a (deadly) blast from the past

[femoimal]

ok, i've got this stupid thingin my head, and i want to share it with you guys.

Say Obama wins the primaries and the elections. Here's the first black american president... Flashes, confetti's, victory speech, than suddenly a bang is heard...

Are the US ready for a black president ? Doesn't the guy have nightmares about Martin Luther King, the Kennedies and the like ? I cannot explain why, but i get that picture of Jack Bauer struggling to defend Obama from assassination/chemical/bacteriological/nuclear/extra-terrestrial/infernal attacks... and failing.

The US have a history of violent politics, more so than other western countries: do you feel there might be something dark brewing up below the horizon ? Is everyone honest or trying to suppress some worries ?

[SolidSamurai]

I wouldn't worry until it happens. That might sound naive or evil or whatever you call it, but really, national security are the only people that have the credentials to deal with these things when, or if, they come up.

[DoctorZettabyte]

/me Knocks on wood...

But I doubt that'll happen. The secret service are all over everyone that get within ten yards of the candidates in general, and every building, ariplane, or transportation device is screened several times before use. Corners are covered, bags confiscated, the works. Tax money well spent in some cases, but redundantly spent in others.

-DocTera

[Gunmonk]

I actually think it will happen... allot of people are so fed up with our current political state that the next president is gonna get crucified. I highly doubt the next president will make it through two terms... much less one. Obama is a black supremacist, Hillary is an elitist, and Mccain has no definite platform and republicans don't even like him.

What we are facing is the fact that congresses rating is lower than Bush's, and not only that, the only people running are senators. I'd hate to be any of those candidates in the next year or so.

[Ubergopher]

Your post should of ended before the first comma. The US is ready for a black or woman President, however they US is not ready for these two people to be a President. I believe the best bet for America right now is John McCain with a fiscal and social conservative as his vice president.

[Prozerran]

McCain vs Bush? McCain all the way.

McCain vs Hillary? Both are equally poor choices.

McCain vs Obama? Fuck McCain.

I think that about sums it up for my heirarchy of politicians for the moment... well, there's one more, if it happens...

Paul vs Obama? Fuck Obama.

Yeah, that'll do it.

[Gunmonk]

Your post should of ended before the first comma. The US is ready for a black or woman President, however they US is not ready for these two people to be a President. I believe the best bet for America right now is John McCain with a fiscal and social conservative as his vice president.


Not a Black Supremacist, nor an Elitist Socialist. McCain is not really much of anything except for a democrat.

I have nothing against democrats, my grandmother was at one time the chair of the district party in Kansas, she even ran for I think the legislature. I dont like their political philosophy, or at least the political philosophy of the national party.

In this case they are all talking about this redistribution of wealth bullshit, and national health care. Obama is a member of the Socialist Party, Hillary is a crook *ahem*whitewater*ahem*, McCain is a puppet, Paul was a whiner, and Huckabee didn't have anything going for him.

I don't like any of the candidates, I would honestly rather seem them all die in some sort of final destination type scene. However since we are voting for the lesser of three evils, I think cthulhu is our best bet... That way America will vote in the primaries differently next election. When G-d gives you lemons find a new god

Also good luck with the idea of a fiscal conservative... they don't exist in politics... except maybe Michael Bloomberg... or Alan Greenspan

[AJ]

This thread is so borderline.

I think obviously the idea of an African-American running for the highest office in the country will scare a lot of fringe groups into trying to up their exposure and message - utilizing his exposure to leverage some of their own - but I think to act on anyone's part would be stupid. After the DNC he'll be in a leg-race against an elder Republican who has lost a lot of ground because of his two campaigns. Striking out against Obama would do nothing short of elevating the demand for change in this country beyond the current levels and turn Obama into the party martyr. Hillary would be forced into a position where she'd have to voice support for Barack's plans or risk losing the now polarized Democrats she dearly needs.

Not to mention that being the most popular, most likely African-American to ever run for the Office.. to be struck down so close to the office would catapult the idea of a non-Caucasian male in the office to the forefront of everyone's minds. If anything as terrible as that sort of act were to occur, I'd say within 8 years we'd see another major Black candidate.

Anyhow. I don't think nor do I think anyone should that an action like that is necessarily going to happen simply because of his ethnicity. If it did, it'd likely be motivated due to that, but I will not believe that his skin color dictates that it will be attempted. I imagine it would be attempted about as much as it normally would - which none of us could say for sure. It's an unpleasant thought but I must believe that we've reached a point where the Secret Service can avoid the mistakes of the past and protect him as well as can be done.

[femoimal]

AJ, i agree with you about the dam being broken and minority presidents now coming to the front. (I wish it were true for many other countries)

A lot has been written about the reasons of the Kennedy/King assassinations. They might not be connected in any way, except perhaps for one. Rupture. Any rupture too violent with the previous establishment, any major readjustment in the military/industrial domain generates tremendous tensions and hostilities, anywhere, but surprisingly enough, very much so in a developed country such as the US.

One could argue too about the real rupture/change intentions of Obama, or the real changing capacity of any US president today. Still, it is not because Bush was an obscene puppet for the industry that every politician has to s**k c**k of every lobby.
Should the potential of rupture be great, would it generate enough tension to generate a violent response? I mean, it is likely that Kennedy, albeit immensely popular, was whacked because he annulled defense contracts. And we where in the middle of the cold war, the space race, and Castro playing with nukes. Stakes and risks where insanely high then. Who could for instance run now against that military lobby, after all the money/power injected in it and the wars fought those last years ?

Another thing I agree on with you, AJ, is that the racial characteristic, as i see it, is asymmetrically represented. It could be a reason for a violent response aiming at Obama, but then again maybe not. But it would surely have overwhelmingly devastating and divisive effects should anything happen. And I am sure there are tons of nutcases who would like to pin the head of an african-american president over their fireplace.

[Gunmonk]

This is what I don't understand, we want change yet we are voting for people from congress, which I might add has an approval rating lower than President Bush's. Obama is only a junior senator from Illinois, we don't even know what he is capable of. I mean, they say anyone is better than President Bush, but no one seems to realize that congress is blowing more dick than anyone right now. Is the American public ready for someone who has no track record (compared to Hitlery and McCain) to speak of, and was never for "the war". They turned it [Iraq] into a proverbial Vietnam, they wouldn't let us drill in Alaska for oil (the natives actually wanted it too, it would have also strengthened their economy), and they are mostly all socialists (Obama by the way got into the state senate because of Socialists)

Bush's Approval Rating (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm)
Congress' Approval Rating (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm)

Obama's Socialist Connections (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-international-socialist-connections/)
More Socialism (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382313.ece)
More Obama Being A Socialist (http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/opinion/76263.php)
NY Sun's Report (http://www2.nysun.com/article/71421)
Transcript of Obama Endorsing a Socialist (http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-endorsement-of-socialist-bernie.html)

[femoimal]

putting in the same paragraph the words "blowing dick" and Mrs Hillary Clinton Track record is somewhat malicious, don't you think, gunny ?

