Go Ahead ! Tell me I'm wrong if you think so, but have the courage to stand by your beliefs. If you believe something it shouldn't matter that I believe something else. Make your point.
Okay, I really want to try this. In my opinion, discussion and debate are essential to keep the USA free and informed. It's what makes us who we are, the ability to disagree and present opposing viewpoints. I want to see if we can get everyone to respond to these questions WITHOUT any of the typical crap we hear day in and day out through media sources. Just your (hopefully informed) opinions. Maybe we can air it out since I'm getting more and more angry and think maybe if I talk to people about the issues, without all the idiotic stuff I have to dig through on most sites, I'll understand what the other side sees, a perspective I'm missing completely at the moment. Oh, and if you want to add questions we can add anything you want to talk about.
The Rules:
1. You are not allowed to use "candidate speak" (ie. maverick, devisive, distraction, ginning up, caribou barbie, etc.)
2. NO RHETORIC! Use your words not theirs and if you give info back it up, don't just say the candidate said so because they have both lied and been caught and while one claims he isn't a politician, they both are.
3. NO NAME CALLING!! Of candidates or each other, and most of all not of me.
4. Answer based on the PRES candidate, unless/until one of them dies we're stuck with these two.
5. I'm right !!! Just kidding, well ... mostly kidding.
7 comments:
I trust McCain. I feel that he truly has tried to devote his self to the country. I feel he wants to bring change. I don't trust Obama partly related to some of his past associations, fair or not. He also wrote in one of his books that if push came to shove he would be on the side of the Muslims.
I trust them both. It's not just rust foe me, it's who I believe is best for the country now and for what I need as well; .. In answer to, Sue, I agree McCain was a hero and served his country, but so did Bob Shaw, Tom Rowley, Larry Day, Ernie Brownlee, Jack Hurley, and Paul Hurley, but I don't think they could lead the country.
I trust Obama. He is very smart and seems to think things through very thoroughly and doesn't appear to be tied to ideology. I also relate to him much more than McCain. He was raised by a single mother and grandmother and we are of the same generation. I think he has a solid grasp of the important issues. In the areas where he might not be an expert he has shown that he is able to get advice from the best and most informed people around. His career has been about working with average americans and bringing different people together. He also seems to be calm and deliberate in his actions.
McCain on the other hand seems totally out of touch to me. He's led a privileged life and has never held a regular job. He was a legacy admission to Annapolis and graduated at the bottom of his class. He seems to be easily irritated and impetuous, not good qualities for a President. He has jettisoned most of the things I admired about him in order to attract the far right wing of his party's base. He's 72 years old and has had four cases of melanoma one of the deadliest cancers and picked a vp candidate who is in no way prepared to be President. His campaign preys on peoples fears and the worst part of our nature and has been largely based on character attacks. But mostly I don't trust him because he would continue the trickle down economics, deregulation and flawed foreign policy that has gotten us into the trouble we are in today.
That's it in a nutshell. I'm sure I could add more but that's it off the top of my head.
Also, I'd like to see the excerpt from Obama's book that Sue mentioned.
I truly and completely trust neither of the candidates but I actively and fully distrust Obama. I do not believe that he is focused on the whole country and, rail against me if you must, but I don't believe in socialism. There isn't an argument out there that can be made that when you have a government that takes from one group of people and uses it to support another that you can't call that socialism.
Obama isn't supposed to be a politician, yet he is, he parses every sentence he utters and avoids saying much of anything.
I believe that those that support a cause or a candidate say alot about the candidate. I've never, in my 40+ years on earth, seen a nastier bunch than Obama supporters. I can lump Rezko, Ayers, Wright and the rest in there but even without them it's a nonstop barrage of hate and vitriol. Attacks from within his campaign that he ignores or participates in on average americans for crying out loud. I'd call that devoid of character, not the reverse.
There's nothing of substance that I've seen, not in his actions or his words that lead me to believe he does anything more than say what he thinks people want to hear. Coupled with those that are striving to get him elected my internal alarms are constantly ringing a warning that what you see is DEFINITELY NOT what you get with Obama.
