Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Political discussion thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPolitical discussion thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3435363738 303>
Author
Message
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2008 at 17:44
Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

The election really lies in the big states that Hillary won. Texas, Florida, New York, Ohio and Michigan. Will these states vote for Obama without Hillary on the ticket? NOPE. The race at this point really comes down to is Hillary on the ticket for VP or not. Without Hillary on the ticket Obama will lose as bad as Mike Dukakis did.
 
People like myself who do not subscribe to any political party and like to think for myself will probably not vote for Obama without Hillary. Me personally, I will not vote for Obama over McCain even with Hillary on the ticket. Obama says the things people want to hear. That's only a good thing if he has a plan to back up those nice sounding things, which I don't believe he can do. There's been alot of skeletons to come out of the Obama closet already and may be more to come. McCain has kept his integrity intact even after being attacked by the New York Times with unfounded claims. So far for me the pendulum has swung towards McCain. Will it swing back? Doubtful at this point but we shall see.


Aaahh. McCain's integrity. Proudly Stands with evangelical preacher one day, disowns him when the racist/homophobic/anti-immigrant/anti-poor statements reach the media.
 
You mean Jeremiah Wright?  Wait a minute that was Obama.

DB - Actually the answer is Rev John Hagee. I'll leave it to you to do the reading as you seem intent on living in your own little reality. Wait, why strain your meager intellectual resources - John Hagee "God Damn America because it doesn't support new Israeli settlements in the occupied territory:. Rev Wright - "God Damn America for its' government's treatment of America's poor, its' black population, the Indian, the immigrantsand just about anyone that doesn't carry any electoral or financial heft". I can see why Rev Hagee's invoking God's wrath upon his country is O.K. (not)

Accuses Bush of being incompetent when campaigning against him, then eventually gives in and morphs into a quasi-supporter of the Bush administration. Why, well, to put it simply, so as to enable him to win the Republican nomination despite his past disagreements with the GOP's conservative wing on fundamental issues.
 
McCain doesn't tote the party line like a lemming is all that means.  Obama votes the way his party tells him to vote, end of story. I'm voting for a leader not a follower.

DB - Again, your own little reality seems quite detached from the rest of the world. McCain has been questioned as to his change of heart re : many Dubya policies that he argues against years ago. The reason that some political analysts (including conservative wags) have given , is that he needs to show the GOP's right wing that he is one of them. Once more, if you're interested, please do some reading on McCain's stand on issues 4-5 years ago, then what he says he supports now. Just as Obama, he is a politician and has to play the "game". Please relate more than one occasion where Obama voted against his conscience.
Oh, what you're voting for is a Republican, no matter what that Republican might have been. Admit it, give up the non-partisan facade that you seem to think no one can see through.

Frankly, I believe both parties have ended up with the best possible nominees. But only one is young. Only one, realistically, once in power, would bring in fresh blood into Washington. Who ? Obama. Why ? Because of his relatively short time as Senator has meant that he is still building up the insider relationships so necessary in the political system. And I don't mean this for McCain only. Clinton's presidency would have meant keeping the same old crowd in power.
 
The voters keep their Representatives and Senators in power. Obama has no more power over who sits in Congress than anyone else in Washington does. All that Obama and McCain for that matter can bring in are cabinet seats and those people have no voting power to get laws passed with the exception of Supreme Court nominees if a spot were to open up.

DB - er, can you explain the Presidency's seeming lack of power that you write about ?

And as far as no plans to back up the rethoric, and unfounded claims ... well ... specific plans are never examined or discussed in detail during an election because the electorate just doesn't have the will or interest to do so. That's why the generalities, the so-called "values" are on display, for both sides.
And for unfounded claims ... well ... if you think that is an Obama failing, please feel free to stand up and denounce/correct  the following - Obama is muslim/is Arab/educated in Maddrassa (extremist islamic school/sworn in using Koran/radical black extremist/anti-whitey etc ...
 
Obama being a muslim for the first 31 years of his life is correct. His wife suggested that he convert to Christianity so that he could run for office.

DB - your claim of non-partisanship grows more & more unbelievable by the word. I wonder if you might be a follower or employee of Karl Rove, Mr. Clean-Issue -driven-politics-political organizer. For one who insisted on an issues based discussion, you might want to think about at least trying to hide your true colours. Not that admitting your bias would strengten your arguements, but at least they could be written off as the fringe positions that they are.


Not that the Dems aren't capable at smearing the other side, but they unfortunately don't have idiots like Rush (I'm not a drug addict) Limbaugh, Bill (let's give everyone a chance to explain themselves) O'Reilly, Newt (adulterers don't belong in political office) Gingrich, the Right Wing Gospel of Prosperity Evangelical (what ever I say Jesus meant, is what Jesus meant) christian fanatics, and of course, the ever supportive big business and war mongerers.
 