Anyhow, a spot of semen, hillarycare and imaginary snipers are hardly highlights in one's curriculum.

[Nephi]

Monk you mention'd that "not even republicans like mccain" however they gave him their nomination so apperantly they do. I however will agree that Conservatives DO NOT like Mccain. I proudly put myself in that catogory. From where I stand this is the worst case scenario election for me, either I end up with a socialist, Hillary or a moderate Democrat. Both houses (congress and the senate) are so polarized they can't get anything done. I'm so sick of the natural majority getting screwed. I don't know anyone that doesn't agree on key issues like secure our borders, stop retarded government spending, etc. . . Its sad that the disinfranchised group is the majority of the nation.

[Anoiktos]

Femomial,

I'd like to say I'm confident enough that the American people are either tolerant or intelligent enough not for this to happen, but I do believe there's a chance it will. (then again, I'm surprised Bush is still alive)

If it does, however, I'll agree with AJ that it will likely spell doom for the frankly racist policies that have dominated the country for some time. If it doesn't... It depends how Obama actually does - or whether he gets elected, of course.

Gunmonk,

Vietnam/Iraq isn't and wasn't vietnam/iraq because of the protests, the protests came about because the media gave enough information to the public that they realized 'War' isn't some distant abstract, but a real here-and-now murderfest. As for congress's attempts (and failures) to withhold money on that front, this is their only functioning weapon against Bush, because he can freely ignore their legislation by abusing signing orders or the veto.

Checks and balances? We don't need no stinkin' checks and balances.

Alaskan oil has been under protection for a long time. You're acting as though the previous congresses who have had opportunity to allow drilling there were all nice and fine, it's just this one that's failed.

I'm a socialist - registered Democratic Socialist - and I can safely say that Obama has not shown a hint of tendency towards the socialist party line; he has, in fact, made me nervous by not supporting openly any party line, or making any concrete statements about what he will do when he is elected, merely brilliant, rousing speeches on other topics. I feel that our electoral system is lacking if it allows - and indeed forces - the candidates to make speeches refuting obvious slander instead of stating their stance on topics. And really, Socialist? By most other countries' definitions, Obama and Hillary are both moderate conservatives.

I'll take someone with no track record over someone with Hilary or McCain's track records any day. Better an unknown, potential evil than a sure one. Especially one person who wants to extend the stay of troops there by up to a hundred years, and another who lies incessantly (or is delusional, and I'm not sure which) and seems desperate to say anything to win.

As for the war, I was never for the war either. The war in Iraq is a useless money-sink for the U.S.; we've *created* an active pool of potential terrorists by going there, placed targets in handy places (so they don't have to go around the world), found zero WMDs, and managed to start up an old religious war between the factions there that Saddam, for all his faults, kept fairly quiescent. "Iraq" never had anything to do with "Al Quada" (other than hating them), we were just conned into believing it did.

[Nephi]

managed to start up an old religious war between the factions there that Saddam, for all his faults, kept fairly quiescent.


so now killing off the other side is an exceptable way of keeping religious persecution to minimal?

[Anoiktos]

so now killing off the other side is an exceptable way of keeping religious persecution to minimal?
Acceptable, not exceptable. Either 'to a minimum' or 'minimal', not 'to minimal'. And no, which is exactly the point. It's happening anyway.

[Neo]

I actually think it will happen... allot of people are so fed up with our current political state that the next president is gonna get crucified. I highly doubt the next president will make it through two terms... much less one. Obama is a black supremacist, Hillary is an elitist, and Mccain has no definite platform and republicans don't even like him.

What we are facing is the fact that congresses rating is lower than Bush's, and not only that, the only people running are senators. I'd hate to be any of those candidates in the next year or so.

I can't believe you just called Obama a black supremacist, do you really buy into Fox News or whoever is spouting that propagandist crap?

This is what I don't understand, we want change yet we are voting for people from congress, which I might add has an approval rating lower than President Bush's. Obama is only a junior senator from Illinois, we don't even know what he is capable of. I mean, they say anyone is better than President Bush, but no one seems to realize that congress is blowing more dick than anyone right now. Is the American public ready for someone who has no track record (compared to Hitlery and McCain) to speak of, and was never for "the war". They turned it into a proverbial Vietnam, they wouldn't let us drill in Alaska for oil (the natives actually wanted it too, it would have also strengthened their economy), and they are mostly all socialists (Obama by the way got into the state senate because of Socialists)

Wow. Yet we do know that Obama does not except any money from any special interest/lobbyists. That alone is enough for me to support, not to mention that he has been very open, even with his own private stuff that probably shouldn't matter in the election (eg: his tax info he released).

Obama voted against the war, IIRC, and yet, has voted to support the troops.

I'm unsure as to why people like you, and others, discount Obama simply because he is "new" so to say. In one part of your post you claim the congress is worthless, and yet, then say that Obama is no better -- but tell me, what would make him "ok?" -- You just claimed that most (if not all of congress) is crap, yet discount someone who is new.

As for your links, or whatever, it's all opinonated garbage. One even has "opnion" in the freaking url.

It's like extremist propaganda really "OH MY GOD, HE THINKS SOMEONE IS GOOD EVEN THOUGH HE'S A <insert socialist, or whatever other label" -- lol.

I'm a socialist - registered Democratic Socialist - and I can safely say that Obama has not shown a hint of tendency towards the socialist party line; he has, in fact, made me nervous by not supporting openly [i]any party line, or making any concrete statements about what he will do when he is elected, merely brilliant, rousing speeches on other topics. I feel that our electoral system is lacking if it allows - and indeed forces - the candidates to make speeches refuting obvious slander instead of stating their stance on topics. And really, Socialist? By most other countries' definitions, Obama and Hillary are both moderate conservatives.

I'm confused, doesn't Obama have his plan freely available (or whatever) on his website? That's what they've been campaigning, at least here in Indiana, and from other things I've heard about him is that theres very little about him that is "hidden" or "dodgy" as opposed to Hillary.

