age

[raditz]

Since the topic has been brought up i thought i'd express my views. :) sorry raub

The argument that McCain is too old is, imo, ridiculous.

McCain just turned 72, which I believe will mean that if he does win the presidency, he will be the oldest elected president thus far. Right behind him would be Ronald Regan, believed by many, including me, to be one of the greatest presidents we've had. Regan turned 70 within his first two months in the White House. Within two months of leaving office, Ronald Regan turned 78. Regan was diagnosed with alzheimer's in 1994 and died in 2004 at the age of 93.

Both George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter are 84, and both are still very active. Bush even received media attention in April of this year when he caught a 134lb mammoth tarpon - not bad for a man over 80.

JFK was the youngest president to be elected into office at the age of 43. He was only 46 when he was tragically assassinated - only one year younger than Obama is right now.

My point is that John McCain is perfectly able to be president at 72. I doubt he'd run for a second term or even win if he did. This means that he'd only be 76 on his way out, which still wouldn't make him the oldest president we've ever had.

It's rather funny to me that people are so eager to bring up McCain's age and health, but I never hear anybody talk about Obama's health - weather he'd be fit to be president with a history of smoking and cocaine abuse.

[thecreeper]

uh, where did you hear obama had a history of smoking and cocaine abuse?

[thecreeper]

and i really don't think mccain is too old.

i just wouldn't vote for him.

[GT2000]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-admits-sm.html

The way Obama talks and points his fingers, I can definitely picture a cigarette between those fingers.

[raditz]

uh, where did you hear obama had a history of smoking and cocaine abuse?

google it, his admittance to using cocaine is all over. just one example of his terrible judgment.

[Mr Biglesworth]

Ya but how many of us here can honestly say they haven't indulged in a little nose candy once in their life?

[raublekick]

i've done cocain, i tried it, didn't like it, and never did it again. the fact that he admits it is a good thing.

there are a lot of other issues that are way more important then age and health.

[raditz]

i've done cocain, i tried it, didn't like it, and never did it again. the fact that he admits it is a good thing.

he admits it because he has to. the whole cocaine subject is just the tip of the iceberg for obama.

there are a lot of other issues that are way more important then age and health.

i agree that other issues are very important. the reason i elaborated in this issue is that i get annoyed by it. imo mccains age is just a nonsense argument intended to keep focus off of how horrible of a candidate obama is.

[Cid]

Me, post something?

Never.

[GT2000]

Yeah, this last post is a figment or our imagination...

Here's something my dad pointed me to a while back which points to Obama's shady side a bit.. his sovereignty giveaway plan...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56959

[squirrels2nuts]

Me, post something?

Never.

:chickenca

[thecreeper]

Yeah, this last post is a figment or our imagination...

Here's something my dad pointed me to a while back which points to Obama's shady side a bit.. his sovereignty giveaway plan...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56959


that site is so one sidedly against obama that it's pretty hard to take any of it seriously.

[raublekick]

here's the thing... they say it's 0.7% of our GDP. they also say it's $30 billion. that's such a small fraction of the huge amounts of money we are spending. what about iraq? we're spending way more there than we would be on that bill. helping others is good, sharing is good, making friends is good. isolating ourselves from global humanitarian issues is not good.

[Mr Biglesworth]

Yeah, I'd never take international analysis from Phyllis Schalfly. Look up her CV. And her article left me absolutely dumbfounded. Developed country leaders have been making commitments (and most of the time failing to meet them) about financing international development and poverty reduction since World War II. The 0.7% mark is a rallying call which many nations agreed to but very few are meeting. Obama is not a socialist proposing a 'sovereignty giveaway', he's demonstrating his commitment to internationalism. I don't remember the exact figure but the US's current contribution is something like 0.2 or 0.3%. I'm also speaking as someone who's worked on the receiving end of this budget, as I worked on a USAID-funded project in Kenya last year.
I can sympathize with people being startled that people would want to spend more money on development aid at a time when the economy is looking weak, but don't worry, most foreign aid dollars are tied to accomplishing domestic and foreign policy goals, and at a much cheaper price tag than any protracted military occupation!

[raditz]

that site is so one sidedly against obama that it's pretty hard to take any of it seriously.

