[OT] Political Discussion

[GoatheadInCT]

Something funny I caught off the internet which went along with the cartoon on the first page:

 

 

:lol: Maybe you have to be older to get the joke, but it is funny!

[bob_sauve28]

So, my point being is that I truly don't think anyone really knows what they are voting for in Obama. He seems to be more of an idea than an actual candidate.

As opposed to McCain? What does he stnd for? Less government? At a time when the government is bailing out the banks? :unsure: I mean if you are going to say the people don't know what they are getting from Obama don't you think the same can be said for the losing candidate? The guy that showed incredibly poor judgement in choosing Palin probably doesn't inspire much confidence if a voter that has looked at that. The McCain supporters are the ones that are grossly misinformed. All this talk of Obama being a Muslim is proof enough of that.

 

As for the economy, McCain is basically for the same things Bush was, more tax cuts and more spending in Iraq. Nuff said

[darksabre]

[deluca67]

As opposed to McCain? What does he stnd for? Less government? At a time when the government is bailing out the banks? :unsure: I mean if you are going to say the people don't know what they are getting from Obama don't you think the same can be said for the losing candidate? The guy that showed incredibly poor judgement in choosing Palin probably doesn't inspire much confidence if a voter that has looked at that. The McCain supporters are the ones that are grossly misinformed. All this talk of Obama being a Muslim is proof enough of that.

 

As for the economy, McCain is basically for the same things Bush was, more tax cuts and more spending in Iraq. Nuff said

I can't imagine voters need any more proof of the failed Bush economic policies than the collapse of the US economy. Four more years of the same policies may condemn this country to a unrecoverable recession. Maybe even a depression unlike any other in history.

 

And if you are a Bills fan I have another reason to vote for Obama. I heard on the radio that the owner of the Dolphins said he would have to sell the team if Obama was elected. Which has to be one of the dumbest things said since Patrick Ewing's "sure we make a lot of money, we spend a lot of money to" or something like that. Does the owner of the Dolphins really expect anyone to feel sorry for him? If billionaires giving up their toys is a result of Obama's tax plan then I will be the first in line to vote on Tuesday.

[Taro T]

As opposed to McCain? What does he stnd for? Less government? At a time when the government is bailing out the banks? :unsure: I mean if you are going to say the people don't know what they are getting from Obama don't you think the same can be said for the losing candidate? The guy that showed incredibly poor judgement in choosing Palin probably doesn't inspire much confidence if a voter that has looked at that. The McCain supporters are the ones that are grossly misinformed. All this talk of Obama being a Muslim is proof enough of that.

 

As for the economy, McCain is basically for the same things Bush was, more tax cuts and more spending in Iraq. Nuff said

Under a McCain presidency, the government would grow a lot slower than it will under an Obama presidency. In that regard, he does stand for "less government." Let's face it, neither of these 2 are fiscal conservatives, but Mr. McCain is far closer to that ideal than Mr. Obama is.

 

As to your comment bolded above, yes, clearly everyone that does not plan to vote for "The One" will do so because they mistakenly believe he is a Muslim.

 

I haven't heard Senator McCain say once that we need to spend more in Iraq. He has supported the current battle and staffing plans that were drawn up by General Petraeus prior to taking command of the entire region. Those have had us reducing troop levels in Iraq as Iraqis assume more responsibility for security; as such, it seems he suggests we can spend less in Iraq.

 

But, McCain supporters "are the ones that are grossly misinformed." :doh:

 

I can't imagine voters need any more proof of the failed Bush economic policies than the collapse of the US economy. Four more years of the same policies may condemn this country to a unrecoverable recession. Maybe even a depression unlike any other in history.

 

And if you are a Bills fan I have another reason to vote for Obama. I heard on the radio that the owner of the Dolphins said he would have to sell the team if Obama was elected. Which has to be one of the dumbest things said since Patrick Ewing's "sure we make a lot of money, we spend a lot of money to" or something like that. Does the owner of the Dolphins really expect anyone to feel sorry for him? If billionaires giving up their toys is a result of Obama's tax plan then I will be the first in line to vote on Tuesday.