I'll take someone with no track record over someone with Hilary or McCain's track records any day. Better an unknown, potential evil than a sure one. Especially one person who wants to extend the stay of troops there by up to a hundred years, and another who lies incessantly (or is delusional, and I'm not sure which) and seems desperate to say anything to win.

You know what bothers me about Hillary more then anything?

She's incapable of admitting fault.

That to me scares me quite a bit. It's one thing to lie about something, and totally different thing to fight that lie "oh sorry I was tired..." I mean, what the hell?

As for the war, I was never for the war either. The war in Iraq is a useless money-sink for the U.S.; we've *created* an active pool of potential terrorists by going there, placed targets in handy places (so they don't have to go around the world), found zero WMDs, and managed to start up an old religious war between the factions there that Saddam, for all his faults, kept fairly quiescent. "Iraq" never had anything to do with "Al Quada" (other than hating them), we were just conned into believing it did.

We all know that unless you supported the war originally then you can't support the troops now, or ever, because the war and the troops are the same thing. No, even if you try to get the troops better gear, or get a better plan, nope, doesn't count at all!

/sarcasm

I'm so tired of people throwing up the track record of ANY of them in relation to the war in iraq/afghanistan, it doesn't matter now, I would say just about the only thing that does matter in relation to that topic is what they are doing to really and truly support the troops.

-Neo

[Anoiktos]

I'm confused, doesn't Obama have his plan freely available (or whatever) on his website? That's what they've been campaigning, at least here in Indiana, and from other things I've heard about him is that theres very little about him that is "hidden" or "dodgy" as opposed to Hillary.
[Yes, he does. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)] What I mean is that he does not publicize any of this in any of his speeches, or in few public statements; thus if he is elected, he will have been elected primarily due to personal charisma or speechmaking capabilities - not unusual, for a president, just regrettable.

[Gunmonk]

I can't believe you just called Obama a black supremacist, do you really buy into Fox News or whoever is spouting that propagandist crap?

My utmost apologies Neo, his "Spiritual Leader" is a black supremacist.

But tell me, would you give someone a modship if you barely knew who they really were?

As to the links, I will admit that one of those contained the word opinion in the url. However, the New York Sun link (which I might add is a right wing white supremacist ultra conservative newspaper /sarcasm) should suffice for evidence.

[Anoiktos]

But tell me, would you give someone a modship if you barely knew who they really were?

Y'know, if you really believe that you can't give the presidency to someone you barely know, well, I can't see you ever actually voting for anyone. It's not like politicians are paragons of honesty, virtue, and transparency, or anything.

[Prozerran]

I'm blown away. Really. Where to begin...

This is what I don't understand, we want change yet we are voting for people from congress, which I might add has an approval rating lower than President Bush's. Obama is only a junior senator from Illinois, we don't even know what he is capable of. I mean, they say anyone is better than President Bush, but no one seems to realize that congress is blowing more dick than anyone right now. Is the American public ready for someone who has no track record (compared to Hitlery and McCain) to speak of, and was never for "the war". They turned it [Iraq] into a proverbial Vietnam, they wouldn't let us drill in Alaska for oil (the natives actually wanted it too, it would have also strengthened their economy), and they are mostly all socialists (Obama by the way got into the state senate because of Socialists)

First, I have to wonder what the congress approval ratings have to do with Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. And in comparison to, of all people, Mr. Bush? Please! At the very least, this is a vague stereotype at best. Worst case, you just have no clue what point you're trying to make or how to make it. The congressional approval rating shows direct ties to its inability to balance the government, which is unbalanced because of...

... you guessed it. Bush.

That someone has no "track record" really is a misnomer. Sure, you can say this serves as a measurement of a candidate's experience. But at this point, there are a handful of people sitting in the seats of the congress who have any experience or track record in everything, let alone anything of real significance to THIS election.

And for crying out loud, do you even know the definition of Socialism? Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Let me take an example directly related to this "Socialist" issue: I see people complain all the time about the high cost of health insurance and point fingers at the insurance companies. I think to myself, "How can someone be so blind to what our health-care system is today?" A brief summary, if you will:

Hospitals charge what they charge BECAUSE health insurance companies are saying, "No, we're not paying that much for this, and we're not about to let you charge our clients [where we get 'reasonable', 'usual', and 'customary' charges] just to pay off your medical school debt." It doesn't matter, though, because the hospital's ultimate prize is its ability to write off every dollar amount it "loses" in the transaction.

Socializing medicine (which isn't really even what Obama proposes AT ALL - Hillary does) is one way to remedy this manipulation. Socialism is a little more complicated than a simple name drop.

Femomial,

I'd like to say I'm confident enough that the American people are either tolerant or intelligent enough not for this to happen, but I do believe there's a chance it will. (then again, I'm surprised Bush is still alive)

I'll come back to this Bush still being alive stuff in a moment... (not like this little tidbit is really necessary, I just like to keep it conversational)

As for the war, I was never for the war either. The war in Iraq is a useless money-sink for the U.S.; we've *created* an active pool of potential terrorists by going there, placed targets in handy places (so they don't have to go around the world), found zero WMDs, and managed to start up an old religious war between the factions there that Saddam, for all his faults, kept fairly quiescent.so now killing off the other side is an exceptable way of keeping religious persecution to minimal?
Acceptable, not exceptable. Either 'to a minimum' or 'minimal', not 'to minimal'. And no, which is exactly the point. It's happening anyway.

Let's back up and get things straight. Saddam has a little more than 'faults' on his record. He's a fucking saddist. And let's be sure we know why Saddam was killing off 'the other side'. It wasn't to keep religious persecution to a minimum. Saddam was killing people who spoke out [politically] against his party. And from detailed interviews with him released following his execution, the guy was not ashamed of doing it. He believed anyone who did not follow his idealism was a traitor, and in order to protect the public from the temptation to be treasonous, he had secret militias gather these people in the night, take them to secluded locations, dig mass graves, and kill them as to make sure the 'disease' of dissent did not infect his people. It just so happened that the dissent spread like mad cow on a farm, and thusly, mass genocide followed. Fucking wackjob. I have no sympathy for him and his fate.

That being said, we're in Iraq for several reasons. First and foremost, our president is a fucking idiot, and like most idiots, he tends to miss important details. We all know his first big fuck-up, ignoring the warnings of imminent attack on U.S. soil weeks before 9/11. Like most idiots, he blames someone else for his fuck up (the CIA). Like most idiots, Bush ignores the warnings by the CIA that our Middle East Ambassador, Ahmad Chalabi, is untrustworthy. Like most idiots, he takes ONE MAN'S opinion and turns THAT OPINION into FOREIGN POLICY (and surprise, surprise, guess where Chalabi is today... Iran... think about that one for a minute).

