U.S. Presidential Election 2008

So now compromise is OK? Nice 180° turn there TT. As much as you would prefer not to admit it, McCain does have a history of working with Democrats, e.g., McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill (which never passed), the Gang of Fourteen. Of course, it's easy to claim McCain is divisive, but such a weak and unsubstantiated claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As for this bizarre claim of Obama "receiving bipartisan support" I don't know of many examples were his voting record as a legislator would chime with that, and the current parity in the polls in the presidential race doesn't support any sort of claim that large numbers of Republicans support Barry O.

The rabid Obama supporters here on TT, with their cultish and lavish praise for Obama, mixed with demagogic statements about his opponent, continue to provide more evidence for the notion that Obama's campaign is a cult of personality and that some Obama supporters are delusional.


Yes, that's nice, KK; however, you ignore the issue I raised- namely, that you were dead wrong with your claim that he hasn't compromised; furthermore, the letter is complaining to Obama that he has moved away from positions the letter signatories support! Of course, the letter writer (being a delegate to the national convention) is not going to suggest or say that Obama will lose!


Not noble at all- review posts 1432 and 1437. The thing he was "defending" you against was a comment made to him.

Is there something wrong with wanting a new face in Washington? someone young that has never been investigated for some corrupt charges, someone different, and yes I mean Black, Chinese, Perubian, etc etc. is there somethign wrong with that? What's wrong with wanting new ideas, what's wrong with hoping for some change? Are you not tired of big Corporations running the goverment? If the US is to be a goverment by the people and for the people (and yes this means immigrants and pets too), I think is time we try with someone new. Keyword here is try, because they all blow smoke up our a$$es, and do something different after being elected. My thing is this, we gotta gamble one way or the other, why not gamble on someone new, someone less currupt because he has not been in DC long enough to be fully corrupted.

The way I see the american situation, is that most voters have become apathetic towards politicians. they always say one thing to get the crown, and do another once they have it.

Obama's the only dude in recent times who truly offers (or at leasts speaks of) a drastic alternative. It strikes a chord with people. So they say, on that principle alone it's worth giving him a shot. I agree with that. All of the major things he hopes to achieve sound pretty damn good. They sound like things other major western countries have in place.

Now you can have the Conquistadors of the world try to play him down, but I think people are afraid that Obama sounds too good to be true, or are so indoctrinated in republicanism that they no longer hear anything else.

Conquistador or others, can you explain why someone should vote for McCain, without mentioning Obama's name once? (You shouldn't build a platform by tearing down another's - your quality should stand on its own, or else you are simply petty.) How are his policies going to help the American people? I just don't see how McCain can possibly be a better choice.

I don't agree with Firelane. On paper there is separation between church and state. But in practice, no way. Do you think a person running for president could possibly win, if he were to come out and say "I'm an atheist, but really, that has nothing to do with my job, and should not be seen as important. I have good ethics, and behave in a morally acceptable way."

or even "I'm a muslim, but that has nothing to do with how I would govern."

Has anyone here seen the documentary "Jesus Camp"? Quite interesting how they indoctrinate children into the neo-con republican voting sect that is fundamentalist christianity in the US. They had these poor brainwashed kids praying to a cardboard cutout of George W Bush... come on people. These people swing the result. Election campaigns are simply a propaganda war, and those posters who like to quote statistics from american sources like they strengthen their argument are equally laughable.

I put it in another post and nobody replied. Is there any american news organisation that is actually considered reliable and relatively unbiased?

Jesus Camp thread

Funny how you find a way to single me out, when this thread is littered with a large number of examples of KK continuously "tearing down" McCain, and usually without a wisp of substantiation. Yet you have nothing to say to her. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

I have already made it clear that I am not a supporter of McCain (nor am I one of Obama) however, time permitting, I will answer these questions. In all fairness, someone who is a supporter of McCain would be better placed to answer them.

When considering for whom to vote, you really need to do due diligence (as best you can) and sometimes the result is that someone's policy or performance in office becomes so disqualifying (e.g., Jimmy Carter in 1980) that you know you cannot vote for that person even after considering their candidacy with an open mind. For some voters in this election, this sort of analysis would rule out McCain, for others, it rules out Obama.

Here are some recent Rasmussen poll results:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll

It's surprising that the polls are so close. The media (over here) gives the impression that the outcome is almost a foregone conclusion.

