum, and b) McCain was in friendly territory, of course it looked like he "won". Lines like "life begins at conception" may work with your crowd, but they hurt with independents, and the country as a whole, which has much more liberal views on social issues than Fox News would have you believe. Once Obama and McCain get into actual debating, I think the halting speech of Czechoslovakia-still-exists McCain will be too easy for Obama to win.
You put too much stock in national polls. As before, 2000 showed us that a President can still be elected despite a majority of Americans going in the other direction. It's state-by-state polls that matter, and if you want to look at those, there is no better website than 538.com. It takes all recent state polls, and then weights the results by the reliability of the polling agency, and then averages them together, giving you the best possible predictor of the state's orientation at the time. You may not like the results, but it's better than anything a national poll like Gallup will give you.
I agree with all that you said which is that essentially it comes down to state by state, but my point is that other than the "normal Dem" states (CA, MA, NY, etc..) you can't call any of those swing states for Obama yet and say it's "in the bag". What it is truly is "in play", and the game is still being played and Obama isn't winning. It's a tie at this point, and he's doing worse the last week or so. He may get some of the states he needs and be president, or he may not. It's close at this point and McCain is doing well. That's all I'm saying. You don't have to acknowledge it, but Obama isn't the second coming who's riding into washington on his bubble cloud of dreams and "change" that will win the election in a landslide. It will be close, either way.
Two points:
1.) Everybody said McCain "won" Saddleback, including most major media outlets and tons of liberal blogsites. It doesn't mean that he'll win the election (or the upcoming debates for that matter) but be honest now, he had a far better showing at the forum (which wasn't a debate, that's correct) than Obama did.
2.) You're foolish if you think it's only hardcore conservatives and christians that are pro-life. There are plenty of anti-abortion independents and even some pro-life, conservative democrats. (see Harold Ford Jr for example, who was ready to vote for the amendment to keep marriage between man and wife, and who supports abortion restrictions and calls himself pro life)
It's not as black and white as you think it is, with only old white people or christians supporting McCain, and "everybody else" (read: young, cool, educated, or reasonable people) supporting Obama.
Originally posted by BackFireYou're right, it wasn't a debate. But lets not give Obama a pass. The questions were fair, and other than the life issue and the marriage issue (which would come up in ANY debate anyway), most were about the men and how they perceive themselves and the world. Conservative venue or not, Obama had a fair chance and did well.2. The Saddleback wasn't a debate, it was not comparable to a debate in any shape, let's make that perfectly clear. No one was sitting there challenging McCain immediately after he spoke, as Obama will do in the real debates. The real debates also won't inherently favor McCain as the Saddleback discussion did by taking place in an obviously conservative place.
But McCain was better.
Originally posted by BackFire
No one is giving Obama a pass. Just rejecting the idea that because McCain did well during the Saddleback discussion that that somehow means he'll automatically do well in debates.
Fair enough.
But in turn, because McCain did well during the Saddleback discussion you should reject the idea that he'll automatically do poorly in the debates. (which is what everbody thought before Saddleback)
Originally posted by sithsaber408There's a difference between being pro-life and thinking that life begins at conception. You're confusing pro-life and anti-choice.
2.) You're foolish if you think it's only hardcore conservatives and christians that are pro-life. There are plenty of anti-abortion independents and even some pro-life, conservative democrats. (see Harold Ford Jr for example, who was ready to vote for the amendment to keep marriage between man and wife, and who supports abortion restrictions and calls himself pro life)