We have an idiot in office, and we have some of the most untrustworthy people (Cheney and Rumsfeld, to name a few) advising him. When advising occurs between a smart person with a laundry list of self-serving agendas and a stupid person, we call this manipulation, and so, we're left with a guy in office whose sole purpose in life is that of a cash register. Push the right buttons, the drawer opens, and an endless abyss full of debt-funded money pours out. And what on earth could possibly refill this bottomless abyss? Why, the value of YOUR DOLLAR. To understand this debt-funding, look up "money as debt" on youtube. For more on Bush's stupidity, go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

I'm a socialist - registered Democratic Socialist - and I can safely say that Obama has not shown a hint of tendency towards the socialist party line; he has, in fact, made me nervous by not supporting openly any party line, or making any concrete statements about what he will do when he is elected, merely brilliant, rousing speeches on other topics. I feel that our electoral system is lacking if it allows - and indeed forces - the candidates to make speeches refuting obvious slander instead of stating their stance on topics. And really, Socialist? By most other countries' definitions, Obama and Hillary are both moderate conservatives.I'm confused, doesn't Obama have his plan freely available (or whatever) on his website? That's what they've been campaigning, at least here in Indiana, and from other things I've heard about him is that theres very little about him that is "hidden" or "dodgy" as opposed to Hillary.What I mean is that he does not publicize any of this in any of his speeches, or in few public statements; thus if he is elected, he will have been elected primarily due to personal charisma or speechmaking capabilities - not unusual, for a president, just regrettable.

Wait. So, because Obama doesn't 'publicize' [what I might say is 'include'] his plan in his speeches, if he's elected it will be largely due to his charisma? Wow. See, the funny thing is, we live in a nation that hinges on 'the sale'. What I mean by this is, no matter what we're talking about (education, religion, politics, socializing, science, law, etc.), there is a basic functionality in the way oral communication reaches people. Being in the business of sales all my life, I quickly came to understand that people only hear 30% of what you say. So if you're expecting Obama to include his plan in his speeches, I expect you to only hear 30% of it. Maybe this is enough for you, but for the larger constituency, it's not even close.

Bottom line - there's no fault in referring people to a website to read a political platform. Reading has a 98% retention rate, the 2% being an offset for what people comprehend. It doesn't lead us to any conclusion that Obama will win even minimally because of his charisma. Truth be told, it will take both charisma, public speaking, a strong plan of action, and delegate support for Obama to win the primaries. We haven't even reached the Presidential Election yet.

My utmost apologies Neo, his "Spiritual Leader" is a black supremacist.

Ugh. This 'black supremacist' nonsense is making my head hurt. Please see Obama's speech responding to the reverend's speech. And while you're at it, brush up on your African-American History. There's a great deal of truth to Reverend Wright's speech, but there's a greater understanding in Obama's. When you read every word, come back here and try to support this label.

Or, you could just do what the media does and... not. Totally up to you.

Is the US ready for a black president? Doesn't the guy have nightmares about Martin Luther King, the Kennedies and the like? I cannot explain why, but I get that picture of Jack Bauer struggling to defend Obama from assassination/chemical/bacteriological/nuclear/extra-terrestrial/infernal attacks... and failing.

Let me get back to why Bush is still alive. When you have access to a cash register that spews endless amounts of money to every special interest out there, don't you think you're going to do everything humanly possible to protect that cash register from being taken from you? Bush is alive because there's no one out there with the means or the opportunity. He doesn't exactly ride around in an uncovered convertible limousine, stay at a cheap motel in Memphis, or find himself in a crowded hotel kitchen with hundreds of people around him praising his greatness and crying tears of joy for him. Simply put, Bush is probably one of the most unpopular public figures in the past 20 years, and, not that I wish this upon him (truthfully I don't), no one has even made an attempt. There's nothing mysterious about this... no opportunity, yet all the motive you'd ever need.

Now, if Obama does what is necessary to help the economy by taxing the upper class, reform how education is funded, truly does what he says he's going to do, and then gets assassinated, there's really no mystery as to who is behind it and why. But it won't really make much of a difference, because they'll find some lone, crazy gunman and ram him right down the media's throat as some racially stirred mastermind. No one will get off their couch. No revolt. No uprising. No riots or outrage toward those with the greatest motive to do such a horrible thing. People will sit silently glued to their televisions waiting on the news to tell them everything will be o.k., and then they'll spend another week or so watching the funeral coverage. It'll be great ratings for the networks, and life will move on as commercials slowly work their way back into the coverage... life will return to normal and people will memorialize him before he ever had a chance to make a real difference.

Would such a thing happen today over this 'racial divide'? Hard to say.. I've got nothin'.

[Anoiktos]

Wait. So, because Obama doesn't 'publicize' [what I might say is 'include'] his plan in his speeches, if he's elected it will be largely due to his charisma? Wow. See, the funny thing is, we live in a nation that hinges on 'the sale'. What I mean by this is, no matter what we're talking about (education, religion, politics, socializing, science, law, etc.), there is a basic functionality in the way oral communication reaches people. Being in the business of sales all my life, I quickly came to understand that people only hear 30% of what you say. So if you're expecting Obama to include his plan in his speeches, I expect you to only hear 30% of it. Maybe this is enough for you, but for the larger constituency, it's not even close.
Absolutely - people retain more that they read. I'm saying that most people won't bother reading his platform - or judging him on anything other than what they see on TV, so while 30% of [some number of platform statements in speeches] isn't a lot, it's greater than 30% of [zero platform statements in speeches].

Let's back up and get things straight. Saddam has a little more than 'faults' on his record. He's a fucking saddist. And let's be sure we know why Saddam was killing off 'the other side'. It wasn't to keep religious persecution to a minimum. Saddam was killing people who spoke out [politically] against his party. And from detailed interviews with him released following his execution, the guy was not ashamed of doing it. He believed anyone who did not follow his idealism was a traitor, and in order to protect the public from the temptation to be treasonous, he had secret militias gather these people in the night, take them to secluded locations, dig mass graves, and kill them as to make sure the 'disease' of dissent did not infect his people.
Yeah. And while that was bad, it doesn't make what we're doing there good, as you point out.