It isn't really that close. However, it ain't over till its over and so we can't let up until its over.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

@Conquistador - Dude you know you are amongst the most outspoken here, you know you're the one who believes you're always right, so why not ask you? You're the one who constantly tells people they don't know how to argue, don't know how to present their opinion properly by backing it up with (likely dubious) facts. So, smarty pants, I put you in the spotlight you want, and now ask why I'm singling you out? I singled you out cuz you'll butt in anyway. Call it efficiency, call it what you want, I just don't understand why somebody would prefer McCain over Obama, and why McCain supporters don't seem to even want to hear Obama's message. They find ways to kill its validity without giving it a chance, which to me indicates what I said - fear that it's too good to be true. that's why they call his experience into question.

Experience doesn't mean much after you have a president like Bush. If that guy can be president, then anybody can. I'd rather vote for the guy with the better ideals, the higher hopes, the better dream for America, and how it CAN be. If you think universal healthcare, elimination of the influence of lobbyists, a shift towards a green economy and the jobs it would create through funding research and development, amongst other things, are a good direction for america to move in, then i think Obama's the clear choice.

I've yet to see McCain present anything desirable, and he seems to cater to the old school folk of: be afraid, turn the US into a bigger police state, and keep the general "us and them" mentality.

No, I can't back that up. But how do I have that impression then? Did I conjure it out of midair, or is this common knowledge?

Just a suggestion- I would take anything from a pro-Obama site such as the one cited by eurovol with a grain of salt. Rassmussen is an independent pollster, and yes, I noticed that he currently shows an electoral college advantage for Obama. It is, however, dishonest, to suggest the election is not currently a close one.

horseshoe, much as you, as an Obama supporter, would like to make this about me, it's not. You have your impressions and assumptions, and you readily admit you cannot back them up because they are merely perceptions or hopes. For example, Obama isn't going to chase the lobbyists out- they are an omnipresent problem. Believe what you wish, but you are taking a lot on faith and don't have anything to support it but your own dreams and wishes which you, like many others, have projected onto Obama (not that he has done anything to dispel the cult of personality surrounding him).

dude, make this about you?? i couldn't give a feck about you, sorry. I just asked your thoughts as you seem to like you set yourself up as an authority around here.

i like Obama, but i can't vote for him. I'm canadian - I don't need to know all the issues, but speaking as a normal dude off the street, I'm pretty sure people vote on instinct. Instinct tells me Obama's got better ideas and would more easily have my vote.

Maybe people like to get caught up in the details, but truth be told, who's got the better message? I say Obama. I say he's worth giving a shot at the title. You think the guy works alone? He's got advisers. He doesn't do any legwork personally - he's the great delegator of tasks, final decision maker, and the face of the nation. The president I mean. So it's his message that matters. Or am I completely wrong?

.
Just a suggestion- I wouldn't take anything from a rabid-antagonist who misrepresents any and everything from others that do not agree with him.




What does this prove? Conkers is bonkers and is banned by parents in the UK.!!!

The rubbish you posted yesterday (which got moderated) and, to a lesser degree, what you posted a few posts ago belie your statement, but it's not relevant to the topic of this thread so let's move on. Yes, I haven't forgotten that you are Canadian- I recall the anti-American rubbish you once posted on another thread.

I have no problem with you supporting Obama, but I do think Obama supporters who present him as some perfect messianic figure need to be honest with themselves and admit that he is a politican just like the rest of them. If someone says, hey, I am voting for him because his policy proposals benefit me personally, I can certainly understand that, but let's not pretend he is more than what he is (you did show some realism above in admitting he does not work alone).

OK, eurovol, a view of that website doesn't lend much support for any claim of even-handedness. BTW, whose state polls? Furthemore, the real misrepresentation, as I have pointed out time and tiem again, has continually come from Obama supporters (especially KK and eurovol). Not once, AFAIK, has eurovol ever backed up his claim of his posts "getting twisted". At any rate, misunderstandings can occur from time to time.

BTW, eurovol, when the electoralvote.com site links directly to the follwing site, any claim of non-partisanship is greatly weakened:

http://www.votefromabroad.org/about.php?ad...VC9990000092001

Those that vote on issues may see differences between the two.


Forgot:
Govt run Health care OK --- Free market health care OK
Judges make laws OK ------Constructionist judges OK

As for other "nebulous" issues that are not necessarily as substantive regarding BHO:

Is he overly pro-Muslim? His father was Muslim. His step-brother is Muslim. His (former) church has ties to nation of Islam. “In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school� “I studied the Koran..� “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.�

Is he really Christian? His (former) church espouses black-liberation theology, not traditional Christianity unity. Who can forget “God damn America!� What church is he a member of now?