We are in a recession. The economy has not "collapsed." Senator McCain was correct when he stated that the "fundamentals" of the economy are still strong. His description of the fundamentals leads me to believe he doesn't understand what they are, but they are in fact still strong. But yeah, there is a big storm hitting / on the horizon. That stated, however, the man who arguably had the most responsibility for creating the current housing mess, is the man that the Democrats have promoted as a model of experience and good judgement with regards to housing policy. Following Mr. Frank's lead with no check at all just might bring us that depression you mentioned above.

[nobody]

I thought Obama was a muslin. :P

 

Of course looking at wikipedia it might not matter:

Muslin is a type of finely-woven cotton fabric, introduced to Europe from the Middle East in the 17th century. It was named for the city where Europeans first encountered it, Mosul, in what is now Iraq, but the fabric actually originated from Dhaka in what is now Bangladesh.

[bob_sauve28]

Under a McCain presidency, the government would grow a lot slower than it will under an Obama presidency. In that regard, he does stand for "less government." Let's face it, neither of these 2 are fiscal conservatives, but Mr. McCain is far closer to that ideal than Mr. Obama is.

 

As to your comment bolded above, yes, clearly everyone that does not plan to vote for "The One" will do so because they mistakenly believe he is a Muslim.

 

I haven't heard Senator McCain say once that we need to spend more in Iraq. He has supported the current battle and staffing plans that were drawn up by General Petraeus prior to taking command of the entire region. Those have had us reducing troop levels in Iraq as Iraqis assume more responsibility for security; as such, it seems he suggests we can spend less in Iraq.

 

But, McCain supporters "are the ones that are grossly misinformed." :doh:

That's not a given. While McCain will certaintly try and do all in his power deny American citizens from getting health care, he will probably try and throw as much money as he can at the military, something it looks like the Democrats will do the opposite of. And yes, by keeping us in Iraq LONGER he will spend more there than Obama will. Duh!

 

And don't think "fiscal Conservatives" are the ideals. Look how much money we are spending on claening up the mess the small government, "let business regulate itself" crowd has gotten us into. A trillion dollars and counting on the bailouts. The "get big government off our backs" boys really sh** the bed!

[SDS]

That's not a given. While McCain will certaintly try and do all in his power deny American citizens from getting health care,

 

A grown man actually thinks this? :unsure:

[Taro T]

That's not a given. While McCain will certaintly try and do all in his power deny American citizens from getting health care, he will probably try and throw as much money as he can at the military, something it looks like the Democrats will do the opposite of. And yes, by keeping us in Iraq LONGER he will spend more there than Obama will. Duh!

 

And don't think "fiscal Conservatives" are the ideals. Look how much money we are spending on claening up the mess the small government, "let business regulate itself" crowd has gotten us into. A trillion dollars and counting on the bailouts. The "get big government off our backs" boys really sh** the bed!

I don't really see much point in discussing this with you further, as it is very difficult to have a discussion about politics with someone who knows the other guy is "evil."

[PASabreFan]

(22 second mark)

 

I really hate to say this, but when you say Eisenhower Administration, you are really showing your age. What's even more bizarre is that I might as well be a pup in your eyes and I appear to be way more conservative than you.

 

So anyone who brings up Eisenhower is old? Thomas Jefferson. There, now I'm ancient.

 

I think the liberal-conservative thing is killing this country. 99% of the people -- and apparently some politicians like W. -- have no idea what these terms mean. It's just a brand. Conservative was a dirty word in the 50s and 60s. Liberals made it that. The tables were turned by modern political operatives like Lee Atwater. Now we're about to elect a very strong liberal as president, mostly because conservatives have taken the Reagan legacy and flushed it down the toilet. People are sick of it.

 

Both philosophies offer a lot to our country, have offered a lot in the past. I think most rational people want an end to this artificial divide and our government working to solve problems for the people instead of dividing and conquering.

