Election 2008

[Sam]

Vote for who you want to win this presidential election.

1. McCain
2. Obama
3. other

And feel free to share why you support that candidate.

[Sam]

While McCain wasn't originally my first choice for president, he by far outranks the only other option that has a chance. So here are just a few of the reasons that I support McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

1. He doesn't support the abortion, aka killing (let's call it what it is) of babies.
2. He has plenty of experience. He didn't just pop up from the background and decide to run for president.
3. His health care plan doesn't involve the government forcing people to provide this or that.
4. He certainly isn't calling taxes a "patriotic duty". (That's a warning sign in and of itself).

These are just a few of my reasons.

[Matt]

I seem to be the only liberal here, so I'll take you on

(10-10-2008 03:12 PM)Sam Wrote:  1. He doesn't support the abortion, aka killing (let's call it what it is) of babies.

I really hate it when people say "killing babies," because then those that listen to them think that liberals want to go around snatching kids out of carriages and snapping their necks. Yes, I have actually heard people say they believe that.

Early in development, prior to the fetal stage (around 9 months after fertilization), the embryo has a very low chance of survival anyway. It is not a person, and barely has the potential to become one. It, at this point, is an extension of the female in whom it resides. Thus, us crazy liberals argue that the woman should have the right to choose if she wants a kid or not. Late-stage abortions are a bit different, and I personally think that's a bit wrong, because at that point the fetus actually has a brain.

(10-10-2008 03:12 PM)Sam Wrote:  2. He has plenty of experience. He didn't just pop up from the background and decide to run for president.

Very little of the experience one would gain from being a legislator can be applied to the executive branch. They both have equal experience necessary for being a president: not very much.

(10-10-2008 03:12 PM)Sam Wrote:  3. His health care plan doesn't involve the government forcing people to provide this or that.

Who is forcing what? Elaborate.

(10-10-2008 03:12 PM)Sam Wrote:  4. He certainly isn't calling taxes a "patriotic duty". (That's a warning sign in and of itself).

If you don't pay taxes to support government-run institutions and projects, you'd run into a lot of problems. Why is paying taxes a bad thing? Sure, you're losing some of your money, but it goes into supporting stuff you just might need.

[Sam]

1. Well, let's put your first point into consideration. Let's pretend that you, Matt, are once again just nothing more than an embryo. Ok, so that was a long time ago, but none the less, it was the case at one time.

Now, you yourself said you have very little chance of survival. So I propose we go ahead, and do away with you. After all, you have no brain.

Basically that's what you're saying. If that's the case, then shouldn't we send doctors throughout hospitals, killing adult patients with low chances of survival? After all, they'll probably die anyway, and all they're doing is taking up space and using resources.

2. McCain does have a history though. A long one. Everyone else keeps talking about how "they'll fight for you and always have." McCain really has fought for you.

3. I believe I shall elaborate. Obama is proposing forcing government health care plans. Sounds rather socialist to me.

4. Yes, to a certain point, taxes are necessary. But we are beyond that point. The government could do just as well if they cut out income taxes, as well as all the needless government waste. Such as government run health care plans.

And that stuff I might need, such as social security, will probably not be around by the time we get there. Let's be honest here.

(10-10-2008 04:39 PM)Matt Wrote:  I seem to be the only liberal here, so I'll take you on

(10-10-2008 03:12 PM)Sam Wrote:  1. He doesn't support the abortion, aka killing (let's call it what it is) of babies.

I really hate it when people say "killing babies," because then those that listen to them think that liberals want to go around snatching kids out of carriages and snapping their necks. Yes, I have actually heard people say they believe that.

Early in development, prior to the fetal stage (around 9 months after fertilization), the embryo has a very low chance of survival anyway. It is not a person, and barely has the potential to become one. It, at this point, is an extension of the female in whom it resides. Thus, us crazy liberals argue that the woman should have the right to choose if she wants a kid or not. Late-stage abortions are a bit different, and I personally think that's a bit wrong, because at that point the fetus actually has a brain.

(10-10-2008 03:12 PM)Sam Wrote:  2. He has plenty of experience. He didn't just pop up from the background and decide to run for president.

Very little of the experience one would gain from being a legislator can be applied to the executive branch. They both have equal experience necessary for being a president: not very much.

(10-10-2008 03:12 PM)Sam Wrote:  3. His health care plan doesn't involve the government forcing people to provide this or that.

Who is forcing what? Elaborate.