Does he support US troops? He did not visit wounded troops. He did not support the surge, rather he wanted (wants) to withdraw in defeat.

Does he love his country? He does not always wear a flag pin, thinking it disingenuous. “The truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security,�

Is he experienced? He has never authored any significant legislation although his name was attached to a few bills in Illinois. He has no military or executive experience.

Is he prepared? He sometimes appears unpolished in unprepared interviews. He flip-flopped on the surge, eavesdropping, campaign financing, rapist execution, oil drilling... Why no town-hall debates or open questions?

Does he dislike white people? “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites� “There was something about him that made me wary,� Obama wrote. “A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white�

I admit, I was taken by him at first. His charisma is impressive. But being president is not just about charisma. Also, like Conq, I am not a huge fan of McCain either.

Funny how somewhere between a half dozen and a dozen others claim you twisted their words on more than one occasion. That seems to occur quite often when you are involved. As for not backing myself up, case in point the electoral vote website. It states plainly what it is and how its calculates things and you can even download all the data yourself, but does Conky respect that? NO!!! He immediately labels it in his denigrating terms and insults the poster and posting of it. Just a typical day in Conky's World.

Just another demonization from Conkers as expected. Voter registration is by law nonpartisan and having a site sponsored by Dems Abroad that makes voter registration easy doesn't make voter registration partisan. That site, like many others, is available to all US Citizens residing abroad regardless of party affiliation. Sounds like Conkers just doesn't want US Citizens living abroad to vote.

Hmm, let's see everyone who has made that claim (and I doubt it is as many as you claim) is a leftist supporter of Obama who has been debunked by me at least once- perhaps they saw you posting that and decided that it was the best option they had since whatever they had posted got debunked. I think even you would agree that there are various ways to interpret most matters/issues. As I see it, you are saying that if I don't agree with you on the facts or I interpret something differently than you, your words are "twisted", which is rubbish. For all I know, some Obama supporters on TT coordinate their responses. Anything else with regards to "twisting" besides the weak electoral vote website claim of yours, eurovol?

With regards to your claim of "twisting" I am certainly entitled to my opinion of the website you posted, and linking to a Democrats Abroad owned- and operated-website doesn't fit any reasonable person's definition of non-partisan. Furthermore, what I said is that I would take what the site posted about polling results with a grain of salt- which is clearly my opinion (and even eurovol must admit I am entitled to my opinion).

As for insults, the ones directed at me by Obama supporters are legion. But eurovol has no problem with that and indulges in them himself. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

Anyway, enough with this eurovol rubbish, let's move on...

My concern wasn't about voter registration per se, but let me ask you this, do you tell people that you are with Democrats Abroad when you try to get them to register? Why does Democrats Abroad run votefromabroad.org, where one finds the following:


That excerpt doesn't seem nonpartisan to me, eurovol.

And, once again, that doesn't explain why electoral vote links to vote from abroad, a site run by Democrats Abroad.


What was that about "twisting"? You just did it right there. You have no evidence to back up this vile claim, which is utterly false. It's pathetic.

Conquistador, you should become a politician because you are certainly a master of deflection. Doesn't it ever occur to you that you write to win, and not to discuss? Eurovol doesn't need to back up her claims that you twist words around. You do. Just get over it. You do it. Accept it. If you are even capable of reading your own tone of writing, you would understand how much of a megalomaniac you sound like. If so many people have got this impression from you, then what? they're all conjuring shit out of mid-air just to gang up on you?!

People get on this board to put their opinion forth, but somehow you deem yourself the authority to declare rubbish. A lot of what you say is rubbish, but because you can quote some (possibly dubious) website, you feel you are correct.

You are quite clever in setting up this farce called a debate in such a way where one can't get their point across. All people who disagree with you are Obama supporters, for example.

My "rubbish" got moderated yesterday because it was off topic and a direct attack because I grow tired of your "know-it-all" approach to these forums. Doesn't make the content any less valid, and you'd also know that people started replying to that in agreement before those posts were also moderated. (By whom? A friend of yours?)

I'd be surprised if this wasn't moderated as well.

This is a grey area. Voter registration at the relevant locale is by law nonpartisan, but when partisan entities collect the registration forms, things can clearly get "lost in the mail."

