Personally, I can't wait for Tuesday to come so the adds can finally replace the political lies they call politics.
EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot TV is evil
Last edited:
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
The Official American Election 2008 Thread
- Thread starter The_Panda
- Start date
- Status
Personally, I can't wait for Tuesday to come so the adds can finally replace the political lies they call politics.
EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot TV is evil
FusionSonicX
It's Lil' Kim, ho!
+1 -insertencharactershere-
I don't really get the whole "Obama is a socialist" argument. If you refer to his tax plan, "spreading the wealth around" is something that taxes pretty much are by definition; if Obama is a socialist because of his tax plan then by all means Milton Friedman, the greatest champion of the free market, is a socialist too. And what about the bailout plan, so ardently supported by both candidates? And was it not McCain who proposed an additional three hundred billion dollars of tax payer money to buy up bad mortgages? If THAT isn't "spreading the wealth around" I don't know what is. Quite simply this election McCain has sadly abandoned the free market principles of his predecessors: there is no way anyone can logically call Obama socialist without having to admit McCain is too.
I feel you are a little misinformed. The liberals have constantly tried to fend of McCain's accusation by tying him to the very thing he's accusing Obama of. It doesn't quite work. First off the thing you forgot to mention about Obama's tax plan, is that while he claims 95% of Americans get a break, 40 % don't even pay federal income taxes. Therefore they get a check. Free money. You can call it whatever you want, but that seems far more socialistic than anything McCain has done. Second, government intervention in hard times does not amount to socialism. FDR made programs during WW2 to help try and breath life into the economy, and here we are now with the bail out plan. The false assumption you seem to be making here is that anything opposite of laissez faire is socialism. I would also like to remind you that the bail out plan is a single act to help lift a hard economic situation, while an entire tax plan is not, and is certianly for a longer term. No, taxes are not by definition "spreading the wealth around" but your point is irrelevant considering Obama was obviously speaking in a "take from the rich and give to the poor" context" which is certianly not what taxes are by definition. So no, your argument doesn't really fly.
Socialism from my understanding is government control over the economy and central planning which almost always is accompanied by "take from the rich and give to the poor". The measures that are being passed now are pretty much the closest America has ever been to socialism: the nationalisation of the financial industry. While I realise this is not supposed to be a permanent situation, it still amounts to socialism; a perverse system is being run and will be run under either candidate where we have private gains but public losses (by the way this is the long term impact of the bailout plan). And taxes whether you like it or not ARE almost always "take from the rich and give to the poor": the rich especially in a country like America pay a very large proportion of the taxes, and they benefit off it less than other people do: the rich do not require things such as Medicare/Medicaid, often send their children to private schools, will not have to rely off Medicare payments, et cetera. There already is a welfare system as well, which from my knowledge McCain supports. And also let's face it the fact that there are lower taxes on the poor is effectively "spreading the wealth" around too: it's not giving them money directly but indirectly as they have more money that stays in their pockets. To maintain a functioning society for both the rich and the poor it definitely is necessary to "spread the wealth around" if you want to put it that way; I don't want to defend Obama's tax plan but there's nothing particularly socialist about it and if there were every leader's tax plan would be socialist. And may I say though there is definitely a socialist cloud hanging over the election however for the McCain camp to complain about it is very hypocritical.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
yeah i have to agree with panda. i'm really sick of people tossing that word around. of course, you can criticize his plan all you want, but there's a difference between 'i dont like it' and 'it's socialism'.
it spreads wealth just as much as any other plan any other republican supports; it's just a higher degree... but not THAT high.
it spreads wealth just as much as any other plan any other republican supports; it's just a higher degree... but not THAT high.
The difference is that the taxes that are being taken from the rich don't directly land in the pockets of the poor. There's a difference between taxing to fund government projects and as opposed to taxing so you can give the people beneath a headstart. Yes I understand what you mean by saying that all tax plans are socialist in nature to a degree, but you have to compare and contrast. It's literally a case of who's more socialist than who. You can't accuse McCain of being overly hypocritical for supporting the bailout plan, when it's a single case. When your friend burn down a house, does he turn and critisize you for lighting a match? I wouldn't think so. If you admit that there is already a welfare system I'd bank that you would assume one is enough.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
not according to your party base it isnt. they're literally calling HIM socialist. they're not saying 'he's more socialist!'
That's because I don't think the McCain campaign really cares about verbal discrepencies.
Ugh the board server is down for me most of Yesterday and I come back to this.