Al Frankin, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, Code Pink, Arthur Sulzburger, Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Bill Maher, Rosie O'Donnell, Jack Cafferty and the list just keeps going. You are aware that the media today is predominatly liberal or did that just slip your mind?

DB - I guess everybody that criticizes your side is somehow liberal. This awareness you speak of is actually a fabrication. That "liberal" points of view exist is not a crime, and does not prove that it is overwhelming. Of course, for those who are fanatically inclined, any disagreement with their opinion is heretical. You may want to check out A certain Mr Rupert Murdoch's political leanings as an example of why your statement is, at best, a red herring intended to cast doubt about any criticism being based on something as simple as reality.

Oh, and by the way, for one who says you're not affiliated with any party, you sure seem to be tilting hard to one side, eh.
 
That is correct, I can only vote once.  In past presidential elections I have voted for Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, Bill Clinton and George Bush. I vote for the canidate not the political party. What about you?

DB - First, I spell it "candidate". Second, saying that you voted for Clinton sounds about as truthful as your initial claim to independent thought & non-partisanship. It seems more likely that you vote for the most simplistic right wing  politician on the ballot.



"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2008 at 17:58
Note to Relayer -
Karl Rove and his band of malicious smearers are nothing new in politics. The level to which they have elevated this nefarious art, though, is.
An example to show my non-partisanship : in the GOP primary when McCain ran against Dubya, there were rumours spread that the Senator had fathered an Asian child out of wedlock. When presented with the lack of evidence on this topic, many Bush supporters would answer that there was no concrete evidence that he hadn't. Bush - 1 / McCain - 0.
As has been stated, your seeming lack of the ability to distinguish what is or may be real from what is clearly nothing more than the work of a "Dirty Tricks" squad leaves the impression that you represent the worst of the American voter/citizen. It is also why the constant clamour for Issues based political campaigns ring hollow when political operatives know that it's easier to win by libeling and lying about your opponent. Especially when you know that your supporters can't even be bothered to verify the boldest lie.
So, in my opinion, you are either simply trolling; or you are simply stupid. For democracy to work, its' citizens should be well informed, not well trained. And for the world's greatest democracy to suffer fools of your ilk is just proof that political debate and discussion mean nothing if the voters refuse to question their political candidates' statements and stands, along with the supporting cast of PACs that manage to blatantly over-ride campaign spending limits.
So if it comes to a point where the best, and also the worst, that you can hope for is that the Democrat political machinery play the game the same way as the GOP hard core does, well  ... then God help the American people.
Oh, by the way, Relayer, you could probably use some , er, ahem , "help". Hopefully your HMO does not consider Mental Health as a luxury .
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2008 at 18:59
Note to the Relayer... in answer to his signature... which states that "cubans have gun control and universal health care.. so why do they want to come here?"
 
Yes, cubans want to come here..... but do not compare us with Cuba.. a little underdeveloped third(fourth) world nation that has suffered an atrocious dictatorship.. .choose a country more fit to compare....
 
Rephrase like this:
 
"The scandinavians (change for British, German, etc) have universal health care and they have gun control.... So why DON'T THEY come here in the thousands?"
 
And while you're at that, why don't you add:
 
"The europeans have gun control...  have you seen any Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc, in Europe lately? And if you have, was it so frequent as in Gun Paradise USA?"
 
"The Europeans have universal health care.. Americans have good old private companies.. so how come:
 