(10-10-2008 03:12 PM)Sam Wrote:  4. He certainly isn't calling taxes a "patriotic duty". (That's a warning sign in and of itself).

If you don't pay taxes to support government-run institutions and projects, you'd run into a lot of problems. Why is paying taxes a bad thing? Sure, you're losing some of your money, but it goes into supporting stuff you just might need.

[Matt]

1. Not going to argue this point further, since it is an opinion-based argument that is only resolved over generations as perceptions change.

Quote:2. McCain does have a history though. A long one. Everyone else keeps talking about how "they'll fight for you and always have." McCain really has fought for you.

I concede that he's been around longer. I concede that in the past, he actually put forward good legislation. He could have even been considered a "maverick." However, he has lately abandoned everything maverick but the word itself.

Quote:3. I believe I shall elaborate. Obama is proposing forcing government health care plans. Sounds rather socialist to me.

And are some levels of socialism in society a bad thing? Caring for the people is automatically evil? Or is this just a bit of leftover paranoia from the cold war? Nobody is proposing that we become communist and give Putin control

Quote:4. Yes, to a certain point, taxes are necessary. But we are beyond that point. The government could do just as well if they cut out income taxes, as well as all the needless government waste. Such as government run health care plans.

The issue isn't taxes, but budget bloat. Both candidates claim they will remove the bad earmarks that plague the system. We will need increased taxes to pay for the massive debt that we've built up over the years.

Quote:And that stuff I might need, such as social security, will probably not be around by the time we get there. Let's be honest here.

Social Security may be gone, but I was thinking more along the lines of stuff you don't always consider, like the regulatory agencies that keep companies from screwing the people and the environment, and proper maintenance of highways. Not to mention DHS (though it's a rather bloated agency)

[Sam]

1. haha....sorry, I do have one more point to make here. Even IF killing embryos was ok, that's beside the point, b/c Obama will allow the killing of babies that have already developed brains.

2. While true that every will make mistakes, would you like to elaborate here on what you had in mind in particular?

3. Caring for the truly poor and helpless is one thing. Taking care of highway maintenance and such is to. But that's not what we're talking about here. Study Laissez-Faire Liberalism to get what I'm talking about. For those of you not familiar with it, it's a capitalist system where the government cares for the helpless, maintain things such as highways and parks, and enforce laws. Other than that, they leave the people to their business. No unnecessary control. The US is State Capitalism, which is a little bit further towards socialism.

4. Matt, do you realize that some US citizens are paying 30% (!) of their income to taxes? How is that right? We dont need increased taxes. We need to eliminate the budget waste as a first step. Secondly, I propose we cut out income taxes entirely! If we do that, the US will be operating on a budget similar in size to that of 1998. Not too long ago. So having done that, we now need to focus on becoming energy independent. That would free up a lot of money, and that money wouldnt be flowing it nations that hate us. How to become energy independent is an interesting subject, thata I'd like to go into sometime, but for now, that's beside the point.

Here are a couple of other things;

McCain has not been the one to receive funding from Muslims, now has he? Nor have the presidents of country's who hate us given their support to him. But for one candidate, both of these have happened. See, McCain has a history, like I've said before. We know where he comes from, we know how he tends to vote. But now, all of a sudden, we have a fairly new candidate, who pops up, is supported by our enemies, receives funding from Muslims, and used to be buds with a radical crazy. AKA, Bill Ayers.

Anybody else get what Im saying here?

(10-10-2008 09:54 PM)Matt Wrote:  1. Not going to argue this point further, since it is an opinion-based argument that is only resolved over generations as perceptions change.

Quote:2. McCain does have a history though. A long one. Everyone else keeps talking about how "they'll fight for you and always have." McCain really has fought for you.

I concede that he's been around longer. I concede that in the past, he actually put forward good legislation. He could have even been considered a "maverick." However, he has lately abandoned everything maverick but the word itself.

Quote:3. I believe I shall elaborate. Obama is proposing forcing government health care plans. Sounds rather socialist to me.

And are some levels of socialism in society a bad thing? Caring for the people is automatically evil? Or is this just a bit of leftover paranoia from the cold war? Nobody is proposing that we become communist and give Putin control

Quote:4. Yes, to a certain point, taxes are necessary. But we are beyond that point. The government could do just as well if they cut out income taxes, as well as all the needless government waste. Such as government run health care plans.