I had a personal experience when I was at a street fair in New York years and years ago. I was approached by a group of supporters for a Democratic candidate who were also handing out voter registration forms, which jogged my memory that I hadn't registered to vote since recently moving there. I filled out the form, but noticed there was no sealed envelope to put it in, and they said "that's okay, we file them all together in a bunch anyway", so I just handed them the form. I had checked the "Independent" party afiliation. I thanked them, walked down the street a bit and turned around to see then laughing, ripping it up and throwing it in the trash can, probably because they figured it wouldn't help their cause (one must be party-registered to vote in primaries).

I guess if I'd have checked "Republican" they would have doused me in gasoline and set me on fire!

I diasgree with this analysis, but this appears to be the term you're groping for.

If it's so many people (I note you accepted fellow male Obama supporter eurovol's numerical claim without any proof) why don't you name all of them so we can see who they are and why they may have made that claim? You'll see they are all Obama supporters. And, yes, eurovol does need to back up his claims since not all of us accept stuff blindly like you do.


If I feel something is rubbish, I have every right to say it is- it's not a violation of TT forum rules, and I also almost always say why I think it's rubbish. Do you think no one else says what someone else posts is rubbish? If so, you need to wake up. If you think something I post is rubbish, feel free to say so, and I will feel free to debunk you. As for posting from dubious websites, I usually am at pains to post from MSM sources- what sources would you consider dubious? I guess that's just another unsubstantiated claim on your part. BTW, you might want to have a look at the sources KK uses a lot of the time since you are all hyped on the quality of sources. But again, where you are concerned, my observation is that the rules are different for Obamaites.


This is a twist for the ages. It is Obama supporters such as yourself that attack me on this thread- can you find an example of someone who attacked me but is not an Obama supporter (and thus outraged at any criticism of their hero)? I challenge you to present a single example of a person not being able to get their point across "because of me". It's a ridiculous claim- may I say it's rubbish?


I think you are a bit paranoid if you believe "a friend of mine" moderated that rubbish you posted. I saw no case where someone agreed with you, BTW, as you claim, but no matter. If you can't follow forum rules, that's your fault.

This happens on both sides of the aisle. Both parties have bad eggs. No need to list them, they have issues on both sides.

The thing that has bothered me is the repeated claims of voter fraud recently. When a republican wins, someone was disinfranchised (Ohio and Florida). When Clinton won, I don't recall any accusations of fraud from the losing side. Reminds me of this thread in a way...

Florida was definitely a problem due to ballot design and a Republican SOS and the fact that Jews did not vote for Buchanan and no one is going to convince me they did.
Ohio had some statistical anomalies associated with black box voting, but I am not convinced of wholesale fraud.

As for Clinton, the Republicans cried fraud all the way to Perot! They were absolutely furious that Clinton didn't receive a majority of the vote and they themselves shut the fuck up when Bushy boy didn't even win the popular vote in 2000.


Those people were pigs and you should have turned them into the voting authorities and notified the candidate of what his/her surrogates were up to.

Since no one's really stepped forward, I'll do my best to explain why I'm voting for Senator McCain in November:

I describe myself as fiscally conservative, socially moderate, but for me the economy and foreign policy are the deciding factors of my vote. After doing my research, reading the news daily for years, I feel the Republican Party platform is the best for helping the American people. The issues that seem to me to be the most important for the US's immediate and distant future - lower taxes, less government involvement (e.g. private social security accounts, private healthcare), free trade, a strong dollar, lower gasoline prices, a democratic Iraq, and keeping the US as a superpower - are the policies I look for in a candidate. Seven months ago I didn't vote for McCain, and he's still not my ideal candidate; a conservative friend of mine has spent over a year trying to convince me that he is the best candidate. But his politics line up more with mine than any Democratic candidate did this year. Yes, he has flip-flopped on some issues - tax cuts being one area that particularly frightens me and makes me nervous he'll pull a George H.W. Bush, and I wish he'd be more outspoken about our need for domestic oil drilling - but in other areas he's been steadfast for years, such as the Iraq war. I agreed with his push for the surge, and now that it looks like we've reached victory, I agree that any troop withdrawals must be based on progress, not time. I'll admit, I'm nervous about McCain's economics policies, so I'm hoping that he chooses a great VP running mate. But I at least know that if he wants to retain any support from the Republican party, he'll have to follow relatively conservative economics, which coincide with my idea of a good economic policy. Also, I think his extensive experience in congress is an important factor because he's had to deal with numerous issues over the years. I applaud his efforts to eliminate ear-marks to effectively eliminate the lobbyists' influence, particularly since President Bush failed to keep spending down during his 8 years. And after reading about his policies over the years, I don't think 2009-2013 will be another term of Bush.