1 1 Flag%20of%20Andorra Andorra 83.52 80.62 86.23
2 Flag%20of%20Macau Macau (Flag%20of%20the%20Peoples%20Republic%20of%20China PRC) 82.27 79.44 85.25
2 3 Flag%20of%20Japan Japan 82.02 78.67 85.56
3 4 Flag%20of%20San%20Marino San Marino 81.8 78.33 85.57
3 4 Flag%20of%20Singapore Singapore 81.8 79.21 84.59
6 Flag%20of%20Hong%20Kong Hong Kong (Flag%20of%20the%20Peoples%20Republic%20of%20China PRC) 81.68 78.99 84.6
7 Flag%20of%20Gibraltar Gibraltar (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom UK)[4] 80.9 78.5 83.3
5 8 Flag%20of%20Sweden Sweden 80.63 78.39 83
6 9 Flag%20of%20Australia Australia 80.62 77.8 83.59
6 10 Flag%20of%20Switzerland Switzerland 80.62 77.75 83.63
8 11 Flag%20of%20France France (metropolitan) 80.59 77.35 84
12 Flag%20of%20Guernsey Guernsey (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom UK) 80.53 77.53 83.64
9 13 Flag%20of%20Iceland Iceland 80.43 78.33 82.62
10 14 Flag%20of%20Canada Canada 80.34 76.98 83.86
15 Flag%20of%20Cayman%20Islands Cayman Islands (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom UK) 80.2 77.57 82.87
11 16 Flag%20of%20Italy Italy 79.94 77.01 83.07
12 17 Flag%20of%20Monaco Monaco 79.82 75.99 83.85
13 18 Flag%20of%20Liechtenstein Liechtenstein 79.81 76.24 83.4
14 19 Flag%20of%20Spain Spain 79.78 76.46 83.32
14 19 Flag%20of%20Norway Norway 79.78 76.46 83.32
14 19 Flag%20of%20Israel Israel 79.78 76.46 83.32
22 Flag%20of%20Jersey Jersey (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom UK) 79.51 77.02 82.2
23 Flag%20of%20the%20Faroe%20Islands Faroe Islands (Flag%20of%20Denmark Denmark) 79.49 76.06 82.93
17 24 Flag%20of%20Greece Greece 79.38 76.85 82.06
18 25 Flag%20of%20Austria Austria 79.21 76.32 82.26
26 Flag%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands U.S. Virgin Islands (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20States US) 79.2 75.4 83.22
19 27 Flag%20of%20Malta Malta 79.15 76.95 81.47
20 28 Flag%20of%20the%20Netherlands Netherlands 79.11 76.52 81.82
21 29 Flag%20of%20Luxembourg Luxembourg 79.03 75.76 82.52
30 Flag%20of%20Montserrat Montserrat (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom UK) 79 76.8 81.31
22 31 Flag%20of%20New%20Zealand New Zealand 78.96 75.97 82.08
23 32 Flag%20of%20Germany Germany 78.95 75.96 82.11
24 33 Flag%20of%20Belgium Belgium 78.92 75.75 82.24
34 Flag%20of%20Guam Guam (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20States US) 78.76 75.69 82.01
34 Flag%20of%20Saint%20Pierre%20and%20Miquelon Saint Pierre and Miquelon (Flag%20of%20France France) 78.76 76.41 81.23
25 36 Flag%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom United Kingdom 78.7 76.23 81.3
36 Flag%20of%20Europe European Union 78.7 75.6 82
26 38 Flag%20of%20Finland Finland 78.66 75.15 82.31
39 Flag%20of%20the%20Isle%20of%20Man Isle of Man (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom UK) 78.64 75.3 82.17
27 40 Flag%20of%20Jordan Jordan 78.55 76.04 81.22
41 Flag%20of%20Puerto%20Rico Puerto Rico (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20States US) 78.54 74.6 82.67
28 42 Flag%20of%20Bosnia%20and%20Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.17 74.57 82.03
43 Flag%20of%20Bermuda Bermuda (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom UK) 78.13 76 80.29
44 Flag%20of%20Saint%20Helena Saint Helena (Flag%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom UK) 78.09 75.19 81.15
29 45 Flag%20of%20the%20United%20States United States 78.06 75.15 80.97
 
 
United States is 45 in the world in life expectancy!!! The first power in the world!!!
 
Yes... cubans run here.... Poor latin americans run here... Poor asians may want to come here.... AND THAT'S IT.
 
And I love this, my adoptive country. But I just can't read that signature with credule eyes, and then read that the same person says Obama is a muslim..... And that is supposed to be an argument....
 
Make them fear and you will reign !!!!


Edited by The T - June 21 2008 at 19:05
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2008 at 19:26
Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

Was Obama Raised Muslim?

Consider the evidence:

As Barack Obama's candidacy comes under increasing scrutiny, his account of his religious upbringing deserves careful attention for what it tells us about the candidate's integrity. If he lied maybe. Religion doesn't tell us anything else about a person but that he/she believes in things he/she can't prove...

Obama asserted in December, "I've always been a Christian," and he has adamantly denied ever having been a Muslim. "The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country [Kenya]. But I've never practiced Islam."  Ok. His word against that of his detractors. Let's see...

In February, he claimed, "I have never been a Muslim.... other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for four years when I was a child [Indonesia, 1967-71] I have very little connection to the Islamic religion." he had contact... i was raised in a Catholic country and I'm an Atheist.... Damn! Or am I lying about which fairy tale story I believe in?

"Always" and "never" leave little room for equivocation. But many biographical facts, culled mainly from the American press, suggest that, when growing up, the Democratic candidate for president both saw himself and was seen as a Muslim. I quote you: "Always" and "never" leave little room for equivocation... except, of course, when it's your political rival.

• Obama's Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936-1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.  NO. Religion doesn't pass from father to child. IT'S NOT A GENE. A free person can CHOOSE. I can't belive that people have the nerve of saying things like "that's a catholic boy" or "she's a good christian girl" or "my 5 year old is a great muslim"... Why are we labeling children that don't yet have the reasoning capacity to MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES? So it's perfectly believable that Obama, a muslim son, was not a muslim.

• Obama's Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of The New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." An Indonesian publication, The Banjarmasin Post, reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that "All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims." Damn! I should be a catholic! My whole family (except for my nuclear family, father,mother, sister, who CHOSE their individual paths) was catholic! Label me! Poor evidence.