As for your thoughts responding to femomial's OP: Gods, that's a depressing point of view, but probably a realist one, now that I think back to MLK's death.

[Prozerran]

Absolutely - people retain more that they read. I'm saying that most people won't bother reading his platform - or judging him on anything other than what they see on TV, so while 30% of [some number of platform statements in speeches] isn't a lot, it's greater than 30% of [zero platform statements in speeches].


Yeah. And while that was bad, it doesn't make what we're doing there good, as you point out.

As for your thoughts responding to femomial's OP: Gods, that's a depressing point of view, but probably a realist one, now that I think back to MLK's death.

Right. I think you and I have a different understanding of campaigning. You're thinking about gathering votes. That's just a game of numbers. You can throw caution to the wind that way. It's retention you want in campaigning. The formula is simple. The speech brings you in, and the website (the platform, bio, blah blah) keeps you coming back for more. Welcome to the modern age.

What we're doing over there is really not relevant. We're there. It's a mess. People are dying on both sides. It's war, and that's the breaks. Call it what you will, but I'll call it how I see it. We have an idiot for a president who thinks he's a prophet, who hears the voice of God in every decision he makes, who royally screwed our country, our troops, and our economic future. Way to go, moron! We appreciate it.

[Neo]

Gunmonk, I've just decided you're off your rocker.

All of those links were to opinion, or editorial articles (Read: not based on facts, and/or taking quotes highly out of context eg: spin).

I'd just like to mention that, because Obama is the only one who understands Net Neutrality (Hillary backs the Telco's -- eg: wanting to remove it, McCain doesn't understand the issue at all) he is really the only candidate out of them that I can support anyway. Hillary also seems to follow the route of Jack Thompson (eg: video game hater) so that's another mark against her.

McCain might be ok, but I don't think he'd really make a great president.

One last thing: Obama being black has never even entered into my mind for whether or not I would support him.

As for someone getting assassinated, the only way this would happen is if it was used as a ploy for Bush and Company to retain the office. I know, label me a conspiracy nut all you want, but I truly think that Bush and friends are pretty corrupt, and I wouldn't put it past them to manufacture -- or create -- a national disaster, whether assassination, terrorist bombing, or other incident that incites fear.

Now, I know on the common sense level of things, all that is unlikely, probably 99% unlikely, but it's that 1% that makes me hesitate.

-Neo

[Gunmonk]

As for someone getting assassinated, the only way this would happen is if it was used as a ploy for Bush and Company to retain the office. I know, label me a conspiracy nut all you want, but I truly think that Bush and friends are pretty corrupt, and I wouldn't put it past them to manufacture -- or create -- a national disaster, whether assassination, terrorist bombing, or other incident that incites fear.

You're totally right, I'm off my rocker.

Really I hate all the candidates and I am truly afraid of what they will do to our country. I would prefer it that other people would run (Gingrich, Lieberman, Fred Phelps, Biden, or any others) its just that the choices we have are close to nill as far as quality goes.

BTW as for my links... here are the good ones that are not editorials. But what do I know? I'm off my rocker.

NY Sun's Report (http://www2.nysun.com/article/71421)
Transcript of Obama Endorsing a Socialist (http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-endorsement-of-socialist-bernie.html)

the last one just read the transcript... I found it rather sickening myself.

I'm feeling cthulhu for '08

[Prozerran]

BTW as for my links... here are the good ones that are not editorials. But what do I know? I'm off my rocker.

NY Sun's Report (http://www2.nysun.com/article/71421)
Transcript of Obama Endorsing a Socialist (http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-endorsement-of-socialist-bernie.html)

the last one just read the transcript... I found it rather sickening myself.

I'm feeling cthulhu for '08

See, I can see what your problem with Obama is, and, well, you AGAIN show little to no understanding of what this word we call "Socialism" means. Here is what Obama addresses:

We have an administration that is fundamentally not serious about the things we care about. It's not about the environment; [sic] it's not serious about energy independence; [sic] it's not serious about homeland security; it's not serious about making sure every American has a decent shot at life, that they've got health insurance and every child actually has genuine educational opportunity

And apparently, the publisher of this website isn't serious AT ALL about punctuating. It's quite possibly the worst transcript I've seen, but that's beside the point.

Simply put, Obama isn't talking about socializing anything. What does the author of this transcription point to as Obama's push towards socialism?

we can bring about a change.That's what this election is going to be about, and that's why I want to make sure everybody is as enthusiastic as I am about making sure these guys end up in Washington where they can keep stirring up some trouble.

Stirring up some trouble. Oooo... sounds scandalous! Please! Please just spare me. You know, if someone doesn't stand up in the administration and start stirring up some trouble, we may just all end up homeless and broke on the street in epidemic proportions. But GOD FORBID someone come up and say, "Let's get someone in the house who can stir up some trouble." All of a sudden, our 80's Cold War mindset sets in and we think, "Oh NO!!! It's a Commie!!!" God, I just can't rant enough about how stupid this "Socialism" name drop really is...

And I'm just not going to waste my time anymore on it.

[Gunmonk]

Prozerran, he endorsed a self proclaimed socialist. He took contributions (I say contributions, favors perhaps?) from socialists which helped him get where he is right now. Evidence strongly supports his ideas of socialism.

...and the handful of wrongheaded people who don't like him you know you're not going to change their minds either.

Wrongheaded people eh? I wonder what he thinks of anyone not voting for him.

[Faiien]

Well, it doesn't even have to be a black president. Who's to stop some crazy lunatic with a sniper rifle to shoot down one of the other presidential candidates, one they dislike with...a strong passion. Sure there's a bigger chance of it happening to Obama because he's black or Hillary because she's a woman(not 100% sure) but I think these things are out of the people's hands. We just have to choose someone who can nail down the key problems in the United States today. I say let the secret service or whatever other government organization take care of the safety and the security of the president.

[mranderson]

Zomg, he took contributions, what the hell is wrong with people and accepting huge amounts of money to campaign for president. Before you start taking shots at Obama's funding try looking at Hilary's and McCains too. And yes, you say they are bad choices also, but these are the three candidates that have made it far enough to have a shot at president. Look how far Mitt Romney got without campaign contributions (and no don't bring up his LDS religion, that's not the point.) He spent his own money, and still lost. Why did he spend his money though? Because he didn't have enough to win, which is why he lost. It's not the good candidates fault that the presidential race has devolved into money grabbing which is why your aforementioned candidates will never get elected.


