Originally posted by lord xyz
Or, we could continue the Bush policy (like McCain wants) put an absolute out of touch inexperience fool in charge of the economy who'll most likely give tax cuts to the rich, (which is what Bush did).
Sorry, what is Barack Obamas experience in Economics? What degrees does he hold? How is he not a complete fool as well? What has Obama done for the economy?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonYou ****ing moron. You know who has the most wish to manipulate you? The actual nominees in a ****ing debate. You are such an unintelligent person it's mind boggling.
However, everything you just said was told to you by people who want to manipulate you. I suggest you don't believe any of it until you see a live debate. With today's technology you cannot believe what you see on the news.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Must you always dodge and talk about Obama whenever someone attacks McCain?
Originally posted by KidRock
We are currently losing tons of jobs to outsourcing overseas.How do we solve this and keep businesses from leaving? Keep their costs low here in the states?
Sounds like it could work..or we can raise the corporate tax so its costs more.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm
[B]These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.
The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion. [/B]
Originally posted by lord xyz
Or, we could continue the Bush policy (like McCain wants) put an absolute out of touch inexperience fool in charge of the economy who'll most likely give tax cuts to the rich, (which is what Bush did).
You mean like you just did?
Originally posted by KidRockYou pick him over Obama, that must account for something.
Why would I defend a candidate I don't like?
Originally posted by KidRock
Must you always dodge and talk about McCain whenever someone attacks Obama?
Originally posted by lord xyz
I have still defended Obama in the past.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Let me ask you a question: Am I a Palin supporter?
I wouldn't suppose...
I'll contend you sound a lot like an appologist for some things she is known to have supported through things as simple as signing them into law and claiming support for them.
I understand that you are trying to keep an open mind, but I personally don't find it "objective" to disregard anything but X.
lol, I'd agree that the media is jumping all over itself to bash palin, and I largely think that was half the reason she was chosen (the other half being to shore up the fundamentalist support that McCain can't). That doesn't mean that her policies and beliefs, as she has expressed them and as her record in government show, do not represent an authoritarian step backwards in everything from women's rights to cleptocracy.
Originally posted by lord xyz
That documentary was broadcasted on television, and I believe it. Humans, although causing global warming, cause hardly any significant change.
that is your perogative. That position, however, is not in line with any significant scientific body on the planet, has less predictive power than anthropogenic models, and has largely had evidence provided against it, with very little to support it.
The documentary is largely full of holes, misquotes, and (at this point) lies. It is propoganda, much like Al Gore's film, and the scientific community would consider neither of them valid in any experimental or predictive way.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Or, we could continue the Bush policy (like McCain wants) put an absolute out of touch inexperience fool in charge of the economy who'll most likely give tax cuts to the rich, (which is what Bush did).
actually, that isn't 100% accurate. Bush put the former head of Goldman-Sachs (iirc) in charge of the economy after he ran the company into the ground.
In more ways it is like the wolf guarding the hen house than it is an inexperienced boob.
Originally posted by lord xyz
You'd rather your money spent on killing Iraqis than healing Americans?
Ill believe Obama will end the war in Iraq within 2 years of him being in office when I see it. I would believe him if he actually had experience to back up the promises that he makes..but alas he doesnt.
Fact is thats too bad there are poor people that cant afford health care they desperately need but cant afford..but it is not the time to put even more strain on the economy and add even more debt. Sure people will get their health care paid for by the rich..but the economy will be in complete shit like it is right now, if not worse. When was the last time we tried to take care of everybody using taxes? Social Security? Thats in a wonderful state right now.
Never mind the countless numbers of people such as drug dealers, crackheads, gang members and criminals who put no money into the system, yet rape it for all it has by having to use its resources excessively.
Originally posted by KidRock
Ill believe Obama will end the war in Iraq within 2 years of him being in office when I see it. I would believe him if he actually had experience to back up the promises that he makes..but alas he doesnt.
lol, for some rare agreement:
Former head of the CIA's Bin Laeden unit, Michael Scheuer, says he cannot see a situation where either Obama or McCain will end the war within the next 4 years.
I'm totally in agreement with both of you. Obama doesn't want the war in Iraq to end. He has said publicly that the contract mercenaries will stay even if he brings the government troops home.
lol, if that isn't pro-privitization, I don't know what is.
(actually, Obama on this issue vs McCain on the economy... its like the leftist is a extreme free marketer in the stupidest of sectors, and the conservative wants to socialize high risk investment.... God america sucks)
Originally posted by inimalist
I wouldn't suppose...
I had the feeling that you believed I did support her because I was not bashing her. The truth is that I am not a supporter of anyone. This maybe a difficult position for some people to understand, but it is my position.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'll contend you sound a lot like an appologist for some things she is known to have supported through things as simple as signing them into law and claiming support for them.
See, you don’t get it. Just because I don’t believe that you know any of the facts, does not mean they are true or false. Do not take this personally; it is not your fault. All I am saying is that the real truth is being hidden from you and I.
