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/politicalra...admits-sm.html

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

[raditz]

Originally Posted by thecreeper

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by raublekick

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]

Originally Posted by Cid

Me, post something?

Never.

[thecreeper]

Originally Posted by Donnie

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]

Originally Posted by thecreeper

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/cov...al_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

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]

Originally Posted by raditz

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-...on-energy.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScsCB...eature=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/...ama/index.html

Has a horrible attitude towards the military -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY
http://griffinroomblog.blogspot.com/...unding-of.html

Has a naive view of the world around him

http://townhall.com/Columnists/Amand...a_tiny_country

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