Welcome to Presidential Politics, everyone attacks their opponent.
Umm Obama IS vastly inexperienced for the job.
The poll numbers have nothing to do with the Ads, and I would love to see where you get those numbers or what you determine is a lie. Because Obama has been telling some pretty good lies in his ads as well.
Well lets see, there was the line from Obama's own Running Mate about how his own inexperience would cause other nations to test him. There is Obama's stupidity on many issues, including as seen yesterday on Coal. There is Obama's inexperience that will cause him to have several stumbles during his first year of the Presidency. Should I go on?
Obama also wasn't in the Senate to vote for those wars, nor was he privy to National Security Reports during that time. If he was, and represented a entire state instead of the most Liberal Suburbs in Illinois, then make no mistake, his vote for the Iraq war would have been different.
Meanwhile the Ohio Coal Association has called Obama a Disaster: "Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it."
Alot of the swing states that McCain needs to win are Coal states. Obama could have lost those states with his dumb *** comment on Coal.
Welcome to Presidential Politics, everyone attacks their opponent.
Umm Obama IS vastly inexperienced for the job.
The poll numbers have nothing to do with the Ads, and I would love to see where you get those numbers or what you determine is a lie. Because Obama has been telling some pretty good lies in his ads as well.
Well lets see, there was the line from Obama's own Running Mate about how his own inexperience would cause other nations to test him. There is Obama's stupidity on many issues, including as seen yesterday on Coal. There is Obama's inexperience that will cause him to have several stumbles during his first year of the Presidency. Should I go on?
Obama also wasn't in the Senate to vote for those wars, nor was he privy to National Security Reports during that time. If he was, and represented a entire state instead of the most Liberal Suburbs in Illinois, then make no mistake, his vote for the Iraq war would have been different.
Meanwhile the Ohio Coal Association has called Obama a Disaster: "Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it."
Alot of the swing states that McCain needs to win are Coal states. Obama could have lost those states with his dumb *** comment on Coal.
Last edited:
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
So she got pranked. (a damn funny prank I might add) but the notion that because she fell for this makes her a less qaulified VP, is ridiculously stupid. Look at it the opposite way. If she suspected that it was a prank and called BS on the whole thing, and it turned out to be real president of France, and that he was just being an ass, the blunder would be much greater. She didn't even seem upset either. She was a good sport and knew someone pulled a fast one on her. Nothing that should influence anyone's vote.
Wow....i just skimmed over it and it was okay...I mean it's a prank.
empoleon1720 said:
I am sick and tired of change. How persay?? I really don't know. Even when Bill O' Reilly interviewed Obama he lied. And really? Talking about the other canditate is bad?? It's politics. And inexperianced is Offensive?? OMG THE LIBERALS ARE OFFENSIVE TO SARAH PALIN BECAUSE THEY ARE SAYING SHES INEXPERICANCED!! I mean come on. And 60% show me the data?? Hm?? I mean really....
And going to war more than McCain is well true...technically..atleast in the next 3 years. But if we pull out of Iraq Al Quada will just go back in and then we will have another war. And the ads....well were did you get those facts..to me they sound like something you just made up. So show me and then I'll believe it...but the same thing could be said about Obama's ads.
And here's something interesting....about the taxes....
Obama said "250,000" and under get their taxes cut? But then he says 200,000. Then Biden says 150,000. Then Bill Richardson says...120,000.
So what is it?
And a big thing is that many independents have there mind already made up but arn't saying it to the pollster's. Most are for McCain. So I mean I don't trust these polls.
We'll see.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
it just makes you think, would obama, mccain, or biden have fallen for any of that?
randomspot555
Well-Known Member
If they aren't saying, then how the hell do you know?
Usually, independents aren't really that independent at all.
1/3 of independents usually vote Republican. Another 1/3 usually vote Democrat. So really, only 1/3 of independents are really independent. You can even tell who the non-independent independents really are, just by the way they talk. If someone goes around talking about the "Nancy Pelosi affect", it's a good chance they're voting McCain (this was in an article in my local paper today). If another is railing against the religious right, it's a safe bet to say they're voting Obama.
That pretty much means 5/6 of the electorate has already made up their minds, probably even before the candidates are nominated. Any sociology 101 class will show that people tend to turn out pretty much like their parents, as far as politics, religion, and cultural crap like that goes.