Originally posted by inimalist
I understand that you are trying to keep an open mind, but I personally don't find it "objective" to disregard anything but X.
There is no one telling the truth. The truth is out there, but there is so much political flack in the air that the truth is obscured. I simply don’t trust any interviewer, and will place my judgment on the live debate. Is this perfect? No.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I'd agree that the media is jumping all over itself to bash palin, and I largely think that was half the reason she was chosen (the other half being to shore up the fundamentalist support that McCain can't). That doesn't mean that her policies and beliefs, as she has expressed them and as her record in government show, do not represent an authoritarian step backwards in everything from women's rights to cleptocracy.
Again, I don’t think you know that. It maybe true, but there is no one to trust. I want to see something live that can’t be changed on the cutting room floor. This is my opinion, so please refrain from insults. That will only convince me that I am right.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I had the feeling that you believed I did support her because I was not bashing her. The truth is that I am not a supporter of anyone. This maybe a difficult position for some people to understand, but it is my position.
alright. I think people might have a problem understanding you disregarding anything reported independently, and trusting the specific rhetoric of the people trying to get your vote, but sure, that can be your position.
however, being deliberatly uninformed, imho, is not as good as being informed.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
See, you don’t get it. Just because I don’t believe that you know any of the facts, does not mean they are true or false. Do not take this personally; it is not your fault. All I am saying is that the real truth is being hidden from you and I.There is no one telling the truth. The truth is out there, but there is so much political flack in the air that the truth is obscured. I simply don’t trust any interviewer, and will place my judgment on the live debate. Is this perfect? No.
Again, I don’t think you know that. It maybe true, but there is no one to trust. I want to see something live that can’t be changed on the cutting room floor.
i feel post-modernism is a cop-out in real philosophy, obviously I don't feel it plays very well in politics
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is my opinion, so please refrain from insults. That will only convince me that I am right.
I've been pretty civil...
Originally posted by inimalistI'll look into it.
I wouldn't suppose...I'll contend you sound a lot like an appologist for some things she is known to have supported through things as simple as signing them into law and claiming support for them.
I understand that you are trying to keep an open mind, but I personally don't find it "objective" to disregard anything but X.
lol, I'd agree that the media is jumping all over itself to bash palin, and I largely think that was half the reason she was chosen (the other half being to shore up the fundamentalist support that McCain can't). That doesn't mean that her policies and beliefs, as she has expressed them and as her record in government show, do not represent an authoritarian step backwards in everything from women's rights to cleptocracy.
that is your perogative. That position, however, is not in line with any significant scientific body on the planet, has less predictive power than anthropogenic models, and has largely had evidence provided against it, with very little to support it.
The documentary is largely full of holes, misquotes, and (at this point) lies. It is propoganda, much like Al Gore's film, and the scientific community would consider neither of them valid in any experimental or predictive way.
actually, that isn't 100% accurate. Bush put the former head of Goldman-Sachs (iirc) in charge of the economy after he ran the company into the ground.
In more ways it is like the wolf guarding the hen house than it is an inexperienced boob.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you watch Obama with Bill O'reilly? IMO Bill made Obama look like an ass. My point is that a skilled interviewer can make anyone look like an ass, and it as no barring on reality.
Obama never once showed that he didn't know an answer or looked ignorant, regardless of him being an "ass", whatever that means. Palin looked dumb when answering questions, literally stupid. And these questions weren't 'gotcha' questions as you seem to be blindly buying into. They were simple questions like "what newspapers do you read?" and "name a supreme court decision besides Roe V Wade that you disagree with". She just rambled on and looked pathetic. Biden was asked the same question and, holy shit, he was able to give a coherent answer. But you've not watched the interviews with her (but mysteriously decided to view the O'Reilly/Obama interview).
Besides, O'Reilly is good at making people look like an ass, he makes himself look like one daily.
Originally posted by inimalist
alright. I think people might have a problem understanding you disregarding anything reported independently, and trusting the specific rhetoric of the people trying to get your vote, but sure, that can be your position.however, being deliberatly uninformed, imho, is not as good as being informed.
i feel post-modernism is a cop-out in real philosophy, obviously I don't feel it plays very well in politics
This is why I don’t do well in political debates.
Originally posted by inimalist
I've been pretty civil...
Too many people jump to insults on this forum, so forgive me for being preemptive.
Originally posted by BackFire
Obama never once showed that he didn't know an answer or looked ignorant, regardless of him being an "ass", whatever that means. Palin looked dumb when answering questions, literally stupid. And these questions weren't 'gotcha' questions as you seem to be blindly buying into. They were simple questions like "what newspapers do you read?" and "name a supreme court decision besides Roe V Wade that you disagree with". She just rambled on and looked pathetic. Biden was asked the same question and, holy shit, he was able to give a coherent answer. But you've not watched the interviews with her (but mysteriously decided to view the O'Reilly/Obama interview).Besides, O'Reilly is good at making people look like an ass, he makes himself look like one daily.
Not according to all the people at work. They are all Republicans and can show you clips on the Internet that make Obama look like an ass. However, that was not my point.