If those reasons aren't good enough, let me know and I'll elaborate further on why I support the Republican agenda and, therefore, the Republican candidate. Of course, I would gladly write an extensive post on why I will not vote for Barack Obama, but the "rabid Obama supporters" don't seem to be interested in reading those posts. Incidentally, I find it interesting that people are so touchy about voting "against" a candidate, when 4 years ago Senator Kerry was heralded as the "anti-Bush."

The Truth about Obama's Faith Fact is he attended a Muslim school because the region is .. well Muslim. If I move to a Protestant town and I'm Catholic, logic goes that the schools I'd attend will be run by Protestants and religion classes will teach Protestant idology. Doesn't mean I'm going to storm Rome and throw the Pope out. Also, read his book before you take media snippets and hold it as truth. The full context of the message is available and you will notice the meaning change.


Are People Listening?


Case In Point: How The Bush/McCain Machine Propagandize "You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren't for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn't be able to visit Iraq. Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine."


If you base a man's patrotic heart on the cost of a dollar store flag pin, then yes, I suppose I should buy one to show I'm trully patriotic. It's sad that my fellow Americans feel such a gesture is needed, IMO. On National Security


Article As per Gen. Wesley Clark's remark "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" isn't "a qualification to be president." and this .. "Obama's had good judgment throughout his entire elected career". It's that good judgement that people want to see alter the direction of the Americas.


Candidiates will stick with what works for them. "McCain's top advisers acknowledge the town halls are far from perfect. But they agree that the forums are best-suited for a candidate who cannot match Obama's oratory or fundraising clout."


What? The man's 50% white and 50% black. Please inform yourself about the struggles of raising biracial children, raising them in two racially charged worlds and instilling confidence and self-esteem.Just One article, but there are thousands available online and in bookstores

Higher public debt (doubled with every Republican Prez since the 60's), more restrictive "family values" laws (code word for Saturday sinner Sunday repenter Christian values), trade that does not benefit the working man (corporate paybacks), weak dollar (helps exports), 4 dollars a gallon, yeah that is going well, and of course no Democrat wants that.

The only real thing you have in your list that is Republican is the private SS accounts and no public healthcare. Not very socially moderate if you ask me and as for the rest well the Republicans haven't towed their own platform line as far back as I can remember. Hell, they couldn't even keep their Contract with America promises.

I respect your reasons, I just respectfully disagree with the theory and reality of it all.

Disclaimer: I am a true Progressive (not a liberal) and I want fiscal responsibility, social justice and compassion that is not bottled in a catch-phrase.

There's nothing wrong with it at all. And you'd be right about that ...

I disagree with Conquistador's point of view much more often than I agree with it, but maybe HS7 and others can explain to me how a person simply defending his position, often backed up with links, is a "know-it-all"? How else is he supposed to present his opinions other than with the confidence he feels?

I was one of the only defenders of Hillary Clinton on the primaries thread, more because I was suspicious of Obama than supportive of her, and I got ripped to shreds, even though my thoughts were mostly anything but original and unique.

Let's debate the issues and not attack well-informed members who don't agree with us.

I don't think any fiscally conservative person wants any of the items you listed above (possibly with the exception of the "family values," but that's where I define myself to be "socially moderate," i.e. in the domain concerning abortion, death penalty, affirmative action, LGBT rights, etc.). I know I should use my own words to describe my positions, but I think it would be easier to clarify the ideas of a fiscal conservative by quoting the "About Us" blurb of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page:



Ditto.

Not even Obama would claim that his judgement has been good throughout his (mostly undistinguished) legislative career- remember his admission of "a boneheaded decision" with regards to his business dealings with Rezko? He was also wrong about the surge (I'll admit I was too- I thought when first proposed that it was a bad idea). That's just off the top of my head...


Obama is a poor extemporaneous speaker, so let's not build him up to be ten feet tall. I don't see what fundraising has to do with debates, and furthermore, for all of his fundraising prowess, the race is still competitive.