I'd argue that, throughout this entire election, most of the media has been one sidedly FOR Obama, that it's hard to take most of it seriously. Most of the media has refused to do it's job this election year. While taking every chance to bash McCain, and especially Palin, the media has given Obama a free ride. That's part of the reason that I wasn't very shocked when you knew nothing of his smoking and cocaine use.

The fact is that Obama's ideals are dangerous for America. Obama has throughout his adult life surrounded himself by radical people who are racists, socialists, and terrorists.

This is Obama's past for 20 years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=617eK2XIaLk
You can't sit in a church for 20 years if you don't agree with your pastor.

[raublekick]

First off, socialism is much, much, much more than just "spreading the wealth"... so much more that it's fucking ridiculous that people can seriously claim he is anything close to socialist.

As for Ayers, like Obama said, he was 8 god damn years old when he did that shit. His relationship with Obama is that they served on a committee in Chicago together, along with several prominent Republicans. Are Ayers actions cause for concern? Hell yes. But you have to look at them in context. The 60's were so radical, and Vietnam was such a shit show, Watergate was such a shit show, the entire country was a shit show. You know why we went to Vietnam? Because LBJ was accused of being "soft on communism", and to bolster his re-election he pushed for action and started the war based on things that still to this day haven't been verified to have happened.

We're still living in fear of communism and socialism, but why? We aren't anywhere even close to being in that realm! We never have been!

If you want a better view of McCain at the time, read this: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

"I'm going to the Middle East," Dramesi says. "Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran."

"Why are you going to the Middle East?" McCain asks, dismissively.

"It's a place we're probably going to have some problems," Dramesi says.

"Why? Where are you going to, John?"

"Oh, I'm going to Rio."

"What the hell are you going to Rio for?"

McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.

"I got a better chance of getting laid."

[raditz]

Raub, I know you're upset because you hate Bush and you realize that Obama isn't the good guy in this race, but chill a bit :p

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism - Obama loves it.

"As for Ayers, like Obama said, he was 8 god damn years old when he did that shit"

That's nice. It doesn't change the fact that Obama was in his 30's when he met Ayers. Obama was an adult, reading Ayers books, serving on boards with him, and even launching his political campaign from Ayers home. How can Barack fight the war on terror when he's having coffee with a terrorist? To overlook this would be turning a blind eye on Obama being influenced by the radicalists he's surrounded himself with. Ayers is just one. Right now theh L.A. Times is holding onto a tape of Obama speaking about his friendship with Rashid Khalidi.

[Mr Biglesworth]

The whole Khalidi thing is bullshit. People wouldn't hesitate today to admit that they supported the anti-apartheid movement against the government of South Africa (a liberation movement which combined political action with military action), but in the USA it's the biggest taboo to support the Palestinian liberation movement today. I don't expect everyone to agree on this issue, but it's a hallmark of a totalitarian society when people are unable to voice dissent about world affairs without being labeled a terrorist. I believe in the high ideals of a free nation which you speak about raditz, but freedom is not served in such a dangerously anti-intellectual climate.

[raublekick]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism - Obama loves it.


Yeah that's pretty incomplete. Socialism is when the government runs the production AND distribution of wealth. But that's only the economic side. Even just looking at that aspect, we are nowhere close to that. Regulating and taxing corporations is a means to protect the people, not a means to pulls all corporations together to create one government run corporation. Things like federal healthcare are a means to provide a base amount of care to all people, not to destroy all competition.

Here is what I think is fundamentally wrong with the arguments against nationalized services and regulations:
1. Money is not the most important thing. Food, shelter, education, and care are much more important. What the right is doing is proposing that we put an individual's wealth as the means to get these more important things, but with a great divide between the upper, middle, and lower classes, some people get royally screwed by this. With our focus on individual wealth instead of societal wealth, our country cannot grow. If you live in a major city, you have probably seen homeless people, drug dealers, and thugs. These people are a burden on everyone, and it is in the best interest of everyone who lives in the city to see less of them. Putting more wealth in the individual will not get rid of these problems, and nor will it prevent them in the future. Creating worthwhile social programs may not get rid of them now, but with better public education and better opportunity these problems can be decreased in the long run, and that is in the best interest of everyone.