 

You know what's fun? Take a test online to see how liberal or conservative you are. I thought I was fairly liberal before taking the test. As a fan of the old logo and someone who wanted to see the new building have gold, red, blue and orange seats, I think I'm pretty conservative!

[SDS]

So anyone who brings up Eisenhower is old? Thomas Jefferson. There, now I'm ancient.

 

I think the liberal-conservative thing is killing this country. 99% of the people -- and apparently some politicians like W. -- have no idea what these terms mean. It's just a brand. Conservative was a dirty word in the 50s and 60s. Liberals made it that. The tables were turned by modern political operatives like Lee Atwater. Now we're about to elect a very strong liberal as president, mostly because conservatives have taken the Reagan legacy and flushed it down the toilet. People are sick of it.

 

Both philosophies offer a lot to our country, have offered a lot in the past. I think most rational people want an end to this artificial divide and our government working to solve problems for the people instead of dividing and conquering.

 

You know what's fun? Take a test online to see how liberal or conservative you are. I thought I was fairly liberal before taking the test. As a fan of the old logo and someone who wanted to see the new building have gold, red, blue and orange seats, I think I'm pretty conservative!

 

yes, they did. :censored:

 

So, what was the result of your "test", not as liberal as you thought or RedChinaSabreFan? ;)

[inkman]

You know what's fun? Take a test online to see how liberal or conservative you are. I thought I was fairly liberal before taking the test. As a fan of the old logo and someone who wanted to see the new building have gold, red, blue and orange seats, I think I'm pretty conservative!

I am more conservative than I'll ever admit. I took a "choose your canidate" test based on several issues and ended up with Ralph Nader. I'd vote for him if I thought he could win. The reason I align myself with Liberals is due to the polarizing effect many of today's leading conservative voices. I don't think McCain is all that bad but I sure as hell won't allow myself to side with a guy that Coulter, Bush, Limbaugh and Faux News promote.

[PASabreFan]

yes, they did. :censored:

 

So, what was the result of your "test", not as liberal as you thought or RedChinaSabreFan? ;)

 

Much more conservative. The result was moderate on economic issues and very conservative on social issues.

 

Here's a good one. http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

Kind of heavy for a bunch of hockey fans, but it's the best one I've found. A lot of thought clearly went into it, vs. some of the cheapie quizzes you can find online. Maybe some will be brave enough to post the results.

 

I harken back to my good friend Winston's comment: "He who is 20 and not liberal has no heart; who is 40 and not conservative, no brain." I miss our talks over shots of whiskey.

[PASabreFan]

I am more conservative than I'll ever admit. I took a "choose your canidate" test based on several issues and ended up with Ralph Nader. I'd vote for him if I thought he could win. The reason I align myself with Liberals is due to the polarizing effect many of today's leading conservative voices. I don't think McCain is all that bad but I sure as hell won't allow myself to side with a guy that Coulter, Bush, Limbaugh and Faux News promote.

 

I honestly leaned toward McCain before his convention. I've always admired him, and I think he's a good man. But instead of clearly stepping away from both parties, being a true "maverick," he got in bed with the conservative wing when he selected Palin. It was a double punch in the gut, for the political expediency of it, and the strike on his judgment. She just can't be president. Then he proceeded to run the most dishonorable, disgraceful, dishonest campaign I've seen in a long time. I don't necessarily blame him for crafting it -- the snakes he hired did it. But he has to take responsibility for it and own it. So I'll cast a very lukewarm vote for Obama, who impresses me just a little. But at least during the financial "crisis" he wasn't running around clucking like a chicken. He's calm, cool and collected, and we need that right now. Also, subjectively speaking, I think I like the idea of a young guy with a young wife and young kids being in the White House. The country craves something different.

 

The great thing about this thread is that as divided as we'll appear to be, all it will take is a Kotalik one-timer on a power play to get us into group hug mode.

