logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Who will you vote for on election day, and why?, Debate your side, and explain what will motivate you to vote.
net2007
post Nov 3 2008, 02:36 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Well we have until tomorrow to make up our minds. Its been interesting, and fun debating this election with most of you, especially the Obama supporters who I usually disagree with on nearly everything. tongue.gif

Some of us have voted already, some have made up their minds and will vote by Tuesday, and I assume many people have yet to decide. I want to hear what is motivating the members here to vote. Whether it be specific issues the candidate supports, their credibility as you see it, their personalities, or even if you just like the way they dress. I think and hope most people think a little deeper than appearance but lets debate any possible motivation that will determine your vote and feel free to explain your local state elections if you wish.

Questions for Debate (answer any or all)....

1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?

6. Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?


(answer the last question as soon as the election is determined an obvious win for either candidate) I'm guessing this will end up being in the wee hours of the morning on Wednesday.

7. Are you surprised by the outcome of the election, and was it closer or tighter than you expected?


================================================================================
================================================================================
=



Intro

I'll vote for John McCain for president which will come to little surprise to most of you. I'm going to turn this post into a whopper explaining why since many people are accusing McCain supporters of being less issue oriented and more oriented around attacking Obama for his associations. If you ask me in most cases people are just asking questions about his associations.

Anyway, Mike Huckabee was the candidate I was most interested in but unfortunately he lost the primary before North Carolina even voted in it. I want to explain why McCain will get my vote on Tuesday, and why I believe he is the right choice and even a little on what does disappoint me about him. I don't want to sound like I'm part of the McCain campaign and that this man is right about everything, although this post will be primarily about why I'm going to vote for him, obviously. Truth is I have to give at least some credit to Obama as a conservative but more importantly as an individual who believes Obama is a good man and a tough candidate, despite the criticism I give him and despite the fact that I oppose much of what he stands for. I don't think he's ready to lead and I don't agree with most of his politics, but I don't believe he is a Muslim extremist either. I'll start with some brief criticisms on McCain, then list the top 5 reasons I support John McCain.......


Criticisms

McCain is not a great speaker especially when compared to Obama, and although I agree with McCains message and see him as more fit to lead, the repetitive
campaign talking lines get old, and he never engaged Obama near enough in Debate. McCain also comes off as a quite a typical negative campaigner at times with misleading campaign Ads just like Obama. As far as personality, policy, and debate skills I ended up liking Mike Huckabee the most. He was quite a campaigner too considering the limited amount of money he had. McCain fell at about my 3rd favorite Republican candidate, but he is doing better than I thought he would do. The race is close but some of his campaign moves have been questionable, like suspending his campaign for the economic crises only to leave Washington shortly after. As far as policy goes I agree with him on most things especially when compared to Obama. The five reasons below explain why........


Reason Number 1. (The War in Iraq)

This war has been central to my support for those who see its importance. I would even consider voting for a Democrat if they supported this war, and if their economics made more sense to me. The War in Iraq has stirred up some of the most controversial and heated debates on sites like this. I support it for a few fundamental reasons. One of the most important reasons is the sacrifice that our soldiers make when they fight it. To some this is a discouraging factor, many ask is this really worth the blood and sweat? Is it worth the time and effort? I like many, including soldiers who actively fight in this war see the importance of following through. I know many people disagree with this for their own reasons and that many of those reasons are real and heartfelt but I want to explain why I disagree.

The sacrifice our men and women make in a time of war, are worth it, even for many of our soldiers, if you truly believe in its cause. I do, and one of the criticisms I've gotten for displaying this support as a civilian is that I support putting our men at risk for my own selfish reasons, and my own political beliefs. My response to that has always been that our soldiers enlist in our military for their own reasons, they are also grown men and women who are well aware of the risk involved. We don't have a draft military and this is important to note. With all the opposition to this war the reason I support it today is just as clear as it's ever been. I want to share a video with you of one of our soldiers who supports the Iraq war and McCain after having lost his leg in combat. This short video has become the most watched election related video on youtube with over 11 million hits. This is not an ad paid for by the McCain campaign either although this soldier obviously does support him......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ele...008/7699509.stm

I've presented this video a couple times recently including on this site because I think it sends an important message, and is certainly a must see. I may not have walked in this mans shoes, but the bravery and dedication of men and women like this inspire me as an American, and it reminds me why its so important that we succeed in Iraq. With all the political rhetoric that surrounds this war its stories of men like this that cut through that and help me remember what's important.

Beyond the sacrifice, there were motivations for fighting this war, most of which I agree with, and the condition in Iraq over the last year has been one of improvement on multiple levels. I've debated this before but I'll go over it again relatively briefly starting with why I believe we are in Iraq.

So what motivations were there to fight this war?

Some say the reasons for fighting this war was to ensure the stability of the global economy and our economy, there is a lot of oil in the middle east. We import most of our oil from this region, therefore to some extent the stability of the middle east is important in that respect. Some in turn call this a fight for oil. War protesters sometimes hold up signs saying "No blood for Oil". If this were the only reason I believed we were in Iraq I wouldn't be supporting our presence their.

However, some people say this war is about our national security.

Some people say Iraq plays an important roll in our success in the war on terror.

Some people say this is about giving Iraqis the opportunity to live a better life free from the dictatorship of the Saddam regime.

Others say we needed to find out if Saddam had WMD.

So who had it right? I may not be a national security expert by any stretch of the imagination, but in my opinion, and from all I've learned, these were all valid motivations for fighting this war. All of the above apply to some extent, I would elaborate on this again like I have in the past but I don't want to turn this post into another 50 page review of the Iraq war, or The War on Terror.

To make this section as short as possible, I'll present two of my forums that debate my position on this war, as well as presenting some facts. The post below contained most of the research I had done on this war, and Afghanistan, this time last year. It's about 50 pages long and contains almost 100 links from a number of sources......

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304

It was closed before I had a chance to do a final proof read, or get any responses because it was too big and the moderators felt it would have spawned too many different types of debate, but it explains my position on the war and presents some of the most creditable information I could find last year. Hopefully most of the links haven't gone dead by now. I later took one of the sections of that post and made it into a smaller post about WMD and Saddam which can be read and replied to here...

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=15779&st=0


So where do we stand today in Iraq?

America and Iraqis have come a long way in the last year. I feel that many Americans are unaware of this utter turn around we have seen in Iraq. For those who have been paying attention violence is now at a 4 year low in Iraq, the Iraq Security Forces or (ISF) have now taken primary control over the majority of it's provenances, and they are doing the majority of the fighting and dieing in this war today. Political and military accomplishments in the last year have even surprised me. Iraqi civilians have returned home by the thousands in the last year because Iraq today is not the Iraq we were reading about and hearing about on the news last Summer. I want to present a few links that demonstrate this, the first is the most important and is primarily statistical data about violence levels in Iraq over the last year and prior....

http://understandingwar.org/files/Iraq%20S...mber%202008.pdf

Take notice to the bar and line graphs on pages 5,6,8,9,10,11, and 12. These are self explanatory and easy to read supposing you can read a bar or line graph, I'm confident everyone here can. wink.gif Beyond that it's been the stories and reports coming out of Iraq in the last year that have really been promising. Even considerably liberal news sources have been reporting this progress now and then. Let me put it in the words of our most liberal Democratic senator, Barack Obama.....

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated"

Link....

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9287

Considering he basically still believes this war is a mistake and always has, and considering that he believes the surge is a strategy ultimately doomed to failure, that says a lot coming from him. You don't get much more further to the left than Barack Obama, yet even he admits to some extent that this surge has helped Iraqis and improved the situation. Along with the link above the following two are clear indicators of why Obama would say such a thing. By the way I've deliberately included one source that can't be considered a Right Wing conservative source that being "the LA times"......


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2007/jul/31/goodnewsfrom

Excerpt from the above link.....

"Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack (both pages contain links to their writings over the past few years) said that morale had improved in US military units there and have confidence in General David Petraeus. They say that Americans and Iraqis are working better together, with ordinary Iraqis turning against "Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army".


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...0,4099051.story

Excerpt from the above link.....

"The situation in Iraq has improved dramatically as a result of the surge, innovative counterinsurgency tactics and improved outreach by U.S. forces to local elites. The level of violence is drastically reduced, and so is the U.S. casualty rate. Al Qaeda in Iraq is reeling. Its leadership has been decimated; its ability to mount major operations has been considerably reduced; and, according to Al Qaeda's own internal communications, the terrorist organization is having serious trouble attracting and motivating new recruits."

Media reports like this have been numerous in the last year, although the issue of the Iraq war does seem to be on the back burner for the time being. I've always supported this war effort, but today I hold more confidence this can work than I ever have before. John McCain's position on the Iraq war is to finish the Job, and good for him, he also criticized the approach Bush used going into the war, which was to go in with an insufficient amount of troops, 1/3 the proper amount. This cost us two years of out of control violence that I believe would have never happened if Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld had been better prepared and listened to their critics.

This is a story from early 2007 that explains this a little, its the quickest thing I could find to demonstrate that McCain was critical of Bushes tactics....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2390.html

Excerpt.....

McCain "The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense."

McCain added: "Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."


McCain's strong point in this election has always been national security and foreign policy, and for good reason, he served for our military for over 20 years, flew in missions over Vietnam, and earned a rank as high as Captain........

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ilitary_record/


Reason Number 2. (The Economy)

I don't really understand specifically why Barack Obama is viewed by so many as the cure to our economic problems, it doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps someone here can clarify that. I believe that its largely "but not solely" because Obama is not a Republican. George Bush has been ineffective in many ways as president, we all know this, so many people tend to join every politician under the Republican party at the hip on nearly every issue.

I want to talk primarily about taxes and spending in this section.

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/taxes.htm

The Obama plan basically states that no family making less than $250,000 a year will see their taxes increase, but he will increase taxes on businesses and people making more than this. Obama, and Vp pick Joe Biden, and former candidate Bill Richardson have stated that the amount is not $250,000 at times.