2. Corporations are not people. I don't know why everyone feels the need to defend corporate rights as the rights of an individual when it comes to taxation and regulation. Regulations protect the REAL PEOPLE who are employed by the corporations and who rely on corporate services. Deregulation only opens more opportunity for the corporate fucking-over of the small guy. How many "Joe Sixpacks" got screwed over by Enron, which was caused by a handful of people? How many "Joe the Plumbers" are being screwed by AIG while AIG is throwing extravagant parties on government bailout money? How many people are screwed daily by drug companies who are allowed patents on drugs, eliminating competition and allowing inflated prices?

A government with its mind on the well being of the people is much better than one with its mind on the well being of corporations, in my opinion. Trickle down effect be-damned, people are greedy, especially once they get to the top, and there's too many people that need more than just a few drops from that trickle.

[raditz]

Well tomorrow's the big day.

I hope anybody voting for Obama is comfortable with somebody who:

Has always voted to raise taxes when he could.

Wants to add more taxes by his socialistic "spread the wealth" plans and socializing health care. Also wants to raise taxes on oil companies, in turn raising the prices at the pump. Also admits wanting to eradicate the coal industry by taxing them. This is our number one way of producing energy. Not only would it cost millions of Americans jobs, it would hurt your pocket. *pennsylvania, among many other states would suffer*
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/11/03/obama-and-coal-send-americans-price-signals-on-energy.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScsCBephRLk&feature=related

Has another radical friend popping up every time he turns around.

Has the absolute least experience of anybody that's been involved in this election. His only claim to experience is being a community organizer. (at least Hillary knew her way around the White House kitchen /zing!)

Claims to be a unifier but he's the most liberal senator in history and is constantly making remarks like these.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DdLX3aRNaNk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_rZKga-ZMMw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA (that's right raub, he thinks ppl in penn are idiots)

Has already broken promises. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html

Has a horrible attitude towards the military -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY
http://griffinroomblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/biden-on-obamas-vote-against-funding-of.html

Has a naive view of the world around him

http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/19/obama_iran_is_just_a_tiny_country

This man is completely unfit to be president or even a nominee.

[raublekick]

Well tomorrow's the big day.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA (that's right raub, he thinks ppl in penn are idiots)

As someone who has lived in a small PA town for his entire life, I can assure you that he's pretty much on the mark there...

[raditz]

based on things that have slithered out of obama's grapish lips we are in for:

loss of freedom of speech

loss of the right to bear arms

reduction of the military and it's funding

loss of funding for defense

increased taxes for small business owners

increased taxes for oil companies

increased taxes on coal mining - so much so that he literally said he wanted to bankrupt the industry

increased energy bills

increased taxes so you can pay for your neighbors health problems

illegal immigrants with drivers licenses

a poor foreign policy which is nothing but bad news for our allies

a loss of the american dream where success is going to be punished, taking your money away and giving it to those who have been irresponsible



with all that said, you can now gloat about your awesome candidate taking the white house. thanks.

[raublekick]

raditz, from that post i can now make the huge assumptions that you're a reactionary racist who can't critically think about the a candidate's proposals without automatically inserting your own bias against him.

as someone who has recently lost their job, wrecked a car, and injured themselves, i think you of all people would be able to realize that sometimes things happen to people that are outside of their control. assuming that anyone who is poor is in the wrong is exactly why our country is fucked up.

what's wrong with skimming a little off the top so that the people at the bottom who need it can get a leg up?

how is loss of defense funding a bad thing? we've been pissing away money for years! we spent astronomically more than any other country! are we safer? hell no! our reputation with the outside world is horrible right now. not only do the a-rabs hate us more, but the europeans think we're a bunch of idiots. how is THIS foreign policy not bad for us? how have we not alienated and screwed over our allies already? how many allies do we currently have compared to 8 years ago?

we're not going to lose the right to bear arms... ever. Obama supports the rights of local and state authorities to decide what's best. he does not support a national ban on guns.

as far as taxing oil and coal companies... our country is being left in the dust by other countries who are making huge leaps in alternate energies. we used to control the vast majority of the solar power market, not Germany controls over half. our country's aversion to progression will be the death of it unless we try to actually move into more modern markets.

obama's tax plan marks a small increase in taxes for the $250,000+ bracket. it will go up to 39% from 35%, which means a very small increase in the actual dollar amount. taken from someone who knows taxes better than me:
So in other words, if Obama raises taxes on people who make more than $250,000, their taxes will only increase on that portion of their income that is over $250,000. Up to $250,000, their taxes are the same as they are now.