[FogBat]

So anyone who brings up Eisenhower is old? Thomas Jefferson. There, now I'm ancient.

 

I think the liberal-conservative thing is killing this country. 99% of the people -- and apparently some politicians like W. -- have no idea what these terms mean. It's just a brand. Conservative was a dirty word in the 50s and 60s. Liberals made it that. The tables were turned by modern political operatives like Lee Atwater. Now we're about to elect a very strong liberal as president, mostly because conservatives have taken the Reagan legacy and flushed it down the toilet. People are sick of it.

 

Both philosophies offer a lot to our country, have offered a lot in the past. I think most rational people want an end to this artificial divide and our government working to solve problems for the people instead of dividing and conquering.

 

You know what's fun? Take a test online to see how liberal or conservative you are. I thought I was fairly liberal before taking the test. As a fan of the old logo and someone who wanted to see the new building have gold, red, blue and orange seats, I think I'm pretty conservative!

I'd be more inclined to say that the neocons destroyed everything that Reagan worked so hard to accomplish for America.

 

That so-called Contract with America would have worked if they held their part of the bargain by passing term limits on themselves. Perhaps this would have helped Ted Stevens out in the long run.

 

Given what the Republicans have done to the conservative base, I am really starting to think that the Republican Party is dying and they only have themselves to blame for it.

 

Conservatism isn't dead - it's just going to have to find another party like the Constitution Party in which to reinvigorate itself.

[FogBat]

I thought Obama was a muslin. :P

 

Of course looking at wikipedia it might not matter:

Muslin is a type of finely-woven cotton fabric, introduced to Europe from the Middle East in the 17th century. It was named for the city where Europeans first encountered it, Mosul, in what is now Iraq, but the fabric actually originated from Dhaka in what is now Bangladesh.

WAIT! It gets even better.

 

.

[wjag]

I'd be more inclined to say that the neocons destroyed everything that Reagan worked so hard to accomplish for America.

 

That so-called Contract with America would have worked if they held their part of the bargain by passing term limits on themselves. Perhaps this would have helped Ted Stevens out in the long run.

 

Given what the Republicans have done to the conservative base, I am really starting to think that the Republican Party is dying and they only have themselves to blame for it.

 

Conservatism isn't dead - it's just going to have to find another party like the Constitution Party in which to reinvigorate itself.

Eight years ago, W came to power on the heels of Clinton fatigue. Six years ago, the Dems got trounced in the mid-term elections. Four years ago they lost the presidency again which made it 5 of the last 7. Everyone in the Democratic party was wringing their hands and asking what did they have to do to win. Who was going to pick up the pieces? Well look where we are just eight years later. The Republicans are suffering from Bush fatigue and are about to face a humiliating defeat next Tuesday. In eight years when Obama's record is complete, and the Dems are tarnished with their own corruption, and when Nancy Pelosi is found to hire escorts and when Barney Frank is exposed as a heterosexual, etc, we'll be ushering in a new era of re-incarnated conservatism... These things swing back and forth. And I for one believe it to be healthy... even cathartic

 

Dee Dee Meyers said there is a limited amount of power in DC. Those who have it try to hold on to it and those who want it seek out to destroy those that have it. I believe that. Remember Newt taking down Wright only to be taken down for the exact same thing? How about Daschle being defeated? Harry Reid and Pelosi will be the principle targets. I'm sure as I sit here that there are people already crafting their demise. Ain't it fun..