The following videos show side by side comments coming from Barack Obama where he states different amounts at different times...

http://patriotroom.com/?p=3626


Barack Obama "If you make 250,000 a year we will not raise your taxes, we will cut your taxes"

Barack Obama "If you make less than 200,000 a year you will get a tax cut"



Now many say they state a different amount at times simply because the plan they created states a different amount between families and single people, but in the above video you can easily gather the amount is stated differently in regards specifically to families. I'm wondering, like many, why so many people including Obama keep redefining his plan. Who exactly is rich? However lets give Obama the benefit of the doubt, because even if he has not changed his plan repeatedly, I disagree with it.

I actually use to think increasing taxes on the more wealthy was a good idea. Three things have changed that position for me this year, one being the state of our current economy, secondly the fact that I learned the rich already pay way more in taxes than the middle or lower class, and keep in mind thats under the Bush administration. Lastly Obama's plan includes businesses, and its true that businesses that generate more money, create more Jobs. There are businesses that are not multi-billion dollar super tyrant businesses that are struggling and will be taxed more under this plan. Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on some of these businesses which may equate in these cases to people being laid off or wages being reduced.

I want to provide a little substantiation for the paragraph above......

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/novem...-pays-the-taxes

First off the link above is extremely informative in backing the case that the rich already pay far more in taxes, take a look at the bar graphs in that link. It shows under the Bush administration who is paying the majority of the taxes. It is true that Bush cut taxes slightly on big businesses and the rich but guess what? Under Bush the richest 25% of the nation still pays 85% of Americas income tax, in other words the vast majority of it. The bottom 50% of the nation, income wise, only pays 3% of this nations income tax. Thats under Bush and I don't think everybody knows it, in fact I didn't know that until I looked it up. Its amazing the effect that misleading campaign ad's, and attacks on Bush can have, simply amazing.

The link below shows some of the controversy about the effect Obama's tax plan could have on businesses.....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html

Here is a excerpt from that link......

The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what's important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that's applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama's plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

Now there is no doubt the plan will increase the amount of taxes on overall small business profits as a whole, but there seems to be a dispute here on the number of businesses that will actually pay up because John McCain has said that 23 million businesses would see their taxes go up and be effected under Obama's tax plan. Many others are claiming this is a gross exaggeration. There appear to be numerous sources claiming that Obama's plan will increase taxes on a huge chunk of businesses, while some say it will be as little as a million businesses that see the increase.

So some say it will only effect about 5% of businesses, others say it will effect over 50% of businesses. John McCain claims its a whopping 23 million out of the 27 million businesses in America that will see the increase. This is the type of thing that confuses the hell out of people. In any case this plan is a tax increase on small businesses, exactly how many businesses see the increase is what nobody seems to agree on.

The only thing that's important to me is the following question......

Is a tax increase of any kind a good idea given the fact that so many businesses are struggling today?

I found out that business tax rates in America as a whole already exceed rates in most other nations today.......

http://www.taxfoundation.org/competeusa

from the link above.....

Just 20 years ago, the U.S. led the world in cutting business taxes to make our economy more conducive to job creation. Since then, every other industrialized country on Earth has cut its business taxes while we stood still. Today, only Japan has a higher business tax rate than the U.S.

Obama states on his site that his plan is an overall annual tax cut because his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Yet since his annual spending plan exceeds McCains spending plan, how will he offer what he calls an overall annual tax cut while spending more, without cutting into the national deficit? I'll get into spending next but I want to get into one final point on Obama's tax plan and go over McCain's briefly.

The way Obama is able to claim he will deliver an overall annual tax cut, and not raise taxes on 95% of Americans, is by sending tax credits in the form of a check to certain lower income groups. However its important to note that a third of all Americans Do not pay income taxes at all. This means that he will be sending money to many people who have no tax liability for various reasons. In other words millions of people that generate nothing to our economy, "many of which don't intend to" will get a check primarily from those who earned this money, and on top of that the increase on the upper class doesn't entirely pay for Obama's tax plan, so where does the difference in money come from?

Here is one last link in regards to this.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

The following is from the link above......

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

John McCain's tax plan doesn't make these drastic changes and although people are comparing him to Bush because of this, I give him credit. There is no way Obama will be able to pay for his tax plan while increasing spending without further pushing our country into debt, I just don't see how it's at all possible. Anyway McCain's plan can be viewed at the link I presented before but the biggest change he wants to propose is to "Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent" I think thats a good Idea since this country leads the world in high cooperate taxes as of now......

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html

Spending

As for spending Barack Obama is proposing more than McCain in spending. How much more? The National Taxpayers Union states that.........

McCain (R-AZ) would increase yearly federal spending by $92.4 billion, compared to Sen. Obama's (D-IL) $293.0 billion.

Which means Baracks overall spending plan, including his foreign policy, will call for about 200 billion more a year in spending than McCains......

http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=...p;org_name=NTUF

So why Obama is seen as better for the economy by so many people is beyond me.


Reason Number 3. (Energy Policy)

Where I stand on energy is that I basically think we need to reduce drilling in foreign counties dramatically, but increase it locally, at least in the immediate future. More importantly I think we should increase production of energy with alternate clean sources so that we can eventually reduce overall oil consumption and fossil fuel consumption in general. There are many different types of alternate energy that are practical and expandable from what I know. Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Geothermal are some of the most promising that I know of.

Here are both McCain's energy plan and Obama's plan, as stated on their websites.........

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/Issues...ef1468e96f4.htm

Our energy problem is an ongoing one, it isn't easy to supply energy to a country with a population of over 300 million and some of the most developed cities in the world. Whoever the next president is we're not going to eliminate emissions overnight and 90% of America isn't going to be driving electric cars in 4 years. This will continue to be a slow and gradual process of change to cleaner more effective energy sources. I've read over both their plans and read criticisms of each. They both talk about increasing alternate sources of energy, but I believe McCain has the more realistic plan for one crucial reason.

That would be nuclear energy. Before I talk about that I would like to comment that I give Obama more credit on energy than on the other 2 issues I've mentioned. However since both are promising increasing efforts on creating alternate energy sources, and clean coal, I do want to state why I personally believe McCain has the better plan.

The biggest thing is nuclear energy, it has been tried and tested more than any other alternate source that doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Its practical, its extremely efficient, and it produces more energy than other alternate sources, but its also feared and even misunderstood by many. While there are dangers that go along with producing energy this way, we've been doing it since the 1950's and have just over 100 operational Nuclear reactors in America today supplying about 20% of our energy. The worst accident that occurred, in America, was at a plant on Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. It was a partial core meltdown and resulted in some radiation being leaked, but no deaths or injuries were attributed to this accident. We have never seen the feared full core meltdown scenario play out ever since we've had Nuclear Plants running in America.

It was the Three Mile Island event that in part killed the production of nuclear power plants in America, by effectively spooking the nation. We haven't built a new Nuclear power plant in America since the 1970's. I've touched on this before but I think the hazards surrounding Nuclear power plants were exaggerated in part because it became very popular early in the cold war era when there was a lot of fear surrounding atomic energy but it has indisputably become safer with time.

Some fear that these plants could be attacked by terrorist causing a significant radiation leak, but thats been blown out of proportion as well from what I gather. These power plants are the most structurally secure types of power plants in the country. They were designed to withstand natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes, and although they were not designed with plane attacks in mind, the chances of a plane crash causing one of these plants to release radiation is slim due to their structure. Since they are designed with several layers of steel reinforced concrete to prevent radiation from leaking in an accident, there is little chance a plane could damage the reactor core.

The amount of radioactive waste these plants release is also very small and far less damaging relative to the waste produced by fossil fuel electricity generation. They produce no greenhouse gases either which is crucial, and since they use water for cooling, steam is what you see pour out of the "steam towers." The steam contains no radiation.

Sources....

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RS21131.pdf
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power...-wna-wmitnfc-52
http://www.threemileisland.org/science/pdf...power_works.pdf

The reason why I think Nuclear Power is important as an alternate energy is because it is a tried and true technology that has already been proven practical on a national scale.

As far as what each candidates plans on this type of energy John McCain has proposed that we start building new nuclear power plants in America. He has proposed a plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. They take about 5 years a piece to build but we need to get started on options like this. The 104 active nuclear power plants in America today already spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America.

McCains nuclear energy plan...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/18/mc...r-construction/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

Obama has been far less specific on his plan for Nuclear energy. He claims he's open to the concept but all he claims is that he wants to dispose of nuclear waste more effectively, but I don't get the impression he wants to increase energy production through nuclear power by building more plants. He seems vague as far as what he would do, but it sounds to me like it would be more of the same of what we've had in the last 30 years. Saying "more of the same" in regards to Obama is fun, lol. He's probably said that about McCain as much as he uses the mens room.

Obama on Nuclear energy...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...a-goes-nuclear/
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...eedName=topNews

One last point on energy is that I think McCain also has the edge on local oil drilling. He and Palin are much more likely to increase local drilling than Obama and Biden. I've gathered this from comments both campaigns have made, and lets face it if we are to reduce foreign drilling in the near future we will have to increase it locally. The automobile industry will be largely dependent on oil for years to come so I see local oil drilling as an important stepping stone to energy independence. Although In the long term it will have to be reduced locally as well. These sources are being depleted, and it has a negative impact on our environment in general. So eventually oil drilling should and will have to be be dramatically reduced.



Reason Number 4. (Character / Press Coverage)

Since this post is getting long I'm going to start with press coverage by quoting a comment of mine from another forum about how slanted the media has been for Obama......

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry261683 from (post #82).........

.........I've spent a lot of my time taking an interest in this election and to me the slant in our media in general is painfully obvious. The most hated and criticized news network by the left has become FOX News. While I think they stretch reality by claiming to be 100% "fair and balanced" they have certainly beat the competition in terms of offering the most balanced coverage. The Pew research organization has backed that suspicion of mine with studies that show that the audience of Fox news is more politically diverse than either CNN or MSNBC. More recently the Center for Media and public affairs did a study that concluded that the coverage of this election was more evenly positive and negative on John McCain and Barack Obama by Fox News. Both these facts can be read about below....


