Can someone explain to me why anyone wants to vote for McCain/Palin?

[Momentum57]

I think that people need to remember that foreign policy is based on mutual benefit rather than emotional response from the general population.

[watisdis]

Now that we've heard from the McCain side...

Can someone explain to me why anyone wants to vote for Obama/Biden?

^Someone should start that thread with the following stipulations: You can't name Bush, the word "change", or race in your answer. The answers will be full of lulz.

Cut the bullshit people, give me some substance.

[Hidden_Hunter]

Originally Posted by Seasonone

I know a lot of you seem to have some sort of ego problem, but pleasing Europe is FAAAAR down on my list of important qualities, and well I feel sorry for anybody who thinks that way.

"who cares what he does here, as long as he can smooth talk the foreigners"

pretty much my thoughts, why would I care what somebody 10,000km away thinks if it sucks to live here?

[Momentum57]

Originally Posted by watisdis

Now that we've heard from the McCain side...

Can someone explain to me why anyone wants to vote for Obama/Biden?

^Someone should start that thread with the following stipulations: You can't name Bush, the word "change", or race in your answer. The answers will be full of lulz.

Cut the bullshit people, give me some substance.

They also might not want to use Obama Speeches: Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Census figures show that the average family income went down $348. Census figures show that the median for all families increased $272 under Bush.

[Hidden_Hunter]

Originally Posted by Momentum57

They also might not want to use Obama Speeches: Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Census figures show that the average family income went down $348. Census figures show that the median for all families increased $272 under Bush.

oh god, not "working familes" that's all our government says.

blah blah blah "working familes" blah blah blah "working familes"

Seriously i've heard that phrase a million times

[Scott]

I thought I heard something on the news this week about total personal income dropping 2 or 3 thousand dollars in Bush's second term. I know that these types of stats are VERY easy to manipulate, so I took it with a grain of salt, but that seemed kind of odd to me.

I know that my mutual fund is down this year, but not by much. I also know that it will not take that long to bounce back and I don't plan on using it for several years anyway!

[psdf]

Is there a program like the Daily Show or the Colbert Report but for conservatives? You know, making jokes and satire about the liberals.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by psdf

Is there a program like the Daily Show or the Colbert Report but for conservatives? You know, making jokes and satire about the liberals.

I assume you mean Republicans, conservatives have been pushed out of the party by NeoCons. FOX attempted one but it failed miserably. The thing about those two shows is that they tend to make fun of everyone no matter the agenda. Yes Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are lefties, but they have no problem making fun of Hillary or Obama. I would call those shows pretty agnostic in that regard.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by psdf

Is there a program like the Daily Show or the Colbert Report but for conservatives? You know, making jokes and satire about the liberals.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewit, Mike McConnell, Laura Ingram, Michael Savage, and many other talk radio hosts.

On TV you have Hannity's America, and Glenn Beck. I am sure there is at least one more that I am not recalling.

I like watching Stewart and Colbert, they are funny. I also watch Real Time with Bill Maher because most of the time the discussion panel is very good.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by Scott

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewit, Mike McConnell, Laura Ingram, Michael Savage, and many other talk radio hosts.

On TV you have Hannity's America, and Glenn Beck. I am sure there is at least one more that I am not recalling.

Bill O'Reilly? Keep telling yourself it's satire and it can be amusing...

Originally Posted by watisdis

Now that we've heard from the McCain side...

Can someone explain to me why anyone wants to vote for Obama/Biden?

^Someone should start that thread with the following stipulations: You can't name Bush, the word "change", or race in your answer. The answers will be full of lulz.

Cut the bullshit people, give me some substance.

There weren't any "do not use" restrictions for defending McCain...

Here are potential reasons to vote Obama, not including the 'forbidden words' or the letter 'x'.



Because he supports Net Neutrality ("Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online." - Google), whereas McCain favours a 'wait and see' approach.

Because he doesn't take money from lobbyists, meaning you're not actually voting for the NRA, the Church, or whoever.

Because McCain would cut money to transport services such as Amtrak.

Because of the two's respective positions on the war in Iraq.

Because he opposes torture (including waterboarding) and would close Guantanamo Bay.

Because Obama is for 'civil unions' between gay people, with all the legal rights of marriage, whereas McCain, in 2006, supported an attempt in Arizona to ban gay marriage.

Because McCain wants to overturn Roe vs Wade, and thus ban abortion.



Having said that, it's up to you to make up your mind. Both Obama and McCain and Bob Barr have a list of their positions on their websites.

[klankymen]

And because he doesn't claim that you go to hell if you use contraception....

[optimusprime]

Originally Posted by teeb

Because he supports Net Neutrality ("Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online." - Google), whereas McCain favours a 'wait and see' approach.

Because he doesn't take money from lobbyists, meaning you're not actually voting for the NRA, the Church, or whoever.

Because McCain would cut money to transport services such as Amtrak.

Because of the two's respective positions on the war in Iraq.

Because he opposes torture (including waterboarding) and would close Guantanamo Bay.