• Obama's Catholic school in Jakarta: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim" while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of The Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was "listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school." If it was a "catholic school", I'm pretty sure it was standard to label children, therefore they had to label little Obama as his parents. Remember: FROM FIRST TO THIRD GRADE A CHILD'S MIND IS NOT READY TO CHOOSE BY HIMSELF.... Or maybe he was a prodigious child who enrolled himself... and maybe even paid himself...

• The public school: Paul Watson of The Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he "was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended."Did you read that? Registered BY HIS FAMILY. HE WAS A CHILD.  Haroon Siddiqui of The Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that "Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim." DID HE ENROLLED HIMSELF? OR MAYBE HIS PARENTS ENROLLED HIM? Although Siddiqui cautions that "With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people's shifting memories," he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama's being registered as a Muslim. There's still not ONE single piece of evidence that shows that Obama HIMSELF ever was a muslim. Only registrations made by HIS MUSLIM PARENTS.

• Barack Obama's public school in Jakarta, Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koran studies. Indeed, Obama still retains knowledge from that class: Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times reports that Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent." Of course. We're talking about a boy, a child. he makes faces as any other child or even teenager. And of course he knew the Q'uoran.. After all, he was probably forced to learn it by his MUSLIM PARENTS.  

• Mosque attendance: Obama's half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events." Watson learned from childhood friends that "Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque." Barker found that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers." One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama "was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong" (a garment associated with Muslims). How old was Obama here? Was he at least 18 years old so that we can fully trust it was his own free will that made him to there? Or, even if he did, that it was his concious decision after the kind of analysis only an adult mind can do?

Well you better tell the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times they have their facts all wrong too. No... they have their facts right... the problem is, the facts don't prove anything.
 
I really don't care what religion Obama is. I do not for a minute think that he would undermine the country over a religious belief. The background check done by the Clinton campaign did bring his muslim ubringing to light.
 
So why do you even mention this? To show his "lack of integrity" for having said he never was muslim when maybe he "was" as a child? First. if he changed his religion, isn't he free to do it? Second, A CHILD CAN'T BE "ANYTHING". NOR CATHOLIC, CHRISTIAN, ATHEIST, SATANIST, MUSLIM, NOTHING. A child is.. a child. A child can't make that kind of heavy judgment yet. It's only society that allows the violence against children rights of labeling them with what their parents believe. So if your parents believe in the Mighty Apple and Lord Carrot, would you have been an "applecarroteist" when you were, say, 10 years old? If you're a christian, a catholic, a, atheist, whatever, is because you made that choice when you COULD. (not that believeing in apples or carrots is any less possible than the other beliefs....)
 
So here we have no evidence. Not at all. Please discuss politics, economics, policies... maybe you even have a point in those.... what people believe in their minds should remain there, and nowhere else....
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2008 at 20:41
Beware ... the anti-troll patrol is on to you Mr R9 (which for a credit bureau means "write-off" or "bankrupt").
The anti-stupidity team is still trying to catch its' collective breath from laughing at your most recent posts.
The reality sect has given up on saving your soul. Fox News , though, thinks you are a brilliant political anal-lyst, and would add to its' already globally reknowned bent for partisanship on a grand scale.
Oh, Brit Hume, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, most of the Right Wing Evangelical radio & TV shows, Bill O Reilly, that female on Fox or CNN that looks like a horse ...
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2008 at 23:33
Originally posted by Starless Starless wrote:

Reading all you Yanks moaning about budget deficits, tax cuts etc, makes me wonder how this compares - In the good 'ol UK we are currently paying an average of £1100 (about $2000) per annum on domestic fuel bills, with predicted increases of 40% (!!!!!) this winter. Also, we are paying arounf £1.20 (around $2? not sure, you'll have to check) a litre for petrol (gas). Don't know how many litres = 1 US gallon, but if you do the math, I'm sure you'll fall off your chair!
 
All politicians are b*****ds (some literally)
 
Angry
A US gallon is about 4 litres.  Wholesale price of unleaded gasoline as of last Friday is about $3.44. It's the same in the US and the UK. The retail (what we pay at the pump) is around $4 in the US and close to $9 in the UK. We pay 40-50 cents in gasoline taxes. You pay $5. But your socialism costs money. That's just one of the ways you're paying for it.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2008 at 23:48
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Oh, by the way, governments actually have little real effect on the economy. Economic cycles come & go. Booms seem like they'll never end, and busts always get better. The only change from one to the other is the specific length of time. Bush's tax rebate will do little that wasn't going to happen anyway. The same that Clinton's presidency was not the main cause of the stock market surge in the 90s.
  I used to think this way too. A government can influence the economy in a profound way. The stock market bubble of the 80's was a result of Reagan's budget deficit policy to fight the cold war. Clinton engineered the bubble of the 90's to get re-elected. His first two years in office were uneventful and he was facing a one-term presidency. He brought in Rubin who most likely negotiated the lowering of the interest rates with Greenspan. The economy took off and the stocks went through the roof. We still feel the effects of that today.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2008 at 23:53
Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

 
The voters keep their Representatives and Senators in power. Obama has no more power over who sits in Congress than anyone else in Washington does. All that Obama and McCain for that matter can bring in are cabinet seats and those people have no voting power to get laws passed with the exception of Supreme Court nominees if a spot were to open up.