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/08/...s_watchers.html
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

I comment on this all the time and have been very specific on it. I think that media bias has gone a long way to smear john McCain's image to a greater degree than Obama although Obama does get his share. That's substantiated in polls like the ones above and others but I see this slant in the media myself all the time, and I mean all the time. The reason so many people are claiming the Media is slanted toward liberals is because in general it is, and so is Hollywood.

The simple fact that McCain is Republican will be the primary thing that determines this election for Obama if he wins. This explains why so many Obama ads make this argument of more of the same, and its why these ads and the media try relentlessly to compare McCain to Bush. This doesn't necessarily move me any closer to McCain than I already was but in increases the amount of criticism I have on Obama and Democrats in general when they repeat these bumper sticker campaign lines about McCain and Bush.

We all know McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 but what many don't debate is the fact that he has been criticized by Republicans for years specifically because he has voted with his party as little as 67 percent, and 77% in 2005, which is quite uncharacteristic of a Republican. It's also uncharacteristic of a Democrat to vote in such low percentages with their party. Most Democrats and Republicans vote with their party 90+ percent of the time, including Obama who has always voted with the Democrats in higher percentages than McCain has voted with Bush. Point is that Obama would have been able to draw this comparison with most Republicans, making the argument highly misleading, in a similar way the "Bush tax cut on the rich argument" is misleading.........

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_i...voted_with.html


Reason Number 5. (Experience Vs. Promises)

To conclude this post I do know for a fact that John McCain has much more experience in the Senate and Congress than Obama to be running for president. McCain began his political career the year I was born, 1982. He's been in politics as long as Ive been alive and has quite a long history in our military as well which most of you know. Obama on the other hand had a senate seat in Chicago that began in 1996 in what was in Illinois 13'th District. His most significant and highest role in our government as of now began January of 2005 in the U.S. Senate, which means he held that position for only 2 years before he decided to run for president. This makes Obama one of the most inexperience candidates ever to run for president.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_and_Sen...82%E2%80%932000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

Bottom line is he ran a campaign based on promoting change and criticizes Bush for fiscal irresponsibility, then uses that to criticize McCain, yet Obama's plan will cost more than McCain's and he has out spent every single candidate in this race which originally included 15 candidates in the primary plus two additional independent candidates. I'm confident he's outspent any campaign of any kind in all of human history. Thats a bold claim, but I do know for a fact that he outspent any candidate in this election, and held the most expensive Democratic convention in history, which I've shown, and I don't see how you top that. So he will spend more than McCain based on his plan, and has already outspent everyone in this race to get elected, yet he's using an argument that states that McCain will be fiscally irresponsible like Bush? Thats not change to me, the technique of pointing fingers and promising something different is as old as politics in America, and spending too much has been a problem of this country for years so he may win this election primarily on party affiliation.

I've been joking around that Bush may become the only president in history to win 3 elections. Once in 2000, again in 2004, and lastly in 2008. If Bush wins a 3rd election the presidency will belong to Barack Obama. Bush is quite a campaigner apparently, he won 2 very close elections for himself, and now has become Obama's most important campaigner.

Little sarcasm there at the end but Id like to hear anyone explain their side and respond to any of the information above or talk about who they will be voting for. This post addressed a lot of side issues but as long as its ok with the moderators to debate some of the additional things I mentioned like Nuclear Energy, its ok with me if its in relation to the topics somehow.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 3 2008, 07:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
turnea
post Nov 3 2008, 03:15 PM
Post #2


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Whoo, nice thread! thumbsup.gif

Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?
I am planning to vote for Barack Obama.

'Course in Alabama, the reddest state in the nation, that's mostly a formality but it'll be counted in the popular vote at least.

I considered voting third party but none of them fits my views perfectly either so why not go with history?

If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate, but he is superior to John McCain in almost every facet of his platform.

1.)
The War in Iraq

I initially supported the war in Iraq. I believed that Iraq had concealed WMD from inspectors and that it was important to prevent the proliferation of such weapons to terrorist groups.

I also felt that the democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people could not be met without outside military aid.

Turns out Iraq posed no significant threat to the US, there were no WMD and the war was either predicated on a lie or a very costly, deadly, tragic mistake.

I watched that go unpunished and unconfirmed by the Republican party.

I believe that Barack Obama will not withdraw precipitously from Iraq, thus protecting the Iraqi people from complete chaos.

That said Americans want out and they have every right to.

It doesn't matter if we've "made progress" or not. If Americans had not been convinced of the false threat we would not have been there in the first place.

The Economy

Barack Obama stands head and shoulders above John McCain both on economic proposals and economic knowledge.

I've posted this in other threads:
QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 22 2008, 11:46 AM) *
We have discussions on the candidates tax plans and we could go on about them for quite a while.

The fact is economists tend to trust Obama more than McCain:
The Economist's poll of economists
Dilbert Survey of Economists

8 out of ten economists choose Obama smile.gif


The economists might know a bit about the economy.

Obama has surrounded himself with a stellar economic team that understands that money doesn't grow on trees.

McCain is using tax cuts as a political weapon, Obama as an economic tool. He has balanced the loss of revenue from middle class tax cuts by raising taxes for the rich back to Clinton levels.

Obama's tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans are larger than McCain's and they raise the deficit less.

I'd prefer a more Clintonesque movement towards balancing the budget but Obama is closer towards this than McCain.

Energy
Neither campaign stands out.

Drilling is red herring, we don't have enough oil in the US to make much difference.

Both want to move towards more fuel efficiency, I think Obama will be more aggressive in that area.

Reducing consumption and transitioning from fossil fuels is our only practical solution.

Nuclear power is good, but the NIMBY problem means we need something else.

Character

McCain has run a shameful, dishonest campaign.

Both candidates spun like they all do but McCain engaged in far more personal smears and baseless mudslinging.

From Ayers to ACORN to Rashid Khalidi he has consistently preyed upon the ignorance of voters.

Obama's campaign has been guilty of misleading talk too, but no where near the amount of real "dirty tricks"

Experience

Barack Obama has experience with real people with real problems. He knows what life is like for Americans who aren't sons of admirals or Senator's married to rich heiresses.

He has been a community organizer, a Constitutional Law professor and a business consultant.

Experience is about quality as well as quanity.

Obama is a high quality candidate.

Insight

Barack Obama has said things about race and class in this country that ring true. He has broken out of the typical campaign rhetoric on occasional to speak to the practical reality of living in America.

He has a reputation as a different kind of politician because he earned it with thoughtful policy and speeches. You get the idea that he knows what he's talking about when he's away from the teleprompter.

McCain, not so much.

5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?

6. Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?

I read the New York Times, and the Washington Post online. I also frequently listen to NPR and check "Google News" regularly. I keep up with all three major cable news outlets even FNC just to watch the propaganda. No one on television is as biased as that ...."network"

The local yokels aren't very inspiring but I'll hold my nose.

This post has been edited by turnea: Nov 3 2008, 03:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Nov 3 2008, 04:28 PM
Post #3


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

I definitely plan on voting. Maryland has no provision for early voting, so I'll be dragging the kids along with me. In the past, I have missed a few elections, and it the reason has always been that the particular voting day ended up being a real inconvenience. I would love to see a voting week, and I can't think of any legitimate reasons not to implement that.

2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

I'm voting for Obama. I do like him, and I like his ideas, and I'm happy to see a lawyer will (probably) be returning to the White House. But I would have been happy to vote for Clinton, or almost any of the other Democratic candidates that ran this year, because I was that turned off by the Republican party and Bush, as I'm sure most of you already know. I think the Republican party truly needs to reconsider the way it does business and reassess it's core values, and that wasn't (isn't?) going to happen if they continued to get elected. In fact, I think that simply getting elected was their core value lately.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?

I used to like McCain, quite a bit. I still think he's a good man, but I was truly disappointed in the tenor of his campaign in the later stages. It seemed like when he was falling behind, he got negative. I think the Republicans, for the most part, had a very civil primary, especially McCain and Huckabee.

McCain's promise to not go negative was a positive step, and I think he would have preferred a cleaner campaign. But I also don't think it would have stayed clean unless he maintained a comfortable lead.

Same thing for Clinton. No matter what her backers claim, she was the one who went negative first, and most. For a while there, it really bothered me when she plowed ahead with her hopeless primary fight, because I thought she was putting her own aspirations ahead of her country's best interests (getting Republicans out of the White House).

Edwards was a disappointment also, though I never really held him in very high regard. Is every politician in love with himself? I suppose it's hard to keep perspective when you have a group of devoted followers in a campaign, no matter how small the group. But doing what he did to his wife, in her condition, while she campaigned for the man... I look for a stronger person in my candidates.

I was slightly disappointed with Giuliani. I used to like him, when he was mayor of NYC, but he exposed himself as just another hack. Romney? What does anybody see in that guy? I wouldn't vote for him if I was a Mormon and we shared wives.

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

Right now, I'm not real crazy about anybody besides Obama. I suppose that's a side effect of campaigns, bringing out the worst in everyone who is trying to look their best. That question will be easier to answer in a year or two, when we can tell if Clinton, McCain and the rest will go back to doing their jobs in Congress, or if they are going to just position themselves for 2012/2016.

5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?

Well, since I sit at the computer for hours every day, Yahoo is my main source for quick news. But since I moved to MD, I get the Washington Post, and it's truly a great newspaper. I could read it from cover to cover if I had enough free time. There is something great about reading a story and seeing "Washington Post Staff" instead of the generic "AP" or other wire service story. It's like picking an apple off a tree instead of buying one at the supermarket.

And of course, everyone here at AD leads me to a lot of information I wouldn't otherwise get. Anyone else here trust DTOM's accounts of Iraq more than those on the news?

6. Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?

I don't know the local pols or issues yet, but we do have a slots issue on the ballot that I'll be happy to vote against.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ConservPat
post Nov 3 2008, 05:00 PM
Post #4


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,191
Member No.: 415
Joined: January-31-03

From: Boston
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?
I voted absentee last week. This ungodly election period is now over for me. Thank God.