[FogBat]

Eight years ago, W came to power on the heels of Clinton fatigue. Six years ago, the Dems got trounced in the mid-term elections. Four years ago they lost the presidency again which made it 5 of the last 7. Everyone in the Democratic party was wringing their hands and asking what did they have to do to win. Who was going to pick up the pieces? Well look where we are just eight years later. The Republicans are suffering from Bush fatigue and are about to face a humiliating defeat next Tuesday. In eight years when Obama's record is complete, and the Dems are tranished with their own corruption, and when Nancy Pelosis is found to hire escorts and when Barney Frank is exposed as a heterosexual, etc, we'll be ushering in a new era of re-incarnated conservatism... These things swing back and forth. And I for one believe it to be healthy... even cathartic

 

Dee Dee Meyers said there is a limited amount of power in DC. Those who have it try to hold on to it and those who want it seek out to destroy those that have it. I believe that. Remember Newt taking down Wright only to be taken down for the exact same thing? How about Daschle being defeated? Harry Reid and Pelosi will be the principle targets. I'm sure as I sit here that there are people already crafting their demise. Ain't it fun..

IOW, the pendulum swings as it may.

 

Come 2010, the Dems may wind up doing themselves in. 1994 is a prime example of this.

[BrightLights]

Do you REALLY think that there aren't voters out there who are voting for McCain just because he's white? Really? Let it go. Vote on the positions.

 

Did you read what I wrote? I stated that I am sure you could find it the other way around. I'm not holding onto anything. I just think people should know the basics of the election and what is going on. Both sides. Someone else said that people just vote on party lines because of families, etc. That's the truth and that's the problem. You should know the basics at least.

[Taro T]

Much more conservative. The result was moderate on economic issues and very conservative on social issues.

 

Here's a good one. http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

Kind of heavy for a bunch of hockey fans, but it's the best one I've found. A lot of thought clearly went into it, vs. some of the cheapie quizzes you can find online. Maybe some will be brave enough to post the results.

 

I harken back to my good friend Winston's comment: "He who is 20 and not liberal has no heart; who is 40 and not conservative, no brain." I miss our talks over shots of whiskey.

Economic Left/Right 1.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -0.97

 

So according to this (extremely scientific magazine survey ;) ) I am economically conservative and a libertarian. Which is pretty much where I'd have expected to be pegged, although I'd have expected both #'s to have slightly higher magnitudes.

[deluca67]

A grown man actually thinks this? :unsure:

I can say if McCain gets his wish and health benefits are taxed it will severely damage my wife and I's ability to maintain our health care coverage. Even with our employers picking up a portion of the cost a tax on the portion we pay will effectively set our incomes back to a level it was two years ago. That is something we just can not afford.

[deluca67]

Under a McCain presidency, the government would grow a lot slower than it will under an Obama presidency. In that regard, he does stand for "less government." Let's face it, neither of these 2 are fiscal conservatives, but Mr. McCain is far closer to that ideal than Mr. Obama is.

 

As to your comment bolded above, yes, clearly everyone that does not plan to vote for "The One" will do so because they mistakenly believe he is a Muslim.

 

I haven't heard Senator McCain say once that we need to spend more in Iraq. He has supported the current battle and staffing plans that were drawn up by General Petraeus prior to taking command of the entire region. Those have had us reducing troop levels in Iraq as Iraqis assume more responsibility for security; as such, it seems he suggests we can spend less in Iraq.

 

But, McCain supporters "are the ones that are grossly misinformed." :doh:

We are in a recession. The economy has not "collapsed." Senator McCain was correct when he stated that the "fundamentals" of the economy are still strong. His description of the fundamentals leads me to believe he doesn't understand what they are, but they are in fact still strong. But yeah, there is a big storm hitting / on the horizon. That stated, however, the man who arguably had the most responsibility for creating the current housing mess, is the man that the Democrats have promoted as a model of experience and good judgement with regards to housing policy. Following Mr. Frank's lead with no check at all just might bring us that depression you mentioned above.

"Fundamentals"? I guess I just don't agree that an economy where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer while the middle class disappears is "fundamental" to any success economy.

[carpandean]

Economic Left/Right 1.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -0.97

 

So according to this (extremely scientific magazine survey ;) ) I am economically conservative and a libertarian. Which is pretty much where I'd have expected to be pegged, although I'd have expected both #'s to have slightly higher magnitudes.

I had the same directions, but higher numbers: 3.00, -3.23. I would actually guess that in a more comprehensive study, I would be more right than 3.00.