So for the sake of argument, if Joe the plumber made $260,000:
Under the 36% tax bracket he would pay his taxes on the first $250K, plus 36% of $10,000, or $3600.
Under the 39% tax bracket he would pay his taxes on the first $250K, plus 39% of $10,000, or $3900.

hot damn, that extra $300 in taxes is really gonna break the bank for all these businesses!

again, since you have recently befallen injury, and were compensated by the insurance, you should understand why everyone throwing into a pool of relief money is good. you know the money you pay for insurance doesn't cover all of your expenses, right? you know the insurance company is using money that other customers have paid to cover your expenses, right? that's how insurance works, and it's no different than how healthcare works. without your insurance you'd be dead in the water right now, just like a lot of people without health care. again, just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are necessarily irresponsible.

<edit> if you want a taste of what the outside world thinks right now:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/05/america/react.php

[raditz]

i've been very grown up in my posts throughout this thread. you can gloat about winning the election all you want, you have the right. you better knock it off with the name calling though.

[raublekick]

i'm not gloating and i'm not name calling. you (twice) made references to the color of obama's lips in a negative manner and made large biased assumptions, so i made large biased assumptions too. did you even read the rest of my post?

whatever, if you guys want to live the next 4 years in fear that the country is going to explode, that's fine. many people have lived the last 1-8 years feeling *almost* the same way.

[raditz]

i've never once seen a human being with purple lips regardless of the rest of their skin, i won't sit back and let you call me racist, knock it off.

[heX]

my 2 cents: Ive never heard purple lips used as a remark against black people, or any race. I have head racist comments referencing the size of black peoples lips, but Ive never heard color. For that matter I am trying to think of any black person I know that has lips the color of obama's, and i cant think of any. I know I'm a conservative so you can say I'm biased on this, but I don't think hes being racist, I think hes just being superficial which is a whole different league.

If purple lips is supposed to be a black stereotype, its one Ive never heard and Ive gotta say, Ive known brandon for a number of years and I really don't think he intended any type of race bashing on that one. I think he was just finding something to pick fun of that is out of obama's control, similar to what you did with mccains age.

[raublekick]

that's fine. i was wrong. my bad. but i never said anything about mccain's age.

[heX]

that's fine. i was wrong. my bad. but i never said anything about mccain's age.

my mistake. were you referring to his health in the shout box when you said he was just going to die? im pretty sure that comment is why brandon started this thread to begin with.

[Plain Old Jane]

Ya but how many of us here can honestly say they haven't indulged in a little nose candy once in their life?

ive never done cocaine.

i did do DMT once. 2-cb and 2-ct7 once. ive done two strains of shrooms, and 2 different ecstacy tabs.

i even did ayahuasca once, made it myself. very very purge-y.

[Plain Old Jane]

inb4 ban for double post

shit talking eachother

regardless, you guys are still the same. still constructing detailed analyses of eachothers diatribes and blowing them apart. i believe you all have good points, and they all have merits. this country was never about just one polar extreme having power. it was about the struggle keeping both parties in check. just watch, it aint like the dems will keep the power forever.

tl;dr: good points all around

[thecreeper]

rad, you're a nice enough dude, but regardless of whether mccain or obama would have won the election, anyone saying "loss of freedom of speech" and most of the other things you posted would be laughed out of a room. no president has dictatorship powers, and even if mccain won, i wouldn't be in here declaring "PREPARE FOR ENDLESS WAR, REPUBLICUNTS!" or any other stereotype about a candidate or party. the fact is that obama ran a better campaign and inspired more people to come out and vote, and mccain's momentum kinda died out in october. i don't think anyone is here gloating, because frankly, a candidate winning an election isn't something the gloat about. now the phillies winning the world series, i'll gloat about that all day long. but a candidate getting elected hasn't done anything yet. i think it would be wise, and i've thought this in every election i've followed, to give the president-elect a chance before throwing him under a bus and declaring america's dream lost. it's hyperbole to declare things based off speculation and and skewed or bitter commentators, because nothing has happened yet.

i think we all want america to be a better place than it is right now, so let's see what happens with obama.

[raditz]

the freedom os speech remark was based on the "fairness doctrine" that obama and the rest of the libs want to pass.

here's a fun read - http://tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/2008/10/cory-well-driller-letter-to-obama.html