QUOTE
2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

I wrote in Ron Paul for President. John McCain is a neoconservative with virtually the same foreign policy ideals as our current Administration, a foreign policy which has already cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Thank you, but no thank you. Barack Obama is a fraud who is only nominally different from McCain. He regularly tells half-truths about his tax plan, he uses cheap emotional ploys to enhance his flowery, meaningless rhetoric; additionally, his foreign policy ideals, are just as interventionist as McCain [albeit a slightly different shade of interventionism]. Simply put, the two major party candidates would both make disastrous Presidents and I will endorse neither.

QUOTE
3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?
They are liars, corporate whores, interventionists and populists. Or, more succinctly, they are the archetypical American federal politician.

QUOTE
4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

McCain's service in Vietnam and Obama's rise from humble beginnings. If only they had quit while they were ahead.

QUOTE
5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?
I look at their voting records, first and foremost. I then look at their top fundraisers and donors. Everything else is just smokes and mirrors. What have they voted for/against and who owns them.

QUOTE
6. Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?

I vote anti-incumbent on the local level, it's my way of articulating the state's need for a political enema. I was, however, anxious to vote in the affirmative for all three state ballot initiatives: Question 1 phases out the income tax by 2010. Question 2 decriminalizes 1 o.z. of marijuana. Question 3 bans dog-racing for gambling purposes.

CP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 3 2008, 05:02 PM
Post #5


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(ConservPat)
He regularly tells half-truths about his tax plan

Could you highlight what you believe to be "half-truths" about his tax plan?

This post has been edited by turnea: Nov 3 2008, 05:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 3 2008, 05:16 PM
Post #6


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE
turnea
Whoo, nice thread! thumbsup.gif

Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?
I am planning to vote for Barack Obama.

'Course in Alabama, the reddest state in the nation, that's mostly a formality but it'll be counted in the popular vote at least.

I considered voting third party but none of them fits my views perfectly either so why not go with history?


Alabama, Ive been through there. The Mobile area and Birmingham area, and a bunch of small towns with lots of trees. So your outnumbered eh? Well North Carolina as a State is in a toss up but the city I'm in the center of "Asheville", is as liberal as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi at a Grateful Dead concert in San Fransisco, which is pretty liberal, lol. I know where your coming from with that one.

QUOTE
If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate, but he is superior to John McCain in almost every facet of his platform.


Thats usually the way it goes, McCain wasn't my ideal candidate either.



QUOTE
The Economy

Barack Obama stands head and shoulders above John McCain both on economic proposals and economic knowledge.

I've posted this in other threads:


The fact is economists tend to trust Obama more than McCain:
The Economist's poll of economists
Dilbert Survey of Economists

8 out of ten economists choose Obama smile.gif


For all I know 8 out of 10 economist are liberal as well, as far as specifics go I still don't understand why he is favored by so many on the economy other than party affiliation working in his favor. Thats why I used (The Economy) section I posted above to state some misconceptions, present some figures, and ask some specific questions. As long as there is a dispute among economist, I want to know specific answers to specific questions. I was much more specific with details about this in the opening post, but here are some basic questions.....

1. Specifically how will Obama deliver what he calls an overall annual tax cut, when he will increase spending, and exceed McCains spending plan by 200 billion dollars a year? How will he do this without cutting into the national deficit?

2. Why does his definition of rich change?

3. Is increasing anyones taxes a good idea when we have one of the worlds highest cooperate tax rates already, and the richest 25% of America already pays 85% of our income taxes under Bush?

4. 1/3 of the population does not pay income taxes, Obama's tax plan states that these people will get tax reimbursement checks. A good question is why is this not welfare? most of these people don't pay income taxes because they do not generate anything to our economy by being unemployed, its easy to figure that some of these people never will generate to our economy and some may even use the money they get to pay for something illegal like drugs. There is a difference between a tax cut and a tax reimbursement check. This is why many people are calling Obama's plan welfare disguised as a tax plan. Again Read the links I presented.





QUOTE
Experience

Barack Obama has experience with real people with real problems. He knows what life is like for Americans who aren't sons of admirals or Senator's married to rich heiresses.

He has been a community organizer, a Constitutional Law professor and a business consultant.

Experience is about quality as well as quantity.

Obama is a high quality candidate.


I don't know how anyone could come to the conclusion that Obama has more, or better experience than McCain. McCain's political career started in 1982, Obama's in 1996. John McCain has 20 years military experience. Does Obama have any? Your talking about quality over quantity, yet let me ask you some questions. When has Obama ever had leadership experience Military wise or anything else significant? Has he ever run a business? Has he ever Governed a state? Has he ever been Mayor of a city? Has he ever had to lead in a time of crises, and yes Rudy Giuliani asked the same questions.

John McCain gets his leadership experience from his 21 years in the military, and his knowledge of our government having spent 28 years in the Senate and Congress. Thats a double punch in terms of experience involving both leadership knowledge from the military, and 28 years working in government which gives him more experience and knowledge of how the system works.

Not only is Obama far less experienced than McCain, he is also far less experience than most presidential candidates have been. A few years in the Senate doesn't really say that much, considering he never served in the military either from what I know, which is always a plus for any candidate.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 3 2008, 05:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ConservPat
post Nov 3 2008, 05:24 PM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,191
Member No.: 415
Joined: January-31-03

From: Boston
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 01:02 PM) *
QUOTE(ConservPat)
He regularly tells half-truths about his tax plan

Could you highlight what you believe to be "half-truths" about his tax plan?
Here are a few of the latest half-truths.
QUOTE
Summary
In the last few days, Obama has wrapped up his pitch to the electorate with some misleading claims we've heard before:
He continued to ask voters to believe he can pay for every dime of an ambitious health care plan and other spending proposals while cutting taxes for all but the most affluent. Budget experts say that's unlikely. He also kept up the drumbeat on a promise to end "tax breaks for sending jobs overseas," as though that could do much to keep jobs at home. Experts say it can't.


Methinks he doth hope too much rolleyes.gif

CP

This post has been edited by ConservPat: Nov 3 2008, 05:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 3 2008, 05:56 PM
Post #8


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007)
Alabama, Ive been through there. The Mobile area and Birmingham area, and a bunch of small towns with lots of trees. So your outnumbered eh?

Outnumbered is not the word.

I'm from the Birmingham Area, though I school in Huntsville but yeah leave the cities and you'll see a lot more Confederate flags than Obama signs.

Dudes, I know it's history but the war's over....

QUOTE(net2007)
For all I know 8 out of 10 economist are liberal as well

They break the polls down by party affiliation. Lot's more Democrats than Republicans (a telling sign I think) true, but a nearly as many independents as Democrats and independent economists break Obama's way big time.

QUOTE(net2007)
. Specifically how will Obama deliver what he calls an overall annual tax cut, when he will increase spending, and exceed McCains spending plan by 200 billion dollars a year? How will he do this without cutting into the national deficit?

It's not a "so-called" tax cut, it's a tax cut.

I started a thread about this a while ago based on the Tax Policy Center's Analysis (PDF) and it shows that for most people Obama's tax cuts is actually bigger than McCain's.

I suspect the spending estimates from NTU are pretty suspect. They are taking McCain at his word that he will freeze spending increases. Those in the know, like economist, laugh and laugh and laugh...

NTU is informative but also pretty biased. They are FairTax supporters principled, but conservative.

Both candidates are going to increase the deficit under their current plans. McCain more on the tax side and Obama on spending. The difference is that Obama's spending will be mostly on health and stimulus.

QUOTE(net2007)
Is increasing anyones taxes a good idea when we have one of the worlds highest cooperate tax rates already, and the richest 25% of America already pays 85% of our income taxes?

Our corporate tax rate may seem high, but it certainly didn't hurt us under Clinton. Obama is talking about returning to that tax rate and in return investment in innovation and infrastructure. Seems like a fair trade.

As for how much of the tax burden the rich share, consider the richest 25% also received about 87% percent of income in the country. So 85% of the taxes is a smidge low.
Wikipedia on Income Distribution
NPR same subject

QUOTE(net2007)
Why does his definition of rich change?

It doesn't, though I think it's still too high.

The confusion sets in when people try to judge where the tax hikes kick in. Those aren't on the rich, but the very rich top 5%.

For details, see the Tax Policy Center tables.
QUOTE(net2007)
1/3 of the population does not pay income taxes, Obama's tax plan states that these people will get tax reimbursement checks. A good question is why is this not welfare? most of these people don't pay income taxes because they do not generate anything to our economy by being unemployed

Whoa, now.

Our unemployment rate is high but it's not over 15% laugh.gif.

Refundable credits are targeted measures for children's healthcare and the like. If you call that welfare, fine but I'd rather the kids got medical treatment.

Just because a person doesn't make enough to pay income taxes doesn't mean they aren't paying other taxes. Everyone pays taxes of some kind.

QUOTE(net2007)
. John McCain has 20 years military experience. Does Obama have any? Your talking about quality over quantity, yet let me ask you some questions. When has Obama ever had leadership experience Military? Has he ever run a business? Has he ever Governed a state? Has he ever been Mayor of a city? Has he ever had to lead in a time of crises, and yes Rudy Giuliani asked the same questions.

The only thing on that list McCain has done is served in the military.

It's good experience but I think community organizing, Constitutional law and business are all more germane to the actual Presidency.

I don't discount military experience, but it's not the best training on can get for the Presidency.

CP
I see what you mean, fair enough.

This post has been edited by turnea: Nov 3 2008, 06:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Royucker
post Nov 3 2008, 06:41 PM
Post #9


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 9,724
Joined: October-21-08

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(net2007 @ Nov 3 2008, 09:36 AM) *
Well we have until tomorrow to make up our minds. Its been interesting, and fun debating this election with most of you, especially the Obama supporters who I usually disagree with on nearly everything. tongue.gif

Some of us have voted already, some have made up their minds and will vote by Tuesday, and I assume many people have yet to decide. I want to hear what is motivating the members here to vote. Whether it be specific issues the candidate supports, their credibility as you see it, their personalities, or even if you just like the way they dress. I think and hope most people think a little deeper than appearance but lets debate any possible motivation that will determine your vote and feel free to explain your local state elections if you wish.