Wrongheaded people eh? I wonder what he thinks of anyone not voting for him. Well, he really does not care about them, but he only will care enough to win president. Than he'll "stir up some trouble." Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing interest groups disappear, and pork barreling becoming a uncommon practice if that is the trouble he intends on stirring up.

But he probably believes he has the interst of those people at heart, and will act accordingly. But would anyone else see the irony of a black winning president and straightening out the government? Especially since blacks were brought to the colonies for slavery because white's had the black's "best interest" at heart. Not to mention that elites had the slaves brought over. I could go on, but I'll let you think about it.

Well, it doesn't even have to be a black president. Who's to stop some crazy lunatic with a sniper rifle to shoot down one of the other presidential candidates, one they dislike with...a strong passion. Sure there's a bigger chance of it happening to Obama because he's black or Hillary because she's a woman(not 100% sure) but I think these things are out of the people's hands. We just have to choose someone who can nail down the key problems in the United States today. I say let the secret service or whatever other government organization take care of the safety and the security of the president.
Ya, because the SS will just let a sniper get a roof top position... and he'll happen to get a high powered, well maintained, accuarate sniper rifle how? Sure there would be a lot of rooftops in a city, not to mention windows, but that is why the SS is there. There not just some cowboys, and they've got their sh*t down.

[Faiien]

It doesnt have to be a sniper rifle, I was simply using that as an example -_-.
Well...I was supporting the secret service...but they do have their flaws, note JFK.

[Neo]

Prozerran, he endorsed a self proclaimed socialist. He took contributions (I say contributions, favors perhaps?) from socialists which helped him get where he is right now. Evidence strongly supports his ideas of socialism.

I'm curious, is there any proof of monetary compensation from these people to obama on the record anywhere?

Gunmonk, what the hell does him endorsing a socialist have to do with him personally?

Are you telling me that that one incident, speech, endorsement, whatever, suddenly invalidates his entire campaign?

But then again you want someone like Lieberman or whoever else you rattled off -- pretty much concludes that you've no idea what the hell is going on.

The problem is that to many people are forgetting that the old issues, Healthcare, Taxes, etc... are being joined by newer issues, Net Neutrality, Video Games, DMCA/DRM/Related, then we've got National Security fiasco's, we've got judges trampling all over the constitution (though taking a queue from bush?) -- There has been one candidate, who has even a shot at getting into office, who seems to understand this stuff, and that's Obama.

The problem is the Media. In the past they held a great deal of power over who became the next president, and when people started calling them on "Hey obama won that poll, why'd you remove it?" or "Why haven't you even acknowledged Obama yet?" or other stuff it became obvious that it would be much more difficult to "push" their candidate into office.

That bullshit of a debate from ABC for instance.

It's nice that you have these faerie tale wishful candidates you'd rather see, but that's not reality. The reality is that we get to pick between the oldguard McCain, the crazy lieing Billary, and the, so far, honest and very open Obama.

Please though, continue to bring up shit that holds no bearing, OMFG HE ENDORSED A SOCIALIST?

So fucking what?

That matters little. America is in deep shit now, people are suffering, our troops are dieing, there's talk of a Recession, and you're gonna sit there and tell me that because obama might have some socialist tendencies that he's not a good candidate?

I don't care if the fucking anti-christ ran for and won the presidency, as long as America starts taking care of itself. We have hungry and homeless people here, from familes, to fucking vets, that need to be taken care of.

Why the hell are we off fighting? Why are we pouring money into companies like Haliburton, or even countries like Isreal?

i know, i ranted. sorry.

We need change. So far Obama represents that. Hillary is fucking out of her mind clueless with the average person, and McCain is... I dunno, out of touch it seems. Like, he wouldn't be a bad president, just not a great one.

It doesnt have to be a sniper rifle, I was simply using that as an example -_-.
Well...I was supporting the secret service...but they do have their flaws, note JFK.

JFK isn't exactly the best example, since there is a rather large, almost admitted conspiracy surrounding that incident.

-Neo

[Anoiktos]

I'd like to point out that by the logic of "Oooh, so-and-so contributed to so-and-so's campaign therefore so-and-so is bound irretrievably to so-and-so", almost all of the candidates' primary contributions come from the same companies:

Barack Obama (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008)
Hillary Clinton (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008)
John McCain (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00006424&cycle=2008)

This, of course, must therefore mean that whoever wins, we're all screwed.

[mranderson]

It doesnt have to be a sniper rifle, I was simply using that as an example -_-.
Well...I was supporting the secret service...but they do have their flaws, note JFK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt
A good one to consider, but now a days think about the techonolgy, and training the SS has compared to back than. Can't believe that guy pulled it off though, but one weird thing I noticed was how the media covered the presiden'ts speeches more after JFK... I didn't notice that before, but I'm young and naive. :P

[Neo]

I'd like to point out that by the logic of "Oooh, so-and-so contributed to so-and-so's campaign therefore so-and-so is bound irretrievably to so-and-so", almost all of the candidates' primary contributions come from the same companies:

Barack Obama (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008)
Hillary Clinton (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008)
John McCain (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00006424&cycle=2008)

This, of course, must therefore mean that whoever wins, we're all screwed.

Nifty, Google contributed to Obama, and not Hillary or McCain.

However, of note:

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

edit: gosh, nevermind, mccain seems like a total nutjob;

http://digg.com/politics/McCain_Endorser_Pastor_Hagee_God_Curses_and_Dooms_ America

and he voted against the gi bill? wtf.

-Neo

[Gunmonk]

Gunmonk, what the hell does him endorsing a socialist have to do with him personally?
Clinton openly endorses a Fascist, a Communist, or a Klan member... what would that do to him in his campaign? You aren't seeing the entire point, why do you vote for someone? The answer should be because they have somewhat the same beliefs as you... The same should be for an endorsement

Are you telling me that that one incident, speech, endorsement, whatever, suddenly invalidates his entire campaign?

Bear with me here, lets say a candidate went to a Klan rally, what would that do to its campaign? Let's say a candidate makes a speech openly saying that anyone who doesn't vote for him is a moron. Lets say a candidate takes an endorsement from Fred Phelps... what do you think of the candidate? The answers should be semi obvious. Why do you think he [Obama] distanced himself and finally denounced or what have you Jeremiah Wright?

But then again you want someone like Lieberman or whoever else you rattled off -- pretty much concludes that you've no idea what the hell is going on.

Wow... you need to read, that or be a bit more literate concerning names of people. Had you read... you would have seen:

Really I hate all the candidates and I am truly afraid of what they will do to our country. I would prefer it that other people would run (Gingrich, Lieberman, Fred Phelps, Biden, or any others) its just that the choices we have are close to nill as far as quality goes.