KK, you better watch out. Horseshoe will almost certainly ding you for posting links, and for using a dubious source. Then again, he probably won't since you are an Obama supporter.

eurovol, although the Republicans were certainly angry that Perot ran in 1992 (and possibly in 1996, although he may have hurt Clinton more that year) I have never heard that they claimed any fraud in connection with either election or Perot's candidacy. What in the world are you talking about? It's more analogous instead to the Democrats view of Nader in 2000. As for Republicans making an issue of Clinton receiving less than 50% of the vote and Democrats making an issue of Bush losing the popular vote in 2000, so what? Of course party partisans are going to seize on things like that.

That's my point. Nobody can seem to debate an issue without getting a brow-beating from Conquistador. It's down to math - nobody is right 100% of the time. "Except Conquistador". That's the source of my whinging.

He has a convenient way of always saying his sources of information are correct, but yours aren't. How do you get through to someone like that? Debating is only interesting if the possibility exists to actually convince somebody of something. But with him, it's simply not possible. That's why he gets on my nerves. It's no longer a discussion - it's a twisted lesson on "reality", given to you whether you like it or not, by Conquistador. What's worse is that I can't seem to remember him making a single humble statement on this entire board, to the effect of "perhaps I've got that wrong and should reconsider my point". It's only "I'm right and you're wrong". And when you try to provide some source (as eurovol has done above), he calls bullshit - not a trustworthy source. So that's an impossibly stubborn and narrow minded person we're talking about and he tries to pass himself off as "in the know". I just find it frustrating, because there are people on this board with generally interesting ideas, with constructive style of writing, who get too frustrated to bother, because as soon as they put their valid viewpoint out there, you get the brow-beating: "where's your proof? you don't know anything you Obamaite. etc. etc. "

I refuse to believe that any one person knows it all, all the time, as such I call his posts into question. If he did, he'd also know it's sometimes wiser to let another person win. That's what I'm saying here. I just find it interesting. I don't know any of you. Even if I have read many many posts. Conquistador could in fact be a good guy to go have a beer with. On the other hand, based on his writing, I think he's just a guy who needs some way to feel better about himself (by feeling superior to you).

I don't personally buy into all of these points, I really just wanted to put them out there. Some people in the US may see these as significant issues and therefore may not vote for BHO. I am more inclined to worry about security and the economy, so that usually makes my decision for me.

I don't have time or desire to read his books. And I have read the entire passages on scopes. The man obviously is not the traditional WASP we generally get as Americans, for better or worse.


He went to a church for many years that spouted hateful rhetoric. This calls his judgement into question as well as his personal leanings on the teachings of "black liberation theology".


Why is Joe's comment silly? Things may have gone much worse without the surge. I personally think the Iraqi people finally got tired of the BS and shut it down, nothing to do with surge or our presence, but that is an opinion. Causation is not correllation, but in this case you can argue it rationally. You can play what-if scenarios all day, but history dictates facts and you must draw your own conclusions.


It was more how he blamed people for false patriotism. That bothers me.

But 20 years in the senate may be a a qualification. Being a war hero is sufficient to get you elected. Military service also give people some insight into your background/convictions/attitude. Doing cocaine and going to ivy leage schools may not connect you to US everyman. Or maybe it does?


Good fundraising does not qualify you for being president, although it certainly helps.


Old schoolers would say any black is black. This also plays into the New Yorker satire cover, which some people buy into as reality. And I think confidence and self-esteem are important for all kids.

I also think BHO will be easy to swiftboat. Something will hit and stick. Maybe Redzko, Ayers, church, wife, something. Of course, the same could happen to McCain. Ex-wife? Lobbyist lover? Who knows?

Again, some of this is devil's advocate, honestly.

So I know, so I agree. And we don't even have to have like-minded thoughts on political policy, I just happen to agree with your version of this poster because it is in fact true. Notice the tendency to argue 'word for every word' so in fact, whatever you say...there is ALWAYS an answer back.

I challenge anyone to find so much as a single instance on a political thread where Obama supporters eurovol, KK, and Kat EVER admitted being wrong. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

How about it, horseshoe? Surely your rules apply to them as well?

Anyhow, if anyone wants to see an interesting example of horseshoe's posting in action (warning, it's an anti-American post) take a gander at this:

http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum/index...p;#entry1213648

Thanks for your post. I find for me the clear dividing line is universal healthcare. I've always found it strange that when you have an accident, an unplanned for problem, etc. you first have to worry not about if you can survive / will be ok, but whether you can PAY to survive/be ok. Makes any individual a bit more money-hungry, no?

May I ask why the US being a superpower is so important? How do you define superpower? Does the world need domination and not cooperation? American interests can be preserved without having to rule the world.