Questions for Debate (answer any or all)....

1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?

6. Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?


(answer the last question as soon as the election is determined an obvious win for either candidate) I'm guessing this will end up being in the wee hours of the morning on Wednesday.

7. Are you surprised by the outcome of the election, and was it closer or tighter than you expected?


================================================================================
================================================================================
=



Intro

I'll vote for John McCain for president which will come to little surprise to most of you. I'm going to turn this post into a whopper explaining why since many people are accusing McCain supporters of being less issue oriented and more oriented around attacking Obama for his associations. If you ask me in most cases people are just asking questions about his associations.

Anyway, Mike Huckabee was the candidate I was most interested in but unfortunately he lost the primary before North Carolina even voted in it. I want to explain why McCain will get my vote on Tuesday, and why I believe he is the right choice and even a little on what does disappoint me about him. I don't want to sound like I'm part of the McCain campaign and that this man is right about everything, although this post will be primarily about why I'm going to vote for him, obviously. Truth is I have to give at least some credit to Obama as a conservative but more importantly as an individual who believes Obama is a good man and a tough candidate, despite the criticism I give him and despite the fact that I oppose much of what he stands for. I don't think he's ready to lead and I don't agree with most of his politics, but I don't believe he is a Muslim extremist either. I'll start with some brief criticisms on McCain, then list the top 5 reasons I support John McCain.......


Criticisms

McCain is not a great speaker especially when compared to Obama, and although I agree with McCains message and see him as more fit to lead, the repetitive
campaign talking lines get old, and he never engaged Obama near enough in Debate. McCain also comes off as a quite a typical negative campaigner at times with misleading campaign Ads just like Obama. As far as personality, policy, and debate skills I ended up liking Mike Huckabee the most. He was quite a campaigner too considering the limited amount of money he had. McCain fell at about my 3rd favorite Republican candidate, but he is doing better than I thought he would do. The race is close but some of his campaign moves have been questionable, like suspending his campaign for the economic crises only to leave Washington shortly after. As far as policy goes I agree with him on most things especially when compared to Obama. The five reasons below explain why........


Reason Number 1. (The War in Iraq)

This war has been central to my support for those who see its importance. I would even consider voting for a Democrat if they supported this war, and if their economics made more sense to me. The War in Iraq has stirred up some of the most controversial and heated debates on sites like this. I support it for a few fundamental reasons. One of the most important reasons is the sacrifice that our soldiers make when they fight it. To some this is a discouraging factor, many ask is this really worth the blood and sweat? Is it worth the time and effort? I like many, including soldiers who actively fight in this war see the importance of following through. I know many people disagree with this for their own reasons and that many of those reasons are real and heartfelt but I want to explain why I disagree.

The sacrifice our men and women make in a time of war, are worth it, even for many of our soldiers, if you truly believe in its cause. I do, and one of the criticisms I've gotten for displaying this support as a civilian is that I support putting our men at risk for my own selfish reasons, and my own political beliefs. My response to that has always been that our soldiers enlist in our military for their own reasons, they are also grown men and women who are well aware of the risk involved. We don't have a draft military and this is important to note. With all the opposition to this war the reason I support it today is just as clear as it's ever been. I want to share a video with you of one of our soldiers who supports the Iraq war and McCain after having lost his leg in combat. This short video has become the most watched election video on youtube with over 11 million hits. This is not an ad paid for by the McCain campaign either although this soldier obviously does support him......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ele...008/7699509.stm

I've presented this video a couple times recently including on this site because I think it sends an important message, and is certainly a must see. I may not have walked in this mans shoes, but the bravery and dedication of men and women like this inspire me as an American, and it reminds me why its so important that we succeed in Iraq. With all the political rhetoric that surrounds this war its stories of men like this that cut through that and help me remember what's important.

Beyond the sacrifice, there were motivations for fighting this war, most of which I agree with, and the condition in Iraq over the last year has been one of improvement on multiple levels. I've debated this before but I'll go over it again relatively briefly starting with why I believe we are in Iraq.

So what motivations were there to fight this war?

Some say the reasons for fighting this war was to ensure the stability of the global economy and our economy, there is a lot of oil in the middle east. We import most of our oil from this region, therefore to some extent the stability of the middle east is important in that respect. Some in turn call this a fight for oil. War protesters sometimes hold up signs saying "No blood for Oil". If this were the only reason I believed we were in Iraq I wouldn't be supporting our presence their.

However, some people say this war is about our national security.

Some people say Iraq plays an important roll in our success in the war on terror.

Some people say this is about giving Iraqis the opportunity to live a better life free from the dictatorship of the Saddam regime.

Others say we needed to find out if Saddam had WMD.

So who had it right? I may not be a national security expert by any stretch of the imagination, but in my opinion, and from all I've learned, these were all valid motivations for fighting this war. All of the above apply to some extent, I would elaborate on this again like I have in the past but I don't want to turn this post into another 50 page review of the Iraq war, or The War on Terror.

To make this section as short as possible, I'll present two of my forums that debate my position on this war, as well as presenting some facts. The post below contained most of the research I had done on this war, and Afghanistan, this time last year. It's about 50 pages long and contains almost 100 links from a number of sources......

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304

It was closed before I had a chance to do a final proof read, or get any responses because it was too big and the moderators felt it would have spawned too many different types of debate, but it explains my position on the war and presents some of the most creditable information I could find last year. Hopefully most of the links haven't gone dead by now. I later took one of the sections of that post and made it into a smaller post about WMD and Saddam which can be read and replied to here...

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=15779&st=0


So where do we stand today in Iraq?

America and Iraqis have come a long way in the last year. I feel that many Americans are unaware of this utter turn around we have seen in Iraq. For those who have been paying attention violence is now at a 4 year low in Iraq, the Iraq Security Forces or (ISF) have now taken primary control over the majority of it's provenances, and they are doing the majority of the fighting and dieing in this war today. Political and military accomplishments in the last year have even surprised me. Iraqi civilians have returned home by the thousands in the last year because Iraq today is not the Iraq we were reading about and hearing about on the news last Summer. I want to present a few links that demonstrate this, the first is the most important and is primarily statistical data about violence levels in Iraq over the last year and prior....

http://understandingwar.org/files/Iraq%20S...mber%202008.pdf

Take notice to the bar and line graphs on pages 5,6,8,9,10,11, and 12. These are self explanatory and easy to read supposing you can read a bar or line graph, I'm confident everyone here can. wink.gif Beyond that it's been the stories and reports coming out of Iraq in the last year that have really been promising. Even considerably liberal news sources have been reporting this progress now and then. Let me put it in the words of our most liberal Democratic senator, Barack Obama.....

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated"

Link....

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9287

Considering he basically still believes this war is a mistake and always has, and considering that he believes the surge is a strategy ultimately doomed to failure, that says a lot coming from him. You don't get much more further to the left than Barack Obama, yet even he admits to some extent that this surge has helped Iraqis and improved the situation. Along with the link above the following two are clear indicators of why Obama would say such a thing. By the way I've deliberately included one source that can't be considered a Right Wing conservative source that being "the LA times"......


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2007/jul/31/goodnewsfrom

Excerpt from the above link.....

"Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack (both pages contain links to their writings over the past few years) said that morale had improved in US military units there and have confidence in General David Petraeus. They say that Americans and Iraqis are working better together, with ordinary Iraqis turning against "Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army".


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...0,4099051.story

Excerpt from the above link.....

"The situation in Iraq has improved dramatically as a result of the surge, innovative counterinsurgency tactics and improved outreach by U.S. forces to local elites. The level of violence is drastically reduced, and so is the U.S. casualty rate. Al Qaeda in Iraq is reeling. Its leadership has been decimated; its ability to mount major operations has been considerably reduced; and, according to Al Qaeda's own internal communications, the terrorist organization is having serious trouble attracting and motivating new recruits."

Media reports like this have been numerous in the last year, although the issue of the Iraq war does seem to be on the back burner for the time being. I've always supported this war effort, but today I hold more confidence this can work than I ever have before. John McCain's position on the Iraq war is to finish the Job, and good for him, he also criticized the approach Bush used going into the war, which was to go in with an insufficient amount of troops, 1/3 the proper amount. This cost us two years of out of control violence that I believe would have never happened if Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld had been better prepared and listened to their critics.

This is a story from early 2007 that explains this a little, its the quickest thing I could find to demonstrate that McCain was critical of Bushes tactics....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2390.html

Excerpt.....

McCain "The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense."

McCain added: "Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."


McCain's strong point in this election has always been national security and foreign policy, and for good reason, he served for our military for over 20 years, flew in missions over Vietnam, and earned a rank as high as Captain........

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ilitary_record/


Reason Number 2. (The Economy)

I don't really understand specifically why Barack Obama is viewed by so many as the cure to our economic problems, it doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps someone here can clarify that. I believe that its largely "but not solely" because Obama is not a Republican. George Bush has been ineffective in many ways as president, we all know this, so many people tend to join every politician under the Republican party at the hip on nearly every issue.

I want to talk primarily about taxes and spending in this section.

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/taxes.htm

The Obama plan basically states that no family making less than $250,000 a year will see their taxes increase, but he will increase taxes on businesses and people making more than this. Obama, and Vp pick Joe Biden, and former candidate Bill Richardson have stated that the amount is not $250,000 at times.

The following videos show side by side comments coming from Barack Obama where he states different amounts at different times...

http://patriotroom.com/?p=3626


Barack Obama "If you make 250,000 a year we will not raise your taxes, we will cut your taxes"

Barack Obama "If you make less than 200,000 a year you will get a tax cut"



Now many say they state a different amount at times simply because the plan they created states a different amount between families and single people, but in the above video you can easily gather the amount is stated differently in regards specifically to families. I'm wondering, like many, why so many people including Obama keep redefining his plan. Who exactly is rich? However lets give Obama the benefit of the doubt, because even if he has not changed his plan repeatedly, I disagree with it.