The executive branch has an enormous power. What having no voting power has to do with it?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 00:00
OK

a.)  this country's entitlement programs are going to bankrupt us.
b.)  neither candidate nor party has any interest in solving this problem

therefore, at least this election is not very relevant.

but by all means, think gay marriage or other non-issues are so critical as to influence your decision.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 00:13
Where did you guys find these graphs?? It's pure propaganda. Verify your sources before posting them.
 
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

And now for something completely different:


And speaking of graphs:



Countergraph me Relayer! LOL
 
Here is the site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm#benchmark 
 
Click on "Create Customized Tables" and I can guide you thru the selection criteria. When you look at the totals, the Clinton years show a job growth rate of 2% on average. This 20M jobs at the end of his second term is a cumulative number. It was achieved thru manipulation of the economy. We had a party now it's the paytime. 
And the graph conveniently stops at the year 2003 for Mr. Bush although the economy added over 8M jobs since then. Not that I am a big fan of his, but you have to be fair.
 
Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

I counter with a Nixon-Ford! aha take that! So it seems apparent that the guys who get impeached are great at creating jobs, or something associated with a "job". LOLClown
Anyone for a cigar perhaps? Embarrassed
  If you use the above customized tables, the Nixon-Ford administrations had a peak annual growth of 4% in 1973, and actual loss of jobs in 1975. The average is closer to 2%.  
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 00:16
Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

  If McCain were to choose Joe Leiberman as his VP choice ( which I hope he does ) he'll win easily.
What would happen then to McCain's conservative image he's trying to build for his right wing supporters?
 
Do you really think conservatives are going to vote for Obama if McCain were to pick Leiberman?
No I don't. But they may not vote at all.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 00:34
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Beware ... the anti-troll patrol is on to you Mr R9 (which for a credit bureau means "write-off" or "bankrupt").
The anti-stupidity team is still trying to catch its' collective breath from laughing at your most recent posts.
The reality sect has given up on saving your soul. Fox News , though, thinks you are a brilliant political anal-lyst, and would add to its' already globally reknowned bent for partisanship on a grand scale.
Oh, Brit Hume, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, most of the Right Wing Evangelical radio & TV shows, Bill O Reilly, that female on Fox or CNN that looks like a horse ...
You get too personal. Your comments on the merits of Relayer's posts reflect your personal opinion, thus they are subjective and may not conform to reality. I for one don't find his posts stupid. Your conduct does not help this discussion. 
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 00:39
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

OK

a.)  this country's entitlement programs are going to bankrupt us.
b.)  neither candidate nor party has any interest in solving this problem

therefore, at least this election is not very relevant.
Using this criteria for the past 20 years no election was very relevant.
 
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:


but by all means, think gay marriage or other non-issues are so critical as to influence your decision.
  ???
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 09:26


OK that was from 2004, things did get a little better in the past few years:


Job-destroying Democrats in action


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 22 2008 at 09:40
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 09:31
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

OK

a.)  this country's entitlement programs are going to bankrupt us.
b.)  neither candidate nor party has any interest in solving this problem

therefore, at least this election is not very relevant.
Using this criteria for the past 20 years no election was very relevant.
 
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:


but by all means, think gay marriage or other non-issues are so critical as to influence your decision.
  ???


I was a bit tipsy when I wrote this, but things are not relevant for me because I fear fiscal conservatism is officially dead.  Some tough choices are going to have to be made, but no one wants to make them now because the government waits until a problem is a crisis in order to act.  Witness current energy problems where I don't see any real short term solution.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 09:39
Perhaps this will help:




Edited by Slartibartfast - June 22 2008 at 14:51
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 09:51
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Beware ... the anti-troll patrol is on to you Mr R9 (which for a credit bureau means "write-off" or "bankrupt").
The anti-stupidity team is still trying to catch its' collective breath from laughing at your most recent posts.
The reality sect has given up on saving your soul. Fox News , though, thinks you are a brilliant political anal-lyst, and would add to its' already globally reknowned bent for partisanship on a grand scale.
Oh, Brit Hume, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, most of the Right Wing Evangelical radio & TV shows, Bill O Reilly, that female on Fox or CNN that looks like a horse ...
You get too personal. Your comments on the merits of Relayer's posts reflect your personal opinion, thus they are subjective and may not conform to reality. I for one don't find his posts stupid. Your conduct does not help this discussion. 