Obama said 200,000 once. And while the other guys are...well, Democrats, they aren't Obama. What they say about Obama's policy is pretty irrelevant. I'm not going to fault a McCain supporter or a Cynthis McKinney supporter for not citing the exact policy on [issue here] correctly. That being said, it's incredibly unlikely either candidate's actual tax plan will get passed as is anyway, even if Obama wins and the Dems expand their majorities.
Last edited:
Biden would have, and he would have probably talked the guy's ear off to the point they would have begged for him to hang up. Obama might have before his trip to Europe.
Either way Obama's Grandmother just died, and that means he probably have just won the election. The sympathy vote is a powerful thing, and it may over ride the Self Preservation Vote in the Coal states.
Last edited:
randomspot555
Well-Known Member
I've never heard of a sympathy vote. I've heard of sympathy purchase. Famous person dies, and their product flies off the shelf. But unless his grandmother put out a tell-all book, I don't see her death affecting much in the big-picture.
I'm breaking my boycott of the debate forum out of curiosity for any possible reactions to the recent "Palin Prank," as well as the fact I've grown tired of this whole process.
So an Alaskan governor on a Presidential ticker not knowing the name of Canada's Prime Minister and that Quebec doesn't have a Prime Minister is somehow still qualified?
Both sides have made some really dumb mistakes throughout this campaign, but I'm McCain's pick of Palin is starting to look like the biggest "gaffe" of them all. Not that he would be guaranteed otherwise -- public perception of the two parties are going to lean towards the Democrats after the past eight years and the current economic situation, correct or not -- but I'm not seeing how she helped his chances.
And that blunder would be on the President of France.
Question: are Obama's current plans in conflict with the wishes of the Iraqi government? I'm genuinely curious to know.
Biden and Obama don't know who the Prime Minister of Canada is, as well as whether Quebec has a Prime Minister or not?
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Otherwise this just feels like a cop-out excuse, much in the same way that Democrats will likely say that the mythical Bradley Effect will have cost Obama the election should he lose.
So an Alaskan governor on a Presidential ticker not knowing the name of Canada's Prime Minister and that Quebec doesn't have a Prime Minister is somehow still qualified?
Both sides have made some really dumb mistakes throughout this campaign, but I'm McCain's pick of Palin is starting to look like the biggest "gaffe" of them all. Not that he would be guaranteed otherwise -- public perception of the two parties are going to lean towards the Democrats after the past eight years and the current economic situation, correct or not -- but I'm not seeing how she helped his chances.
And that blunder would be on the President of France.
Question: are Obama's current plans in conflict with the wishes of the Iraqi government? I'm genuinely curious to know.
Biden and Obama don't know who the Prime Minister of Canada is, as well as whether Quebec has a Prime Minister or not?
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Otherwise this just feels like a cop-out excuse, much in the same way that Democrats will likely say that the mythical Bradley Effect will have cost Obama the election should he lose.
Well in two days of shocks, here is another one, a new Troopergate report has been released, clearing Palin of any wrong doing. The report is from Independent Council that was hired to examine the complaints against Palin. His findings.
- There is no cause to believe Palin violated the state ethics law in deciding to dismiss Monegan as public safety commissioner.
- There is no cause to believe Palin violated the state ethics law in connection with Wooten.
- There is no cause to believe any other state official violated the ethics act.
- There's no basis to conduct a hearing to "address reputational harm," as requested by Monegan.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/577323.html
On the spot? Probably not, Biden is a toss up on possibly knowing or not. Obama I wouldn't believe would due to his lack of international experience.
Well A: We will see tomorrow if the Bradley effect is real or not. B: I could just see some Independents who right now could lean either way, could lean toward Obama because they feel bad for him. God knows there are worse ways for people to decide who they want to vote for.
- There is no cause to believe Palin violated the state ethics law in deciding to dismiss Monegan as public safety commissioner.
- There is no cause to believe Palin violated the state ethics law in connection with Wooten.
- There is no cause to believe any other state official violated the ethics act.
- There's no basis to conduct a hearing to "address reputational harm," as requested by Monegan.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/577323.html
HellKorn said:
On the spot? Probably not, Biden is a toss up on possibly knowing or not. Obama I wouldn't believe would due to his lack of international experience.
HellKorn said:
Well A: We will see tomorrow if the Bradley effect is real or not. B: I could just see some Independents who right now could lean either way, could lean toward Obama because they feel bad for him. God knows there are worse ways for people to decide who they want to vote for.
Terra's Revenge
Active Member
Thank god for you HellKorn, because McCain dislikers on these forums need an intelligent person to argue for the rest of them who know why they hate McCain but don't know any really points to argue on.
- Status