I actually use to think increasing taxes on the more wealthy was a good idea. Three things have changed that position for me this year, one being the state of our current economy, secondly the fact that I learned the rich already pay way more in taxes than the middle or lower class, and keep in mind thats under the Bush administration. Lastly Obama's plan includes businesses, and its true that businesses that generate more money, create more Jobs. There are businesses that are not multi-billion dollar super tyrant businesses that are struggling and will be taxed more under this plan. Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on some of these businesses which may equate in these cases to people being laid off or wages being reduced.

I want to provide a little substantiation for the paragraph above......

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/novem...-pays-the-taxes

First off the link above is extremely informative in backing the case that the rich already pay far more in taxes, take a look at the bar graphs in that link. It shows under the Bush administration who is paying the majority of the taxes. It is true that Bush cut taxes slightly on big businesses and the rich but guess what? Under Bush the richest 25% of the nation still pays 85% of Americas income tax, in other words the vast majority of it. The bottom 50% of the nation, income wise, only pays 3% of this nations income tax. Thats under Bush and I don't think everybody knows it, in fact I didn't know that until I looked it up. Its amazing the effect that misleading campaign ad's, and attacks on Bush can have, simply amazing.

The link below shows some of the controversy about the effect Obama's tax plan could have on businesses.....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html

Here is a excerpt from that link......

The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what's important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that's applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama's plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

Now there is no doubt it will increase the amount of taxes on overall small business profits as a whole, but there seems to be a dispute here on the number of businesses that will actually pay up because John McCain has said that 23 million businesses would see their taxes go up and be effected under Obama's tax plan. Many others are claiming this is a gross exaggeration. There appear to be numerous sources claiming that Obama's plan will increase taxes on a huge chunk of businesses, while some say it will be as little as a million businesses that see the increase.

So some say it will only effect about 5% of businesses, others say it will effect over 50% of businesses. John McCain claims its a whopping 23 million out of the 27 million businesses in America that will see the increase. This is the type of thing that confuses the hell out of people. In any case this plan is a tax increase on small businesses, exactly how many businesses see the increase is what nobody seems to agree on.

The only thing that's important to me is the following questions......

Is a tax increase of any kind a good idea given the fact that so many businesses are struggling today?

I found out that business tax rates in America as a whole already exceed rates in most other nations today.......

http://www.taxfoundation.org/competeusa

from the link above.....

Just 20 years ago, the U.S. led the world in cutting business taxes to make our economy more conducive to job creation. Since then, every other industrialized country on Earth has cut its business taxes while we stood still. Today, only Japan has a higher business tax rate than the U.S.

Obama states on his site that his plan is an overall annual tax cut because his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Yet since his annual spending plan exceeds McCains spending plan, how will he offer what he calls an overall annual tax cut while spending more, without cutting into the national deficit? I'll get into spending next but I want to get into one final point on Obama's tax plan and go over McCain's briefly.

The way Obama is able to claim he will deliver an overall annual tax cut, and not raise taxes on 95% of Americans, is by sending tax credits in the form of a check to certain lower income groups. However its important to note that a third of all Americans Do not pay income taxes at all. This means that he will be sending money to many people who have no tax liability for various reasons. In other words millions of people that generate nothing to our economy, "many of which don't intend to" will get a check primarily from those who earned this money, and on top of that the increase on the upper class doesn't entirely pay for Obama's tax plan, so where does the difference in money come from?

Here is one last link in regards to this.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

The following is from the link above......

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

John McCain's tax plan doesn't make these drastic changes and although people are comparing him to Bush because of this, I give him credit. There is no way Obama will be able to pay for his tax plan while increasing spending without further pushing our country into debt, I just don't see how it's at all possible. Anyway McCain's plan can be viewed at the link I presented before but the biggest change he wants to propose is to "Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent" I think thats a good Idea since this country leads the world in high cooperate taxes as of now......

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html

Spending

As for spending Barack Obama is proposing more than McCain in spending. How much more? The National Taxpayers Union states that.........

McCain (R-AZ) would increase yearly federal spending by $92.4 billion, compared to Sen. Obama's (D-IL) $293.0 billion.

Which means Baracks overall spending plan, including his foreign policy, will call for about 200 billion more a year in spending than McCains......

http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=...p;org_name=NTUF

So why Obama is seen as better for the economy by so many people is beyond me.


Reason Number 3. (Energy Policy)

Where I stand on energy is that I basically think we need to reduce drilling in foreign counties dramatically, but increase it locally, at least in the immediate future. More importantly I think we should increase production of energy with alternate clean sources so that we can eventually reduce overall oil consumption and fossil fuel consumption in general. There are many different types of alternate energy that are practical and expandable from what I know. Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Geothermal are some of the most promising that I know of.

Here are both McCain's energy plan and Obama's plan, as stated on their websites.........

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/Issues...ef1468e96f4.htm

Our energy problem is an ongoing one, it isn't easy to supply energy to a country with a population of over 300 million and some of the most developed cities in the world. Whoever the next president is we're not going to eliminate emissions overnight and 90% of America isn't going to be driving electric cars in 4 years. This will continue to be a slow and gradual process of change to cleaner more effective energy sources. I've read over both their plans and read criticisms of each. They both talk about increasing alternate sources of energy, but I believe McCain has the more realistic plan for one crucial reason.

That would be nuclear energy. Before I talk about that I would like to comment that I give Obama more credit on energy than on the other 2 issues I've mentioned. However since both are promising increasing efforts on creating alternate energy sources, and clean coal, I do want to state why I personally believe McCain has the better plan.

The biggest thing is nuclear energy, it has been tried and tested more than any other alternate source that doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Its practical, its extremely efficient, and it produces more energy than other alternate sources, but its also feared and even misunderstood by many. While there are dangers that go along with producing energy this way, we've been doing it since the 1950's and have just over 100 operational Nuclear reactors in America today supplying about 20% of our energy. The worst accident that occurred, in America, was at a plant on Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. It was a partial core meltdown and resulted in some radiation being leaked, but no deaths or injuries were attributed to this accident. We have never seen the feared full core meltdown scenario play out ever since we've had Nuclear Plants running in America.

It was the Three Mile Island event that in part killed the production of nuclear power plants in America, by effectively spooking the nation. We haven't built a new Nuclear power plant in America since the 1970's. I've touched on this before but I think the hazards surrounding Nuclear power plants were exaggerated in part because it became very popular early in the cold war era when there was a lot of fear surrounding atomic energy but they have indisputably become safer with time.

Some fear that they could be attacked by terrorist causing a significant radiation leak, but thats been blown out of proportion as well from what I gather. These power plants are the most structurally secure types of power plants in the country. They were designed to withstand natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes, and although they were not designed with plane attacks in mind, the chances of a plane crash causing one of these plants to release radiation is slim due to their structure. Since they are designed with several layers of steel reinforced concrete to prevent radiation from leaking in an accident, there is little chance a plane could damage the reactor core.

The amount of radioactive waste these plants release is also very small and far less damaging relative to the waste produced by fossil fuel electricity generation. They produce no greenhouse gases either which is crucial, and since they use water for cooling, steam is what you see pour out of the "steam towers." The steam contains no radiation.

Sources....

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RS21131.pdf
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power...-wna-wmitnfc-52
http://www.threemileisland.org/science/pdf...power_works.pdf

The reason why I think Nuclear Power is important as an alternate energy is because it is a tried and true technology that has already been proven practical on a national scale.

As far as what each candidates plans on this type of energy John McCain has proposed that we start building new nuclear power plants in America. He has proposed a plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. They take about 5 years a piece to build but we need to get started on options like this. The 104 active nuclear power plants in America today already spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America.

McCains nuclear energy plan...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/18/mc...r-construction/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

Obama has been far less specific on his plan for Nuclear energy. He claims he's open to the concept but all he claims is that he wants to dispose of nuclear waste more effectively, but I don't get the impression he wants to increase energy production through nuclear power by building more plants. He seems vague as far as what he would do, but it sounds to me like it would be more of the same of what we've had in the last 30 years. Saying "more of the same" in regards to Obama is fun, lol. He's probably said that about McCain as much as he uses the mens room.

Obama on Nuclear energy...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...a-goes-nuclear/
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...eedName=topNews

One last point on energy is that I think McCain also has the edge on local oil drilling. He and Palin are much more likely to increase local drilling than Obama and Biden. I've gathered this from comments both campaigns have made, and lets face it if we are to reduce foreign drilling in the near future we will have to increase it locally. The automobile industry will be largely dependent on oil for years to come so I see local oil drilling as an important stepping stone to energy independence. Although In the long term it will have to be reduced locally as well. These sources are being depleted, and it has a negative impact on our environment in general. So eventually oil drilling should and will have to be be dramatically reduced.



Reason Number 4. (Character / Press Coverage)

Since this post is getting long I'm going to start with press coverage by quoting a comment of mine from another forum about how slanted the media has been for Obama......

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry261683 from (post #82).........

.........I've spent a lot of my time taking an interest in this election and to me the slant in our media in general is painfully obvious. The most hated and criticized news network by the left has become FOX News. While I think they stretch reality by claiming to be 100% "fair and balanced" they have certainly beat the competition in terms of offering the most balanced coverage. The Pew research organization has backed that suspicion of mine with studies that show that the audience of Fox news is more politically diverse than either CNN or MSNBC. More recently the Center for Media and public affairs did a study that concluded that the coverage of this election was more evenly positive and negative on John McCain and Barack Obama by Fox News. Both these facts can be read about below....


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/08/...s_watchers.html
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

I comment on this all the time and have been very specific on it. I think that media bias has gone a long way to smear john McCain's image to a greater degree than Obama although Obama does get his share. That's substantiated in polls like the ones above and others but I see this slant in the media myself all the time, and I mean all the time. The reason so many people are claiming the Media is slanted toward liberals is because in general it is, and so is Hollywood.