IVnord, he started out by proclaiming how non-partisan and independent thinking he was. He then went into mostly anti-Obama smear mode, using unfounded lies and half baked thoughts to prove how right he was. At no point has he questioned or even criticized in the slightest anything that McCain has said or done, while raking Obama over the coals for actions that Senator John has also done.
The merits of R9's arguements don't exist as he simply refuses to present factual or at least "real" information. The Obama is a muslim story ? Obama, but not McCain, flip flops ? The overwhelming Liberal & leftist biased media ?
It all adds up to the typical GOP/Karl Rove game. Plant the seed of the biggest lie. Lazy back and watch as it spreads. Know that many of your supporters will not question anything negative about your opponent, no matter how flimsy or non-existent the evidence is to support it.

If anything, my conduct is one of at least trying to present something called balance & intelligence into the debate.
If you read my posts, you'll also find aspects that R9 has not even come close to presenting - actual support & criticism of BOTH SIDES.
So when R9 offers something that can be considered to be true, I'll discuss with him. When he continues to troll ( and yes, conscious or not, that is what he is doing), I'll keep on flaming him as he well deserves.
Read the posts, IVnord, read the posts.
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Relayer09 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 31 2007
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 314
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 12:03
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

The election really lies in the big states that Hillary won. Texas, Florida, New York, Ohio and Michigan. Will these states vote for Obama without Hillary on the ticket? NOPE. The race at this point really comes down to is Hillary on the ticket for VP or not. Without Hillary on the ticket Obama will lose as bad as Mike Dukakis did.
 
People like myself who do not subscribe to any political party and like to think for myself will probably not vote for Obama without Hillary. Me personally, I will not vote for Obama over McCain even with Hillary on the ticket. Obama says the things people want to hear. That's only a good thing if he has a plan to back up those nice sounding things, which I don't believe he can do. There's been alot of skeletons to come out of the Obama closet already and may be more to come. McCain has kept his integrity intact even after being attacked by the New York Times with unfounded claims. So far for me the pendulum has swung towards McCain. Will it swing back? Doubtful at this point but we shall see.


Aaahh. McCain's integrity. Proudly Stands with evangelical preacher one day, disowns him when the racist/homophobic/anti-immigrant/anti-poor statements reach the media.
 
You mean Jeremiah Wright?  Wait a minute that was Obama.

DB - Actually the answer is Rev John Hagee. I'll leave it to you to do the reading as you seem intent on living in your own little reality. Wait, why strain your meager intellectual resources - John Hagee "God Damn America because it doesn't support new Israeli settlements in the occupied territory:. Rev Wright - "God Damn America for its' government's treatment of America's poor, its' black population, the Indian, the immigrantsand just about anyone that doesn't carry any electoral or financial heft". I can see why Rev Hagee's invoking God's wrath upon his country is O.K. (not)
 
Obama received Louis Farakhan's support just as McCain received Hagee's support but that in no way means that either of them agree with Farakhan or Hagee. Now it is quite a different story to be a member of Jeremiah Wright's chruch for twenty years.


Accuses Bush of being incompetent when campaigning against him, then eventually gives in and morphs into a quasi-supporter of the Bush administration. Why, well, to put it simply, so as to enable him to win the Republican nomination despite his past disagreements with the GOP's conservative wing on fundamental issues.
 
McCain doesn't tote the party line like a lemming is all that means.  Obama votes the way his party tells him to vote, end of story. I'm voting for a leader not a follower.

DB - Again, your own little reality seems quite detached from the rest of the world. McCain has been questioned as to his change of heart re : many Dubya policies that he argues against years ago. The reason that some political analysts (including conservative wags) have given , is that he needs to show the GOP's right wing that he is one of them. Once more, if you're interested, please do some reading on McCain's stand on issues 4-5 years ago, then what he says he supports now. Just as Obama, he is a politician and has to play the "game". Please relate more than one occasion where Obama voted against his conscience.
Oh, what you're voting for is a Republican, no matter what that Republican might have been. Admit it, give up the non-partisan facade that you seem to think no one can see through.

Obama has voted with his party 96% of the time. McCain has voted with his party 88% of the time during the Bush administration. Those are just the facts.

Just because I'll be voting for a Republican canidate this election does in no way make me an automatic Republican. This may be a hard concept for you but my voting record supports my non-partisan claims.

Frankly, I believe both parties have ended up with the best possible nominees. But only one is young. Only one, realistically, once in power, would bring in fresh blood into Washington. Who ? Obama. Why ? Because of his relatively short time as Senator has meant that he is still building up the insider relationships so necessary in the political system. And I don't mean this for McCain only. Clinton's presidency would have meant keeping the same old crowd in power.
 
The voters keep their Representatives and Senators in power. Obama has no more power over who sits in Congress than anyone else in Washington does. All that Obama and McCain for that matter can bring in are cabinet seats and those people have no voting power to get laws passed with the exception of Supreme Court nominees if a spot were to open up.