Let us examine: I hate all the candidates (really I do, they are all in congress and liars for all I know), I am afraid of what they will do (they all seem to have ulterior motives). My favorite of these is this the list of candidates I threw out... Did you notice the name of Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps) appeared? Please excuse my sarcasm...

and he voted against the gi bill? wtf.

I don't like McCain either, in fact, I think he is just as bad as Obama and Hillary both (well maybe not as bad as Hillary /joke).

But what has Obama voted for?
Concerning the military (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=47&go.x=23&go.y=7)
Obama not voting to raise minimum wages in the event of emergency (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=12952&can_id=9490)
I just found the last bill to be extremely interesting... I can't for the life of me figure out why he didn't vote for it... but meh.

See, I can see what your problem with Obama is, and, well, you AGAIN show little to no understanding of what this word we call "Socialism" means. Here is what Obama addresses:

so 1. I have some understanding... thats good, 2. He plans on giving national healthcare, raising taxes, bringing back partial birth abortion, and he also plans on raising taxes for the rich... he may not be a socialist, but he has socialist ideas. As to taxing the rich, would you like to know exactly who he'd be taxing even more? YOU (or indirectly your parents). I'm gonna theoretically say that whoever makes money in your family makes $100,000. He is technically in the upper-class, but you would be paying already over $21,000. Has anyone heard how much this program is projected to cost? I think the goal should be to get us out of debt not further into it.

[Prozerran]

so 1. I have some understanding... thats good, 2. He plans on giving national healthcare, raising taxes, bringing back partial birth abortion, and he also plans on raising taxes for the rich... he may not be a socialist, but he has socialist ideas. As to taxing the rich, would you like to know exactly who he'd be taxing even more? YOU (or indirectly your parents). I'm gonna theoretically say that whoever makes money in your family makes $100,000. He is technically in the upper-class, but you would be paying already over $21,000. Has anyone heard how much this program is projected to cost? I think the goal should be to get us out of debt not further into it.

1.) What you have said regarding Socialism isn't, in reality, socialist. The only thing you've pointed out is that Obama has endorsed someone who has a "socialist" agenda, which you get from a rabid columnist of some no-name website touting its agenda on anti-Obama. Tell us all how you define socialism and why it's bad (I know I'm going to regret asking you to do this, but just for the sake of seeing if you can form an independent thought with legitimate support for your assertion).

2.) So, in reality, someone who makes $100,000 would end up after taxes earning $79,000. That's not really all that bad, honestly. That'll pay a mortgage, most of your bills, food, AND give you money left over to invest in the future education of your kids, your retirement, etc. What is the problem? You are failing to explain your position with any rationality. If your position and your reasons for having this position were more elaborate and well-explained, I wouldn't be sitting here thinking you're arguing for something you've been spoon-fed by your parents.

Just define socialism for us and quit dodging me if you want to continue blasting Obama for his "ties" to "socialism".

[RavenCrusade]

On page one I felt like contributing to this thread. On page two I was a bit dissuaded, and by page three I now feel like the only person I might assasinate with a high powered sniper rifle from some obscure rooftop is Gunmonk.

I would love if we introduced a rule that states a link alone should not be considered a rebutal. You should have to have more than one risky source for it to be considered valid, or use a valid one in the first place. While we're at it, we could also make a rule that requires people to define what they are talking about correctly.

[Gunmonk]

If your position and your reasons for having this position were more elaborate and well-explained, I wouldn't be sitting here thinking you're arguing for something you've been spoon-fed by your parents.


Ok, you wanna know that its not something I've been fucking spoon fed? Healthcare in America is pretty damn expensive, especially if you have cancer. Without insurance we would have had to pay over a million dollars, with that extra fifteen to thirty thousand dollars, life would have been and still would be a bit easier than what it was and is at the moment. Hospice is also a bitch to pay for, insurance doesn't make money hooligans go away, smart legislation reducing frivolous lawsuits does, not raising my fucking taxes an extra ten percent.

I had a desk job in an electronics lab last summer, and I made ten dollars an hour plus overtime, and guess what, I'm 17 I'm paying for something that won't exist when I get ready to retire. I freaking dished out a thousand dollars for nothing that I will ever use, for something thats broken. It already takes six weeks to get my passport, it takes almost just as much hassle to get set up with government aid programs, my insurance company screws things up badly already, what makes you think mass government controlled bureaucracy is gonna help?

Socialism by the way is defined (at least in my view) as: Increasing Government participation in the private sector and/or redistribution of the wealth either by taxes or monetary means

[Prozerran]

Ok, you wanna know that its not something I've been fucking spoon fed? Healthcare in America is pretty damn expensive, especially if you have cancer. Without insurance we would have had to pay over a million dollars, with that extra fifteen to thirty thousand dollars, life would have been and still would be a bit easier than what it was and is at the moment. Hospice is also a bitch to pay for, insurance doesn't make money hooligans go away, smart legislation reducing frivolous lawsuits does, not raising my fucking taxes an extra ten percent.

I had a desk job in an electronics lab last summer, and I made ten dollars an hour plus overtime, and guess what, I'm 17 I'm paying for something that won't exist when I get ready to retire. I freaking dished out a thousand dollars for nothing that I will ever use, for something thats broken. It already takes six weeks to get my passport, it takes almost just as much hassle to get set up with government aid programs, my insurance company screws things up badly already, what makes you think mass government controlled bureaucracy is gonna help?

Socialism by the way is defined (at least in my view) as: Increasing Government participation in the private sector and/or redistribution of the wealth either by taxes or monetary means

Ok, well, we can get somewhere now.

First, your experience with health-care is only a tiny part of a much larger problem. What you pay for and why you see that price increasing in keeping your medical coverage in the U.S. is due to inflated tuition prices (which have a separate, yet equally correctable problem) for doctors, increasing the need for lending money at interest for people to go to school to begin with. In addition, you have these doctors practicing in hospitals that overcharge patients simply so they never pay a dime in taxes (by writing off what they don't get). Furthermore, we have lawsuits all over the place that allow anyone to sue a doctor for just about any mistake, large or small. Now, I'll admit, mistakes happen, and if I lost someone I loved to a doctor's mistake, I would be more than upset. However, I wouldn't try to cash in on it like so many other people do. At any rate, yes, there is a problem that will need to be solved, and equal distributions of wealth are just a smaller answer to the problem.