I'd like to see some examples of the nonstop barrage of hate and vitriol or the attacks from within his campaign on average Americans you refer to because frankly I don't see it. And, to be quite honest it sounds like projection to me because it's almost all I see from the Republican side. To them if you don't agree with them you are anti-American. I could share with you lots of video of McCain/Palin rallies that are quite frightening to me. I have never seen that from Obama, his campaign or at his rallies but if you have other evidence I would love to see it.
I'd also like to hear some idea of what you mean when you say that there's nothing of substance in his actions or words. If you look at his issues page on his website he is very specific about his policy proposals. I'm baffled that you think there's nothing of substance in his words as well. I couldn't disagree more.
Also, please explain to me what parts of his policies you construe as "socialism". We have a progressive tax system in this country in which those who make more are expected to pay a little more. We have many here who make a lot of income and pay very little because it all comes from dividends or capital gains. A lot of people in the area where I live don't work at all. They get all of their money through their trust funds and the interest accrued from that yet they pay lower taxes than someone who makes his or her money by working.
Right now we have a system where the country as a whole has shared risk but the rewards all go to those at the very top. Is that socialism?
Since after the great depression we had a country that believed that putting in place a system to help create and maintain a strong middle class was the most important thing. That's what made us a great country and kept us strong. It raised all boats if you will. Since the 80's that philosophy has been abandoned and replaced by one that believes that you give as many breaks as you can to the wealthiest few in the hope that those of us in the middle class and the poor slobs unfortunate enough to be below us on the economic ladder will happily lap up whatever crumbs they drop. It's called trickle down economics. A country that valued shared sacrifice and the common good has been replaced by one that raises greed and me first above all else.
That same group, that John McCain belongs to believes that government is the problem. They have done their best to prove that point. In every agency designed to help protect the citizens of the country by overseeing various industries they have put in charge people who had previously worked for that industry. For example putting a person who worked as a lobbyist for the mining industry and actively lobbied to make mine safety rules less stringent in charge of the agency charged with protecting the safety of coal miners. It's true in every agency.
I've probably gone over my limit so I'll quit for now.
You didn't go over your limit. Don't for a second think I agree with Republicans either. I have read all of Obama's plan, and the changes he's made along the way.
I think his plan is a wish list, I said it somewhere down the line, not a realistic agenda.
The words I'm talking about are the ones he uses when speaking. I don't impress easily, you can only say "change", "bring people together", etc. so many times and it doesn't mean anything. His own supporters have said that one of his faults is that he speaks too much "motivation" and not enough substance and that he needs to learn to answer questions with direct answers rather than reverting to talking points.
That slimy fella that runs his campaign has said some pretty nasty things in interviews I've watched on TV. I'll dig and see if I can't find some transcripts.
You say our country shares risk but I'm not seeing it. I was on welfare, so were some of the folks I knew back then. And many of them stayed there year after year after year. What risk were they sharing?
I miss how because someone makes money on a trust fund how that means they aren't entitled to it. If I buy stocks and it makes money I took the risk. If I put money in a bank and they invest it and pay me for using it I've provided something.
To answer some of it, I don't believe in the system we have. I think it should be a flat tax system and get rid of deductions, period. I don't understand the point. I'm not saying I agree with what we have now but I certainly don't think making it more easy to take money from fewer makes it right. If I could withstand five minutes of scrutiny into my own past I'd have run for office myself by now. I'd love to participate in fixing what I think is broken but I wouldn't pass scrutiny by Dem's or Rep's. I'm definitely NOT acceptable material for office.
I have seen the system from the inside from the bottom up. It doesn't work and I don't like it and once again, I don't think taking more from people who work is the solution.
From a different perspective, isn't it just as greedy to take something away from somebody else just because you can and you think others should have it?
I don't "project" my feelings. I watch these guys and have seen McCain screw up, yelled at him when he suggested bailing out mortgage holders, bust on him when he's full of it. I don't agree with all he proposes.
I'll tell you where I get my news. I watch CNN, HLN, MSNBC, Fox, 3 local channels. The day McCain visited our city, literally, was in Strongsville, the local news covered the "wooly bear festival", a local festival that celebrates caterpillars and then showed a speech by Obama from MO or somewhere. This was while he was here, in a local auditorium and getting coverage ONLY by Fox news on the national channel.