DB - er, can you explain the Presidency's seeming lack of power that you write about ?

What fresh blood did Bush bring into Washington? What roles did these people play? Powell, Rice & Gonzales all held cabinet posts. So enlighten me as to what fresh blood Obama will bring in and what roles will they play?

And as far as no plans to back up the rethoric, and unfounded claims ... well ... specific plans are never examined or discussed in detail during an election because the electorate just doesn't have the will or interest to do so. That's why the generalities, the so-called "values" are on display, for both sides.
And for unfounded claims ... well ... if you think that is an Obama failing, please feel free to stand up and denounce/correct  the following - Obama is muslim/is Arab/educated in Maddrassa (extremist islamic school/sworn in using Koran/radical black extremist/anti-whitey etc ...
 
Obama being a muslim for the first 31 years of his life is correct. His wife suggested that he convert to Christianity so that he could run for office.

DB - your claim of non-partisanship grows more & more unbelievable by the word. I wonder if you might be a follower or employee of Karl Rove, Mr. Clean-Issue -driven-politics-political organizer. For one who insisted on an issues based discussion, you might want to think about at least trying to hide your true colours. Not that admitting your bias would strengten your arguements, but at least they could be written off as the fringe positions that they are.

As you might recall, Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. her campaign dug into Obama's upbringing. Obama never participated in any radical movements but he was registred as a muslim in the schools he attended growing up. His own family members claim that he was a muslim. You asked me to correct your statement and I gave you the results discovered by journalists from several news papers, such as the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune.

Not that the Dems aren't capable at smearing the other side, but they unfortunately don't have idiots like Rush (I'm not a drug addict) Limbaugh, Bill (let's give everyone a chance to explain themselves) O'Reilly, Newt (adulterers don't belong in political office) Gingrich, the Right Wing Gospel of Prosperity Evangelical (what ever I say Jesus meant, is what Jesus meant) christian fanatics, and of course, the ever supportive big business and war mongerers.
 
Al Frankin, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, Code Pink, Arthur Sulzburger, Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Bill Maher, Rosie O'Donnell, Jack Cafferty and the list just keeps going. You are aware that the media today is predominatly liberal or did that just slip your mind?

DB - I guess everybody that criticizes your side is somehow liberal. This awareness you speak of is actually a fabrication. That "liberal" points of view exist is not a crime, and does not prove that it is overwhelming. Of course, for those who are fanatically inclined, any disagreement with their opinion is heretical. You may want to check out A certain Mr Rupert Murdoch's political leanings as an example of why your statement is, at best, a red herring intended to cast doubt about any criticism being based on something as simple as reality.

You claimed that only the conservative side of the media has fanatical personalities like Limbaugh and O'Reilly. Liberal media has just as many if not more fanatics also. I see fanatics on both sides whereas you can only see things from one side of the fence.



Oh, and by the way, for one who says you're not affiliated with any party, you sure seem to be tilting hard to one side, eh.
 
That is correct, I can only vote once.  In past presidential elections I have voted for Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, Bill Clinton and George Bush. I vote for the canidate not the political party. What about you?

DB - First, I spell it "candidate". Second, saying that you voted for Clinton sounds about as truthful as your initial claim to independent thought & non-partisanship. It seems more likely that you vote for the most simplistic right wing  politician on the ballot.

Ah yes the grammer police strike again. That always adds something meaningful to a discussion. And now I'm a liar because you can't handle someone being capable of seeing both sides of the political arena and voting accordingly. You conviently avoided posting your voting record but it's apparent you only see things from one side.



Edited by Relayer09 - June 22 2008 at 13:08
If you lose your temper, you've lost the arguement. -Proverb
Back to Top
Relayer09 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 31 2007
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 314
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 13:00
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

Was Obama Raised Muslim?

Consider the evidence:

As Barack Obama's candidacy comes under increasing scrutiny, his account of his religious upbringing deserves careful attention for what it tells us about the candidate's integrity. If he lied maybe. Religion doesn't tell us anything else about a person but that he/she believes in things he/she can't prove... I agree but why should he conceal his background? I don't care what religion he subcribes to but by not being forthcoming about it only makes me suspicious of him.

Obama asserted in December, "I've always been a Christian," and he has adamantly denied ever having been a Muslim. "The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country [Kenya]. But I've never practiced Islam."  Ok. His word against that of his detractors. Let's see...

In February, he claimed, "I have never been a Muslim.... other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for four years when I was a child [Indonesia, 1967-71] I have very little connection to the Islamic religion." he had contact... i was raised in a Catholic country and I'm an Atheist.... Damn! Or am I lying about which fairy tale story I believe in? Well did you ever attend church or practice a form a Christianity and then convert to Atheism? If you did would you deny ever doing so if running for President?