Because Obama is for 'civil unions' between gay people, with all the legal rights of marriage, whereas McCain, in 2006, supported an attempt in Arizona to ban gay marriage.

Because McCain wants to overturn Roe vs Wade, and thus ban abortion.

Opposition to 'net neutrality' is perhaps McCain's most conservative position. Just because it's called 'neutrality' doesn't mean it is inherently good. After all, increased government meddling in the free market is rarely good. And, theoretically speaking, market forces already render the net 'neutral.'

Yes, Obama does take money from lobbyists. But I wouldn't expect you to know anything but what the candidate himself says in his well-received speeches.

Yes, McCain would cut spending on Amtrak. Because, for one, it's not public transport. For two, SOOOOOooo many people travel on Amtrak.

Ah yes, Iraq. At least it can be said that McCain's position is rational, while Obama's is irrational specifically for the purposes of recruiting the far leftists.

Neither McCain nor Obama support waterboarding or torture, and it's hard to see why Guantanamo Bay is relevant.

Both Obama and McCain have explicitly stated their opposition to gay marriage, which is something you conveniently failed to mention. McCain's position simultaneously appeals to evangelicals (ew) while offering gay couples similar benefits for the purposes of taxation and health insurance etc.

I'm willing to give 20:1 odds that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned within a McCain administration. Any thoughts otherwise are baseless and irrelevant.

[LeVeL]

Originally Posted by optimusprime

But I wouldn't expect you to know anything but what the candidate himself says in his well-received speeches.

Exactly. The vast majority of people just listen to a TV speech or two and blindly believe everything they see and hear.

[Momentum57]

Originally Posted by teeb

Because he doesn't take money from lobbyists, meaning you're not actually voting for the NRA, the Church, or whoever.

What the hell is wrong with people, they bash K street with out understanding what they do. Chances are you have lobbyists and that if you did get rid of them you would get rid of your influenced. we can solve it, AARP, AAA, united we stand, from the environment to zoo's you can find a lobby. Besides they can give the same amount of money that any individual can.

Originally Posted by teeb

Because McCain would cut money to transport services such as Amtrak.

Good riddance I took Amtrak to Boston it took longer than a car and the high speed train is more expensive then jetblue. What they should do is break up Amtrak to regional carriers that ran on profit not government subsidies it would also increase light rail coverage in smaller cities.
Because of the two's respective positions on the war in Iraq.

Originally Posted by teeb

Because he opposes torture (including waterboarding) and would close Guantanamo Bay.

McCain does as well and will also close Guantanamo Bay

Originally Posted by teeb

Because Obama is for 'civil unions' between gay people, with all the legal rights of marriage, whereas McCain, in 2006, supported an attempt in Arizona to ban gay marriage.

McCain is for Civil Unions as well

Originally Posted by teeb

Because McCain wants to overturn Roe vs Wade, and thus ban abortion.

again there is subtle difference between wanting to overturn it and being able to. One there are not enough legal scholars to appoint to do it and second Republicans trot this out and never do it because its anti-libertarian anti-states rights item.

you aren't American are you? you do sound dumb enough to qualify act know and you too can vote for a loser in November

[teeb]

[quote=Momentum57;781211]

Good riddance I took Amtrak to Boston it took longer than a car and the high speed train is more expensive then jetblue. What they should do is break up Amtrak to regional carriers that ran on profit not government subsidies it would also increase light rail coverage in smaller cities.

As a Brit, trust me. Denationalisation of the train services leads to poorer services that cost more and serve fewer people.

Yes, it's bizarre that the train costs more than the plane, and something should be done, but breaking it up isn't it.

you aren't American are you? you do sound dumb enough to qualify act know and you too can vote for a loser in November

No, I'm not American. Nobody else appeared to be jumping in to defend him, though.

Yes, Obama does take money from lobbyists. But I wouldn't expect you to know anything but what the candidate himself says in his well-received speeches.

I can honestly say I've neither read nor listened to any Obama speeches.

I'll try and give a proper full reply when I'm not on a hostel PC, with other people breathing down my back to get online.

[watisdis]

Originally Posted by teeb

There weren't any "do not use" restrictions for defending McCain...

The reason there were no restrictions on picking McCain is simple. Bush, "change", and Obama's race are not substatial, logical reasons for picking a candidate. If your whole basis for voting rests upon "at least he's not that guy" or the change rhetoric Obama spews out every chance he gets, or "Hey, he's [half] black! Forget what he really stands for and the repercussions it will have on the country, let's vote for him just for that reason alone!" You see, a large portion of Obama supporters here in the US use this logic exclusively. It's the major difference between the Left and Right. Lefties tend to vote with their hearts (emotion) while righties tend to vote with their head (logic). The stipulations I put on defending Obama/Biden are used simply as a filter used to weed out all the bleeding heart lib non-sense I'm so tired of hearing. It ensures only the logical, sensible, substantial reasons through.

It worked no? Look at your post. I can certainly respect those opinions without having to deal with all the gibberish.

[tigger]

Yes, anyone who supports a 'liberal' is obviously an idiot. Fuck, you guys make my head hurt sometimes.