If being a superpower alienates the US, is that ok for you?

I would wager the american dollar could have been strong if not for the last round of republicans. I would argue a lot of america's social problems may be related to republican policies (no references, but were they not responsible for HMO's and privatized healthcare screwing Joe Blow because he had a pre-existing condition?)

True enough ... I certainly don't have all the answers, but sometimes you have to do what just feels right. For me, it's women's rights, the economy, the war and healthcare...to name a few. And I have found McCain lacking in these areas, so I will not vote for him.

Could someone please explain how a windfall profits tax is supposed to work?

I mean - if everyone hates me because I hold a monopoly and make a profit on a particular product, in this case oil. Then how would taxing my business work? Remember, I'm supposed to have a monopoly, so wouldn't I just pass this tax onto my customers? My shareholders would be pretty pissed off if I ate this cost.

With refineries in the US currently running at capacity (87-89%) what exactly are they supposed to do with the oil released from the SPR? I haven't seen any news stories about a shortage of crude for refineries. As a side note - How does the US government purchase this crude? Is it FIFO, LIFO, average cost? Did they purchase it at $140 a barrel and will they sell it at the current cash price of 120$ a barrel?

That would be 70 million barrels X $20 a barrel = a $1.4 Billion loss to US tax payers.

I can't vote for McCain because he hates my profession and unions. But I just can't understand some of Obama's positions.

@Conquistador. Nice deflection. I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about you. What I think about them has nothing to do with you. I merely tried to point out a few things, on the topic of you. Not the others. And my point was, I don't think I've ever written anything by you where you've been able to say something humbly, which suggests to me you put on these big fronts, and deflect attacks, because you don't want to look yourself in the mirror. What do I know? This is a random messaging board, with semi-random people on it. You may in fact be a decent person to go drink a beer with. But on the info I have to go on, that's how I see it.

There you go again. Trying to deflect and defend. I must be getting to you now if you have to go quoting me from ages past, so to bring these words as they stand into disrepute. Well done. You never will look in that mirror will you? I guess you don't need to, you've got all your defences in place.

That's no excuse for hypocrisy. If you are going to make unsubstantiated complaints about one person that apply to others, is it just to single out one person with whom you have political disagreements while giving a free pass to those with whom you agree on political issues? No. Fair is fair- if something is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it and if you are going to attack one person for it, make sure you attack all individuals for doing it. You keep posting personal attacks in violation of TT rules, so you are in the wrong.

BTW, I can guarantee you that you, horseshoe, have never "written anything by me". ;)Furthermore, the fact that you keep posting personal attacks on me proves you were full of rubbish earlier today when you posted this: "dude, make this about you?? i couldn't give a feck about you, sorry." It's you that decided to try to make this thread about me, as your posts show.

it didn't say these people have a free pass. there you go warping things again... and warping again - when i said that (above, from you) it wasn't about you. it has since become that way because you refuse to listen, and I refuse to give up trying to get you to listen. but now it's near the end of the workday, so now I do give up trying.

But man, you gotta realize how you others' warp words and then treat them as statements directly from them.

But that is exactly what Conky does (the latter, not the former). As for you being torn to shreds, other than one person that shall remain nameless that was particularly personally insulting to you, the only thing that was "attacked" were the facts you were basing your decision upon (more attacking of Hillary's statements and positions than you personally). Hillary talked a good game, but her votes in the Senate belied her rhetoric. Personally, I am still not satisfied with her lack of attempts to bring her supporters over to Obama. The PUMA people are particularly troubling.

There are a lot of reasons to vote for or against someone and many are very valid. Saying I want to vote for this person because I simply like this person is just as valid as voting for someone for in depth analysis of their positions and judging what their future moves might be. Its politics. Its half beauty contest, half popularity contest and half policy stances. If that doesn't add up, well it is politics after all now isn't it?

Conky likes to denigrate the messenger as much if not more than the message. That is where the difference in a good debate lies. Let us talk issues and leave the junk at home. My father was a politician, a State Legislature. I know for a fact what experience that brings to the table. I respect that experience and believe in some ways it is far more important that Congressional experience. I like the fact that Obama took on major and divisive issues and went the extra mile to bring both sides together for a responsible outcome. I liked that he proposed health care that wasn't mandatory from the gitgo and took a lesson from Howard Dean's experiences in the same realm in Vermont. My father also worked on health care issues and I think the strategy Obama is using is brilliant.