Now, while this may seem "unfair" to those who earn more, it's simply a matter of taking on your share of the contributions to your fellow man. If you have someone earning five times what someone else earns and both pay the same amount in taxes, the government is limited to the lowest income, leaving the greatest weight of responsibility on the person making the least amount of money. There is no way to justify this as being "acceptable" by any standard. So, if I were making $100,000 per year and someone else is making $50,000, I see nothing wrong with me paying a higher percentage on taxes than my counterpart. Even paying twice the percentage amount still leaves me with more money. If someone making $50k is paying 10% in taxes, they contribute $5,000, and if I'm making $100,000 and contribute 20%, I'm contributing $20,000. Still, I make $80,000 after taxation while my counterpart makes $45,000. Distribution of wealth after taxes is still equal.

As for your definition of Socialism, you're assuming quite a bit on the basis that the government can't seem to do what it says it will do. Sure, some things are going to fall through the cracks, but it's all part of adaptation to change. Medicare doesn't cover everything for senior citizens, but there are supplements out there that compensate for this problem. The company I work for is releasing a new product that allows someone paying a high monthly premium for a low deductible to save money. By raising their deductible they can cut their premium in half, then our supplement pays their deductibles, their copays, and their coinsurance. People can go to the doctor, show their insurance card, and when they get the bill, they send it to our company to have their bills paid. Simple as that.

Should the government come out with a socialized medical plan, it won't prevent companies from offering products that pay the extra expenses. It will, however, put the hospital charges in check and standardize billing practices nationwide so people don't walk into a hospital needing treatment and get placed in the waiting room because this particular hospital doesn't take their insurance.

There's a darker side to the health-care issue in the U.S., and people often don't understand how the insurance companies have been trying to protect the public from inflated expenses. All people see about these issues are what they watch on CNN (Dr. Gupta and the like) or what they see in movies (Rainmaker, Patch Adams, etc.). It's tempting to say, "Oh, the insurance companies won't pay claims." In reality, insurance companies say, "No, we're not paying more because you're charging too much." Then hospitals go after the public instead of honoring the checks and balances that should exist between these entities. It's the nature of the beast, and until legislation comes out that gives the insurance companies more strength to balance the equation by disallowing insured individuals from being held liable for charges insurance companies won't pay, hospitals will continue to overcharge for services to write off what they don't get and pay nothing in taxes.

There are some things Big Brother can help us with, and we should take advantage of that influence especially when millions of people die every year because they can't afford health insurance, and without it, they can't show an ability to pay the outrageous fortunes in bills that hospitals dish out just so they don't have to pay taxes. And you want the private sector to continue operating in this manner? You sure? Millions of people. No health-care. Lots of them die. But you'd rather save money on your taxes if you ever become wealthy. Right.

[Mr.Bad]

Who says Socialism as an economic policy is a bad thing? I'm no communist, that form of government just doesn't work, but Socialism isn't necessarily bad. The reason that Capitalism is supposed to be goo is because companies are motivated by greed to make their products superior to the products of competition. That's all good and fine at first, but then companies get smart. It becomes more expensive to actually improve their products than it does to make their products appear better. They advertise and use all the subliminal messages present in advertising to get people to buy their inferior products rather than stepping up and making their products superior.

Still, this is OK. Eventually the public realizes that the product is crap and the company goes out of business. Products continue to improve. However, it is much worse for this to happen in an industry that has lives at stake. We need our medicine improving as quickly as possible. We can't let these pharmaceutical companies be wasting their money away on one-sided research that supports their products. No, I think it would be much better to let the government control this industry. Some might say that things would be too inefficient, that people would have no reason to improve without competition. Well guess what, greed isn't the only thing you can aspire too to get someone to work hard. What if someone actually cared about making the world a better place? It happens sometimes you know.

As for taxes. We need to raise them. That's the only way to get us out of debt while not destroying our education system/anything else that you wackjobs want to cut money from. My dad makes $150,000 a year. We're pretty well off. Would I prefer it if he got to bring that whole $150,000 home to spend? Hell yes. Do I think he should be able to? No. The government needs tax money. Sometimes, like when it's recovering from a madman that spent billions on a war effort with a country that was no threat to us, it needs more money. Our government needs more money. Period. The poor can't give it to them, they're already bad enough of as is. I won't be out on the streets because my dad has to pay extra taxes. We can afford it. So can anyone else on a higher economic level. Again I say, greed isn't the only motivation for which to do something. I can believe that taxes on the wealthy should be increased, even though that would potentially harm me.

EDIT: You're the Evangelical Christian, right? What happened to loving others as yourself? Come on Gunmonk, get a heart.

[mranderson]

But what has Obama voted for?
Concerning the military
Obama not voting to raise minimum wages in the event of emergency
I just found the last bill to be extremely interesting... I can't for the life of me figure out why he didn't vote for it... but meh.


Well I followed your link, and that bill seems to be more about appropriations for defense, and other misc. stuff. Here's the highlights-
Highlights:

--States that the US strategy in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi Government’s ability to meet specified benchmarks (Title I(Chapter 3(Sec 1314 (b))))

-Increases the federal minimum wage to $5.85 per hour on the 60th day after the enactment of HR 2206, $6.55 per hour 12 months after that 60th day, and $7.25 per hour 24 months after that 60th day (Title VIII (Subtitle A (Sec 8102 (a (1)))))

-Enacts business tax modifications, including such adjustments as extending the work opportunity tax credit to 2011(Title VIII (Subtitle B (Part 1 (Subpart A (Sec 8211))))), extending and increasing expensing for small business (Title VIII (Subtitle B (Part 1 (Subpart A (Sec 8212))))), waiving alternative minimum tax limits on work opportunity credit and credit for taxes paid on employee tips (Title VIII (Subtitle B (Part 1 (Subpart A (Sec 8214))))), and other adjustments
-$101.11 billion for the Department of Defense, including $99.50 billion for non-civil purposes and $1.61 billion for civil purposes
-$1.79 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including $1.34 billion for medical related expenses
-$989.50 million for the Department of Agriculture
-$356 million for the Department of Justice
-$5.16 billion for the Department of Homeland Security
-$5.60 billion for the Department of State

It seems to me like he was not so much voting against minimum wage... Here's a linik to the bill's written form. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110i6l9Rw::

Please tell me that everyone knows a bill's title has nothing to do with the legislation...

[Anoiktos]

Aye, just because someone votes against a bill called "such-and-such" doesn't mean much about their stance on things. See the 'Patriot' act for an excellent example.