"Always" and "never" leave little room for equivocation. But many biographical facts, culled mainly from the American press, suggest that, when growing up, the Democratic candidate for president both saw himself and was seen as a Muslim. I quote you: "Always" and "never" leave little room for equivocation... except, of course, when it's your political rival. I have to agree both sides of a political campaign will try and smear each other. Unfortunately, that is the nature of politics.

• Obama's Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936-1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.  NO. Religion doesn't pass from father to child. IT'S NOT A GENE. A free person can CHOOSE. I can't belive that people have the nerve of saying things like "that's a catholic boy" or "she's a good christian girl" or "my 5 year old is a great muslim"... Why are we labeling children that don't yet have the reasoning capacity to MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES? So it's perfectly believable that Obama, a muslim son, was not a muslim. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. Clap

• Obama's Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of The New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." An Indonesian publication, The Banjarmasin Post, reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that "All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims." Damn! I should be a catholic! My whole family (except for my nuclear family, father,mother, sister, who CHOSE their individual paths) was catholic! Label me! Poor evidence. It comes down to Obama's denial of ever practicing Islam which recent investigations have revealed that in fact he did. I'm not here to label you but would you deny ever practicing Catholicism if in fact you had done so because your family initially exposed you to that religion?

• Obama's Catholic school in Jakarta: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim" while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of The Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was "listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school." If it was a "catholic school", I'm pretty sure it was standard to label children, therefore they had to label little Obama as his parents. Remember: FROM FIRST TO THIRD GRADE A CHILD'S MIND IS NOT READY TO CHOOSE BY HIMSELF.... Or maybe he was a prodigious child who enrolled himself... and maybe even paid himself... Agreed, a child is not capable of making that type of decision regarding a belief system at that age but that's also no reason to deny ever practicing different beliefs.

• The public school: Paul Watson of The Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he "was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended."Did you read that? Registered BY HIS FAMILY. HE WAS A CHILD.  Haroon Siddiqui of The Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that "Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim." DID HE ENROLLED HIMSELF? OR MAYBE HIS PARENTS ENROLLED HIM? Although Siddiqui cautions that "With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people's shifting memories," he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama's being registered as a Muslim. There's still not ONE single piece of evidence that shows that Obama HIMSELF ever was a muslim. Only registrations made by HIS MUSLIM PARENTS. Why would his parents enroll him as a muslim if they weren't practicing that religion as a family?

• Barack Obama's public school in Jakarta, Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koran studies. Indeed, Obama still retains knowledge from that class: Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times reports that Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent." Of course. We're talking about a boy, a child. he makes faces as any other child or even teenager. And of course he knew the Q'uoran.. After all, he was probably forced to learn it by his MUSLIM PARENTS.  That is most likely the case.

• Mosque attendance: Obama's half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events." Watson learned from childhood friends that "Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque." Barker found that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers." One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama "was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong" (a garment associated with Muslims). How old was Obama here? Was he at least 18 years old so that we can fully trust it was his own free will that made him to there? Or, even if he did, that it was his concious decision after the kind of analysis only an adult mind can do?

Well you better tell the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times they have their facts all wrong too. No... they have their facts right... the problem is, the facts don't prove anything.
 
I really don't care what religion Obama is. I do not for a minute think that he would undermine the country over a religious belief. The background check done by the Clinton campaign did bring his muslim ubringing to light.
 
So why do you even mention this? To show his "lack of integrity" for having said he never was muslim
when maybe he "was" as a child? First. if he changed his religion, isn't he free to do it? Second, A CHILD CAN'T BE "ANYTHING". NOR CATHOLIC, CHRISTIAN, ATHEIST, SATANIST, MUSLIM, NOTHING. A child is.. a child. A child can't make that kind of heavy judgment yet. It's only society that allows the violence against children rights of labeling them with what their parents believe. So if your parents believe in the Mighty Apple and Lord Carrot, would you have been an "applecarroteist" when you were, say, 10 years old? If you're a christian, a catholic, a, atheist, whatever, is because you made that choice when you COULD. (not that believeing in apples or carrots is any less possible than the other beliefs....)
 
So here we have no evidence. Not at all. Please discuss politics, economics, policies... maybe you even have a point in those.... what people believe in their minds should remain there, and nowhere else....
 
The evidence does show that Obama was brought up muslim, he attended mosque, studied the Koran, was enrolled in school as a muslim and his own family members claim their entire family was muslim.
 
Obama has been a Christian for at least 20 years but the question remains, why deny his muslim upbringing even if it were forced upon him as a child?
 
I don't know about the rest of you but my vote isn't going to what religion Obama or McCain subscribe to but to where they stand on issues and which one I trust more in what they say.
 
 


Edited by Relayer09 - June 22 2008 at 13:04
If you lose your temper, you've lost the arguement. -Proverb
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 14:51

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3435363738 303>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.449 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.