[Taro T]

"Fundamentals"? I guess I just don't agree that an economy where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer while the middle class disappears is "fundamental" to any success economy.

Yes, fundamentals.

 

According to the 2000 US Census, unemployment was 5.8% in 2000 and the poverty rate was 12.4%. The unemployment rate has shot back up to ~6% which is still historically low and the 2007 poverty rate was 12.5%. So the numbers from the end of Clinton's term aren't far removed from those of today.

 

There were 45.8MM uninsured in 2007 out of 296.6MM people (15.4%) Out of a total population of 281.4MM people in 2000 and IIRC the estimate was that there were 42MM uninsured in 2000 which would have 14.9% w/out insurance. (Sorry I'm too tired to find that stat currently.)

 

Although inflation is getting excessive it is still far below what we had in the '70's.

 

I don't have 2008 numbers available, but while I expect that they are worse than those of '07, they aren't even approaching '70's #'s, much less '30's.

 

The claim that the middle class is disappearing doesn't seem to be realistic either.

 

Unfortunately, I have little faith in Bernanke nor Paulson, and if Frank and Dodd are watching the henhouse with no grownup supervision, we MIGHT be able to get that depression you fear. Reducing free trade, which is something Obama appears to support, and raising taxes, which is something he definitely supports are 2 REALLY bad ideas as we are entering a recession. While the Republican Congress showed that it will not be fiscally conservative when they have the executive branch to go along w/ control of the legislative branch; they at least CLAIM to be for fiscal restraint and have demonstrated that they pretty much actually are for it when the WH is held by the other party. The Democratic Congress makes no such claims and I am very concerned about what Pelosi and company will do if there is a fillibuster-proof Senate.

 

The one plus of a Democrat stranglehold is the corrupt bastages like Stevens will be gone and it is possible (well in theory at least) that responsible Republicans can come to the forefront. I hold no illusions that a 3rd party will be viable in the near future, so I hope for the next best thing.

 

It's late and I'm rambling, so spater.

[deluca67]

Yes, fundamentals.

 

According to the 2000 US Census, unemployment was 5.8% in 2000 and the poverty rate was 12.4%. The unemployment rate has shot back up to ~6% which is still historically low and the 2007 poverty rate was 12.5%. So the numbers from the end of Clinton's term aren't far removed from those of today.

 

There were 45.8MM uninsured in 2007 out of 296.6MM people (15.4%) Out of a total population of 281.4MM people in 2000 and IIRC the estimate was that there were 42MM uninsured in 2000 which would have 14.9% w/out insurance. (Sorry I'm too tired to find that stat currently.)

 

Although inflation is getting excessive it is still far below what we had in the '70's.

 

I don't have 2008 numbers available, but while I expect that they are worse than those of '07, they aren't even approaching '70's #'s, much less '30's.

 

The claim that the middle class is disappearing doesn't seem to be realistic either.

 

Unfortunately, I have little faith in Bernanke nor Paulson, and if Frank and Dodd are watching the henhouse with no grownup supervision, we MIGHT be able to get that depression you fear. Reducing free trade, which is something Obama appears to support, and raising taxes, which is something he definitely supports are 2 REALLY bad ideas as we are entering a recession. While the Republican Congress showed that it will not be fiscally conservative when they have the executive branch to go along w/ control of the legislative branch; they at least CLAIM to be for fiscal restraint and have demonstrated that they pretty much actually are for it when the WH is held by the other party. The Democratic Congress makes no such claims and I am very concerned about what Pelosi and company will do if there is a fillibuster-proof Senate.

 

The one plus of a Democrat stranglehold is the corrupt bastages like Stevens will be gone and it is possible (well in theory at least) that responsible Republicans can come to the forefront. I hold no illusions that a 3rd party will be viable in the near future, so I hope for the next best thing.

 

It's late and I'm rambling, so spater.

As a member of the middle class slowly slipping closer to the poverty line I can assure you the middle class extinction is real. <_<