The issue isn't taxes, but budget bloat. Both candidates claim they will remove the bad earmarks that plague the system. We will need increased taxes to pay for the massive debt that we've built up over the years.

Quote:And that stuff I might need, such as social security, will probably not be around by the time we get there. Let's be honest here.

Social Security may be gone, but I was thinking more along the lines of stuff you don't always consider, like the regulatory agencies that keep companies from screwing the people and the environment, and proper maintenance of highways. Not to mention DHS (though it's a rather bloated agency)

[Matt]

Quote:2. While true that every will make mistakes, would you like to elaborate here on what you had in mind in particular?

Fairly sure he's recently abandoned a lot of the finance reform proposed. That's one example.

Quote:3. Caring for the truly poor and helpless is one thing. Taking care of highway maintenance and such is to. But that's not what we're talking about here. Study Laissez-Faire Liberalism to get what I'm talking about. For those of you not familiar with it, it's a capitalist system where the government cares for the helpless, maintain things such as highways and parks, and enforce laws. Other than that, they leave the people to their business. No unnecessary control. The US is State Capitalism, which is a little bit further towards socialism.

What is wrong with socialism?

Quote:4. Matt, do you realize that some US citizens are paying 30% (!) of their income to taxes? How is that right? We dont need increased taxes. We need to eliminate the budget waste as a first step. Secondly, I propose we cut out income taxes entirely! If we do that, the US will be operating on a budget similar in size to that of 1998. Not too long ago. So having done that, we now need to focus on becoming energy independent. That would free up a lot of money, and that money wouldnt be flowing it nations that hate us. How to become energy independent is an interesting subject, thata I'd like to go into sometime, but for now, that's beside the point.

30% is for very high incomes (see here). And you're only paying above 30% on income gained above that level. So, if you're married filing separately, and made 150000, only 50000 is being taxed at the 33% rate. It's a fair system, designed to have those benefiting most from the system to put the most back into helping those that aren't.

Killing waste would solve some problems, but wouldn't eliminate the need for taxes.

Quote:McCain has not been the one to receive funding from Muslims, now has he? Nor have the presidents of country's who hate us given their support to him. But for one candidate, both of these have happened. See, McCain has a history, like I've said before. We know where he comes from, we know how he tends to vote. But now, all of a sudden, we have a fairly new candidate, who pops up, is supported by our enemies, receives funding from Muslims, and used to be buds with a radical crazy. AKA, Bill Ayers.

I hesitated to respond to this, because of how silly the argument was. But, here goes:
Muslims: Why the fear of Muslims? Seriously. Trying to make Muslim=Terrorist is horribly wrong.
Support: Who cares who supports him? It's not the support that matters, but what he actually stands for. People that want to remove the entire middle east from the map support McCain, but that doesn't mean McCain is a nutter.
Friends: Don't even try this argument. Not even going to respond to the level of ridiculousness attached to this one.

[biohazard135]

Well I would vote for McCain since that obama guy just appeared, McCain and Hillary Clinton both have some kind of experience so they know what there doing

[Sam]

2. The truth here is that we are in difficult financial times a a country, so maybe he had reason to change his original plans. But the truth is that I'm not right off familiar with what you mean, so I'll do some research, and get back to you on this one.

In the meantime, could you provide more on this? That one reason doesn't seem to be much to base your argument on.

3. Wow. Ok, in theory, nothing. In real life, a lot. In theory, it appears to come across as a society of people who truly care for each other, and are willing to give up their extras to support the needs of others. But if you want to see how it really works out, read up on the Soviet Union.

And one more thing here, yes, the rich(er) should definitely give a hand to the helpless, but robbing from them to help the helpless in wrong.

4.

Muslims: I made a bad choice of words here when I said "Muslims" so I apologize. What I meant to say was Muslim extremists.

Support: I'd say there is a problem when your biggest enemies support this new kid on the block who want to run your country.

Friends: Could you go into more detail on this last point, and the "the level of ridiculousness"?

And to SimKingGold, thank you for putting that in.

[AlextheKid]

If i were to vote it would b O'bama I fink. Its funny how u didn't mention Sarah Palin as a strong point for voting Mccain...Isn't she the stuff America is made of.
1. The longer you spend in politics the more corrupt your brain will become. Therefor I go the opposite way on that 1. I'd pick the one with the most recent and relevent education, rather than the years spent in the game.
4. At least if the Muslim extremest are supporting him and he wins you will have one less "enemy".