The simple fact that McCain is Republican will be the primary thing that determines this election for Obama if he wins. This explains why so many Obama ads make this argument of more of the same, and its why these ads and the media try relentlessly to compare McCain to Bush. This doesn't necessarily move me any closer to McCain than I already was but in increases the amount of criticism I have on Obama and Democrats in general when they repeat these bumper sticker campaign lines about McCain and Bush.

We all know McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 but what many don't debate is the fact that he has been criticized by Republicans for years specifically because he has voted with his party as little as 67 percent, and 77% in 2005, which is quite uncharacteristic of a Republican. It's also uncharacteristic of a Democrat to vote in such low percentages with their party. Most Democrats and Republicans vote with their party 90+ percent of the time, including Obama who has always voted with the Democrats in higher percentages than McCain has voted with Bush. Point is that Obama would have been able to draw this comparison with most Republicans, making the argument highly misleading, in a similar way the "Bush tax cut on the rich argument" is misleading.........

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_i...voted_with.html


Reason Number 5. (Experience Vs. Promises)

To conclude this post I do know for a fact that John McCain has much more experience in the Senate and Congress than Obama to be running for president. McCain began his political career the year I was born, 1982. He's been in politics as long as Ive been alive and has quite a long history in our military as well which most of you know. Obama on the other hand had a senate seat in Chicago that began in 1996 in what was in Illinois 13'th District. His most significant and highest role in our government as of now began January of 2005 in the U.S. Senate, which means he held that position for only 2 years before he decided to run for president. This makes Obama one of the most inexperience candidates ever to run for president.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_and_Sen...82%E2%80%932000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

Bottom line is he ran a campaign based on promoting change and criticizes Bush for fiscal irresponsibility, then uses that to criticize McCain, yet Obama's plan will cost more than McCain's and he has out spent every single candidate in this race which originally included 15 candidates in the primary plus two additional independent candidates. I'm confident he's outspent any campaign of any kind in all of human history. Thats a bold claim, but I do know for a fact that he outspent any candidate in this election, and held the most expensive Democratic convention in history, which I've shown, and I don't see how you top that. So he will spend more than McCain based on his plan, and has already outspent everyone in this race to get elected, yet he's using an argument that states that McCain will be fiscally irresponsible like Bush? Thats not change to me, the technique of pointing fingers and promising something different is as old as politics in America, and spending too much has been a problem of this country for years so he may win this election primarily on party affiliation.

I've been joking around that Bush may become the only president in history to win 3 elections. Once in 2000, again in 2004, and lastly in 2008. If Bush wins a 3rd election the presidency will belong to Barack Obama. Bush is quite a campaigner apparently, he won 2 very close elections for himself, and now has become Obama's most important campaigner.

Little sarcasm there at the end but Id like to hear anyone explain their side and respond to any of the information above or talk about who they will be voting for. This post addressed a lot of side issues but as long as its ok with the moderators to debate some of the additional things I mentioned like Nuclear Energy, its ok with me if its in relation to the topics somehow.

I will be voting for McCain. Surprise surprise right!
My reasons are as follows:
1) My views on government are much closer to those of McCain's than the views that I believe Obama supports.

2) I think the last thing we need is a rubber stamp on the desires of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

3) I think Obama will appoint judges to the Court(s) that will use their positions to advance their beliefs rather than buttressing the constitution and other laws as passed of our elected representatives.

4) I do not believe or believe in Obama. He says he can bring us together. I see no evidence of that. His nomination nearly tore the Democratic Party apart.
He says he is the one we have been waiting for. He is too arrogant and self important for my taste. He has proven that he will go back on his word. FISA, and public financing to start

5) He does not have the proper background and experience to be the most powerful man in the world and to me it says quite a lot about him to hear my say that he does.

5) He is a made man. He was made by others and will be beholding to others. He did not
work his way up to the stature he has now. He did not earn credibility through
accomplishment or service. He was made and one must wonder what he will owe to
those who made him.

6) He is, in my opinion, the American Idol candidate who has played on his lack of
accomplishment as some kind of twisted accomplishment and sold it to the American
Idol generation who either does not know any better or does not care. In essence, his
campaign has been based on “elect me, Ive never done anything wrong because I have
never done anything”.

7) For me, McCain is safe, Obama is dangerous. I have children, I have a small company and I have a wife who works in health care. I am not a rich man but I see my life and family suffering under Obama.

8) Anytime a candidate is so attractive to the college crowd, it gives me pause because I remember how much I thought I knew back then and how stupid I now realize I was. I remember how out of touch those professors actually were and how much truth there is in the old saying “those that can do, those that can not teach”

This post has been edited by Royucker: Nov 3 2008, 07:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oleperfesser
post Nov 3 2008, 06:53 PM
Post #10


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 9,722
Joined: October-21-08

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: Democrat



I'll vote, first thing in the morning, for Obama.

The campaign positions, issues, and promises made by both candidates count for very little. Circumstances -- the economic collapse of the last two months and future circumstances that we cannot now anticipate -- will determine what either candidate will be able to do.

My reasons are the same as those of the white local political leaders in Louisiana who endorsed Bobby Jindal, a man of color and a Republican, for governor of Louisiana a few years ago. "Brains count." Obama's superior intelligence and demonstrated flexibility are out best hope to limit the pain and damage our country will experience in the turbulent years to come.

Anyone join me in advocating the repeal of the 22nd amendment?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Nov 3 2008, 09:04 PM
Post #11


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(oleperfesser @ Nov 3 2008, 02:53 PM) *
Anyone join me in advocating the repeal of the 22nd amendment?

Hell no.

1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

I will vote in the morning for McCain. I believe that the early voting fever this year is an open door to voter fraud. That being said, I think the Democrats are going to be surprised that the early voting turnout is not overwhelmingly for Obama.

2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

McCain is pro-life and pro-gun ownership. He is superior on national security and character issues. He is a known commodity with a decades long track record of doing the right thing and not voting straight party line.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?
Three main issues:

Abortion. Obama is diametrically opposed to my pro-life position, thinking that giving rights to the unborn is "above his pay grade". Not only did that comment demonstrate Obama's lack of leadership (as so many of his other waffley comments do), it demostrates that he is wrong on this issue. He promised Planned Parenthood to overturn right to life laws in the States.

Energy. Obama's Cap and Trade policy is economic suicide. He wants higher energy prices and was unapologetic to the SF Chronicle when talking about it.

Ohio Coal Association Says Obama Remarks Make It Clear: Obama Ticket Not Supportive of Coal
QUOTE
"These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.
"It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.
"Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.


The bold comment pretty much sums up my opinion of Obama. We have no idea what he believes because he says so much that is contradictory.

Issue three would be national security and foreign policy and here's my take. If there was a worldwide election held to elect a worldwide President, the leading contender would be Barack Obama. Considering that most other nations do not have the US's best interests in mind, this is a powerfully negative endorsement in my eyes. Considering Obama's past relations with radicals and whackos, who knows what he is capable of. I'm not saying that he's going to jeopardize our country overtly, but he listens to and associates with too many fringers to be trusted to make good choices on whom to associate with.

Add to that his opposition with free trade and his desire to punish the successful and I simply don't trust this guy.

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

Obama is an exceptional speaker and has inspired thousands.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Nov 3 2008, 09:30 PM
Post #12


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Sweet jeebus....I read this topic on my Motorola Q, and after finally scrolling past Net's blog length opener, I find that Royucker quoted the entire post in his reply. My poor battery...

1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

Mrs. DTOM and myself will go and vote tomorrow after I get home from work, taking our two young daughters with us to show them for the first time how the voting process works. (in the past we've always had to vote Absentee due to moving, deployments, etc.)

2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

We'll both be voting for Bob Barr. Neither of the two major candidates have expressed more than lip service and platitudes to the Constitution and the freedoms and liberties that we as Americans are alleged to enjoy. I want a strong national security without intervention and hegemony, especially in ways that not only have no national security significance, but actually harm our security and our economy; I want an end to the farcical 'War on Terror' and the disastrous 'War on Drugs'; I want an end to the Patriot Act and the National Security Letters; I want strong support for the 2nd Amendment and an end to eminent domain abuse. Barr stands for these issues, McCain and Obama do not.

Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party exhibits many of the same qualities that Barr does, but Chuck and his party are religious fundamentalists.....a no-go for me.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?

My reply could equal Net's post length......but suffice it to say that political status quo is the coin of the realm, and no matter who the Democrats and Republicans enter into Presidential Idol, they are two sides of the same coin. Both disregard the Constitution when it becomes an obstacle to their grand designs, both favor sending our military into far flung corners of the world in search of foreign entanglements and hegemony, and both favor socialist bailout of an unsound economic system, based not on the free market but corporate subsidies and the Federal Reserve.

Obama has his message of change, assuming that his base is composed of dreamy eyed believers who actually think that he'll change the system. McCain tells his base that leadership experience automatically equals good leadership, when our short history is replete with examples to the contrary. McCain further exploits his military experience by telling his fans that he consistently votes in the best interest of veterans [he doesn't], that he 'knows how to win wars' [which ones has he won?], and that he has been 'tested' [hogwash].

Experience didn't matter to Democrats in 1992 and it didn't matter to Republicans in 2000, so that issue is of no interest to me.

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

I may have to get back to this one after I've had a few, because right now, both major party candidates fail to inspire me to say much good about them.

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Nov 3 2008, 09:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
R21C
post Nov 3 2008, 09:59 PM
Post #13


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 200
Member No.: 6,870
Joined: November-24-06

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



I can't quite mention anything here about this, since I don't live in the states.

But both parties aren't going to change. American foreign policy is head on with energy policy together.

So what makes you so sure? That "change" will happen, or "Country First."

The repurcussions of this long war will be devasting if anything is not done to stop it. No one wants to know the party is over, our 150 year old oil addiction, and the American way of life built on it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Nov 3 2008, 10:39 PM
Post #14


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

I plan on voting. I am very, very disappointed that the libertarian party did not produce someone I could happily vote for, as they actually picked that gawd-awful Bob Barr, whom I followed very closely back when he was an ally of Newt Gingrich. No way, no how. Chuck Baldwin no way, no how, for the same reasons as DTOM pointed out.