I am not gonna to like everything Obama does 100% (unlike the Conky's of the world so want you to believe) and I don't expect him to do everything that I would do. No one can be all things to all people! I do however think he is going to be a negotiator and not just a haggler. Simply haggling to the middle was what Bill Clinton did and why I was disappointed in him. Especially since he started haggling from a point that gave to much for haggling purposes. In negotiating, giving to the other side isn't giving in. This is where I think Obama's experiences in a State Legislature will play a pivotal role.

I also think that America as a superpower and leader of the free world cannot simply elect anyone-but-Bush and expect redemption. A lot of damage has been done and it will take more than electing an enabler with less than alternative views to even begin to repair that damage. Our fellow citizens back home really don't have a clue and giving in to their uneducated fears and prejudices is not the way into the future. That is just more of the McSame!

Any answers to my oil question?

You don't have to officially declare that they have a free pass to actually give them one- is that too difficult to understand? I challenge you to criticize them for doing the same things you have accused me of doing. But you won't.

eurovol, you have probably attacked me over a hundred times, so, at a mimimum, your claim is hypocritical (as usual).

Come on. The election is still a few months away. We don't have to go negative yet.

they haven't given me a reason to go after them. they write reasonably in my view. you simply berate people and tell them they're wrong, even if they may not be wrong. it's your black-white writing style, with no regard for grey that irks me.

i've personally never been attacked by those people in the way you claim, so how could I say anything against them? i don't have the personal experience of it.

If I had time right now, which I don't (feierabend), I might look into it. But what I have to say about them, and to them, has nothing to do with what I have said about you, to you. 2 separate issues. You just don't want to listen. Fine.

Guten Abend.

It's so nice to come back from holiday and catch up with relevant discussion regarding the election.

Having read some of your posts describing your views of the US government, I think we can agree that it hasn't done a great job so far of regulating the social programs it has created over the years. And I simply don't trust politicians, most of whom have never studied medicine and are constantly courting special interest groups, to decide what healthcare is best for me, my family, my neighbors, and friends. People should be able to make their own decisions with health insurance that gives the same options to "Average Joe" as it does to large firms. And I agree that healthcare is too expensive in the states, but there are other ways of lowering prices than giving more control to the government, such as malpractice reform. Or eliminating the "lawsuit" culture that plagues the US.


I would like the US to remain a superpower so that it can maintain its influence in the world. I agree with the US's founding ideas of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and would like a country that supports such ideals to be a key player in world politics/economics. For all the bad things that have come out of the US stepping out into the world, a lot more good things have come as well (and I would count the liberation of the Iraqi people as one of them). The US long ago (ca. World War I) lost its ability to sit idly by and stay out of international affairs, so I think it needs to remain in a position of power and influence so that it can step in when it needs to. International cooperation is great, but incredibly idealistic and often not the most efficient means of solving a problem (note the UN's ability to disarm Iran). In terms of alienation, how the world feels towards the US is in constant ebb and flow (much like the economy), and while I admit anti-American sentiment is extremely frustrating to deal with, this isn't a popularity contest.


I would also agree that the US dollar could have been stronger if not for President Bush's ridiculous dollar policy. But in the areas where Bush has diverged from fiscal conservatism, I think McCain may have more sense.

And I would argue that a lot of America's social problems are related to Democrat policies (e.g. social security and how it's turning into yet another poorly run welfare program).

They have done the very things you have accused me of doing. Yet you won't criticize your fellow Obama supporters for doing them. If what I have done is so unreasonable, surely it is also unreasonable when Obama supporters do it. Furthermore, there is a process for reporting posts that violate TT policy, rather than hijacking a thread simply to engage in hypocritical personal attacks on another TTer.


Ah, then perhaps you need to open your eyes a bit. Once again, if what they are doing is wrong, why not criticize them? To whom it is directed is irrelevant, right? You aren't the only person on TT, right?

You attacked me personally yesterday right out of the blue when we had had no exchange whatsoever on this thread, so please don't try to falsely claim to be some victim. That's pathetic. When you began attacking me, you cited alleged behavior towards others, not towards you. So much for the "personal experience" angle.


Once again, if you want to be hypocritical, just close your eyes, but if you want to be even-handed, you need to do a bit of investigating with an open mind. And no, given your single-minded focus on yourself and me, no, I don't have to listen to someone who ignores evidence that contradicts what he posts attacking me and hypocritically refuses to criticize others for things he goes nuts on me for allegedly doing.