So, I have a choice between Obama and McCain it would seem. Well, I fear neither of them unlike I felt about GW. I don't think Obama nor McCain would be as bad as GW- I only feel McCain won't be able to reverse the damage. My biggest fear over Obama is that he COULD relapse into TRUE tax and spend Jimmy Carter era policies, both foriegn and domestic.

I doubt he will go that way- I think there are SOOOO many things for Obama to clean up after GW, I don't think he will have the luxury of a growth nation. I think he will have no problems at all re-making our foriegn image, I think the idea of the "retarded cowboy" American image did rest much in the image of the, well, retarded cowboy we had running the country. mad.gif

So, ARE my choices Obama and McCain, in the state of Alaska, that will most surely go McCain?



2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

I am going to write in Ron Paul. thumbsup.gif

Ron Paul represents the way I wish for American society to be- free, self responsible, self disciplined capitalism and culture. People are afraid of freedom, for the most part.

Obama would be my second choice, and I will support him as long as he doesn't jump into the old crappy 70s liberal mold. Still not as bad as the Neo-con road, which has been turned into the worst ideology this country has seen since the civil war.

Personally, I am ideologically opposed to the idea of "voting for the lesser of two evils" - I am tired of that same old two party weakness in my own voting habits.

So, instead of holding my nose and voting for the "lesser of two evils", I will write in Ron Paul.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?

McCain hasn't shown me how his policies would differ in any real way from the massive failures of polices from Reagan to GW. Obama I give a 15% chance of going silly 70s liberal as opposed to post WW2 "elitist" smart, patriotic liberal.

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

Obama is smart, educated on all the issues, a policy wonk, constitutional law scholar, from humble roots, grew up lower-middle class income, just recently became rich, hasn't forgot what it is like to max out a credit card or have to struggle with a house payment.

5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?

I stay away from blogs, for the most part, that are strictly opinion pieces or put forward things like I know to be such a big lie and slander that they are completely stupid. Like anyone that says Obama is a muslim or anti-american or socialist. Those goobers don't enen understand the words they are using.

Pretty much anything goes after that, I watch most of the news channels, newspapers, mainstream media and internet sources.

6. Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?

Practically too many to use all the bandwidth w00t.gif

over 315 million in bonds on one proposition alone. Voting against the corrupt bastards club (they have a hat, no foolin' w00t.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_politi...orruption_probe

There are a few not mentioned such as Ted Stevens and Don Young, Lisa Murkowski.

I get to vote FOR the "conscience of the senate" Bettye Davis, whom I have known for 20 years.

She is great, love her to pieces.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 3 2008, 10:53 PM
Post #15


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
CR
My biggest fear over Obama is that he COULD relapse into TRUE tax and spend Jimmy Carter era policies, both foriegn and domestic
.



Fear? ohmy.gif He has said as much CR.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/...-will-skyrocket

This man is Jimmy Carter. If elected he will usher in the most liberal tax and spend government we have had since Jimmy.

Be afraid be very afraid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Royucker
post Nov 3 2008, 11:02 PM
Post #16


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 9,724
Joined: October-21-08

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Nov 3 2008, 04:30 PM) *
Sweet jeebus....I read this topic on my Motorola Q, and after finally scrolling past Net's blog length opener, I find that Royucker quoted the entire post in his reply. My poor battery...

1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

Mrs. DTOM and myself will go and vote tomorrow after I get home from work, taking our two young daughters with us to show them for the first time how the voting process works. (in the past we've always had to vote Absentee due to moving, deployments, etc.)

2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

We'll both be voting for Bob Barr. Neither of the two major candidates have expressed more than lip service and platitudes to the Constitution and the freedoms and liberties that we as Americans are alleged to enjoy. I want a strong national security without intervention and hegemony, especially in ways that not only have no national security significance, but actually harm our security and our economy; I want an end to the farcical 'War on Terror' and the disastrous 'War on Drugs'; I want an end to the Patriot Act and the National Security Letters; I want strong support for the 2nd Amendment and an end to eminent domain abuse. Barr stands for these issues, McCain and Obama do not.

Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party exhibits many of the same qualities that Barr does, but Chuck and his party are religious fundamentalists.....a no-go for me.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?

My reply could equal Net's post length......but suffice it to say that political status quo is the coin of the realm, and no matter who the Democrats and Republicans enter into Presidential Idol, they are two sides of the same coin. Both disregard the Constitution when it becomes an obstacle to their grand designs, both favor sending our military into far flung corners of the world in search of foreign entanglements and hegemony, and both favor socialist bailout of an unsound economic system, based not on the free market but corporate subsidies and the Federal Reserve.

Obama has his message of change, assuming that his base is composed of dreamy eyed believers who actually think that he'll change the system. McCain tells his base that leadership experience automatically equals good leadership, when our short history is replete with examples to the contrary. McCain further exploits his military experience by telling his fans that he consistently votes in the best interest of veterans [he doesn't], that he 'knows how to win wars' [which ones has he won?], and that he has been 'tested' [hogwash].

Experience didn't matter to Democrats in 1992 and it didn't matter to Republicans in 2000, so that issue is of no interest to me.

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

I may have to get back to this one after I've had a few, because right now, both major party candidates fail to inspire me to say much good about them.


Dontreadonme
Sorry for your battery, I really didnt mean to do that to you. I'm still young on this board and prone to make mistakes. I come to you, hat in hand.
Roy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Nov 4 2008, 01:55 AM
Post #17


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,976
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



If you are voting who will you vote for President and why?

Don't have much time to post right now, but briefly, the reasons I'm voting for McCain, or, more accurately, against Obama, are manifold. But if I had to focus on the most important, it would be that the far left, with this kind of unprecedented control of government (White House and Congress), would not give up on power easily. They're notoriously intolerant of dissent, they will try to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine or some equvalent, anyone who objects will be tarred as a racist, and the media will back them up every step of the way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Nov 4 2008, 02:01 AM
Post #18


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 3 2008, 05:55 PM) *
If you are voting who will you vote for President and why?

Don't have much time to post right now, but briefly, the reasons I'm voting for McCain, or, more accurately, against Obama, are manifold. But if I had to focus on the most important, it would be that the far left, with this kind of unprecedented control of government (White House and Congress), would not give up on power easily. They're notoriously intolerant of dissent, they will try to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine or some equvalent, anyone who objects will be tarred as a racist, and the media will back them up every step of the way.


Statements like this acually make me reconsider a write in and go ahead and vote Obama.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Nov 4 2008, 06:13 AM
Post #19


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,830
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(net2007 @ Nov 3 2008, 09:36 AM) *
Well we have until tomorrow to make up our minds. Its been interesting, and fun debating this election with most of you, especially the Obama supporters who I usually disagree with on nearly everything. tongue.gif

Some of us have voted already, some have made up their minds and will vote by Tuesday, and I assume many people have yet to decide.
I doubt very much if very many folks here on ad.gif are undecided.


2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.
John McCain. He is the best practical option, although he fell in the bottom half of my preferences of the Republican primary field. If we had a Truman Democrat, i.e. one able to recognize an existential threat, one willing to respond to the threat, and one dedicated to the concept of American exceptionalism, then I would consider voting for a Democrat. No such Democrat even tossed his (or hat) into the ring.


3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?
Trinity. Back before the "primary season" even started, and Obama was one of many possibilities being bandied about, I did a bit of investigating. I went to Trinity's website and checked out their Statement of Principles. It was the most racist set of principles I've ever read.

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?
I admire Obama's chutzpah, and his ability to capitalize on an opportunity.

5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?
Online sources, newspaper, radio, and last are the national news networks. Cable networks are pretty much out of it, as I haven't had access to them, save for about 6 weeks, in more than a year.

6. Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?
Yes. Dr Joe Heck, a candidate for State Senate. A second candidate I'll be voting for isn't exactly interesting, but his opponent is interesting in a negative way. I'll be voting for Congressman Jon Porter, who is literally #1 on the DNC's House Hit List. The DNC has spent attempting to defeat him than they have any other House Republican. His opponent is State Senator Dina Titus, who combines the unsavory (to me) qualities of being an academic, a "tool" of the teacher's unions, and somebdy dedicated to the proposition of raising taxes.


7. Are you surprised by the outcome of the election, and was it closer or tighter than you expected?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Nov 4 2008, 07:03 AM
Post #20


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(net2007 @ Nov 3 2008, 12:16 PM) *
I don't know how anyone could come to the conclusion that Obama has more, or better experience than McCain. McCain's political career started in 1982, Obama's in 1996. John McCain has 20 years military experience. Does Obama have any? Your talking about quality over quantity, yet let me ask you some questions. When has Obama ever had leadership experience Military wise or anything else significant? Has he ever run a business? Has he ever Governed a state? Has he ever been Mayor of a city? Has he ever had to lead in a time of crises, and yes Rudy Giuliani asked the same questions.

John McCain gets his leadership experience from his 21 years in the military, and his knowledge of our government having spent 28 years in the Senate and Congress. Thats a double punch in terms of experience involving both leadership knowledge from the military, and 28 years working in government which gives him more experience and knowledge of how the system works.

Not only is Obama far less experienced than McCain, he is also far less experience than most presidential candidates have been. A few years in the Senate doesn't really say that much, considering he never served in the military either from what I know, which is always a plus for any candidate.


McCain has no military leadership experience. He never commanded troops. McCain has not only never run a business, he's never had a civilian job of any sort. He hasn't governed a state or been a mayor of a city. He's been in Washington for 22 years. That's McCain's executive experience.

But haven't we covered this subject ad nauseaum by now? Why dredge this crap up again now? Just so you can get some last cheap shots in on Obama?

Is the purpose of this thread to inquire as to whom ad.gif members are voting for and why, or just present you with an opportunity to criticize those who aren't voting the way you think they should?

Because if it's the latter, I'm not interested in your self-serving critiques against Obama and for McCain. The time for campaigning is over. All that's left is casting and counting the votes and determining the winners and losers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 21st, 2018 - 01:43 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.