I never said there weren't McCain supporters who were nutso. I cringe when someone brings up Obama's Muslim religion, or equally wacko views. I don't go around saying he's a terrorist and I wish others wouldn't either because it just makes it harder to actually get anyone to stick to issues. I have seen Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Wolf Blitzer's guests (not him though he's obvious in his opinions) and many others actually snort and sneer and "inform" america that the only reason people aren't voting for Obama is because they are racist. I've watched the KOS moron actually get MSM to question Palin's son's paternity and her daughters pregnancy and possible incest. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That's main stream media, national news, and what can laughably called journalism. You don't think that qualifies as hate and vitriol? I RARELY see anyone say anything that can even be considered a mild rebuke about Obama and I never leave the house so I've got news on almost 24 hours a day. I love the crap about how she's "dangerous" and "scary" because she's religious from the anchors on CNN and MSNBC. Like their guy doesn't have a bible. It's all laughable.
I can't believe that you don't see it. I can't believe anyone with eyes doesn't see it. It began before the primaries were in full gear. And it went over the top the minute there was a republican for the media to crucify.
As a matter of fact, I've become a supporter BECAUSE of the bias rather than seeing the bias because I was a supporter. I wasn't going to vote after Hillary got robbed (LOL) but watching the news I just couldn't stand that they didn't even pretend to report facts and it burned me up. I ended up where I am, voting AGAINST the candidate that is being ushered to DC by the media. That's not how my country is supposed to elect a president so they and Obama lost my vote.
I've wondered for a while now why Obama isn't disclosing donation info for those under $200. I know it isn't required by law but this is the man who is proclaiming how open and transparent his government will be. New information brings that EVEN MORE into question. I'm supposed to trust this guy, really?
This is from the New York Post.
DUBIOUS DONATIONS
BAM'S WEB SITE INVITES FRAUD
By SCOTT W. JOHNSON
Obama: Failing to put up basic blocks against fraudulent giving.Posted: 3:36 am
October 27, 2008
Barack Obama has proved the greatest fund-raiser of all time by a long shot. His campaign has raised more than $600 million - $150 million in September alone. But the campaign has also failed to adopt standard protections against fraudulent giving.
The average contribution to Obama in September was just under $86. And federal law only requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200.
The Federal Election Commission says the Obama campaign has reported well over $200 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only a small portion of that sum is attributable to donors the Obama campaign has disclosed.
No presidential campaign has ever before received such a gargantuan sum of money from unidentified contributors.
The campaign's records reveal big contributors with names like "Doodad Pro" (employer: "Loving," profession: "You") and "Good Will" (same employer and profession). Both donated via credit card. Other reports have suggested that some donations come from overseas - raising the question of whether Obama is accepting donations from foreigners, another violation of federal law.
All of which prompted an enterprising citizen to test the controls put in place to enforce compliance with federal campaign law by the Obama and McCain campaigns. Last Thursday, he decided to conduct an experiment.
He went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name "John Galt" (the hero of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged"). He provided the equally fictitious address "1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999."
He checked the box next to $15 and entered his actual credit-card number and expiration date. He was then taken to the next page and notified that his donation had been processed.
He then tried the same experiment on the McCain site, which rejected the transaction. He returned to the Obama site and made three more donations using the names Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses but the same credit card. The transactions all went through. By Saturday, he'd reported that the transactions had all posted to his credit-card account.
Others repeated "John Galt's" experiment last week, giving to Obama under such fictitious names as Della Ware, Joe Plumber, Idiot Savant, Ima BadDonation (with a Canadian bank card) and Fake Donor.
What accounts for the Obama campaign's acceptance of these fraudulent donations? Most merchants selling goods and services use the basic Address Verification System that screens credit-card charges for matching names and addresses. (It can also screen cards issued by foreign banks.) The McCain campaign uses AVS and provides a searchable database of all donors, including those who fall below the $200 threshold. The Obama campaign apparently has chosen not to use the AVS system to screen donations.
"Della Ware" contacted The New York Times to report her experience contributing under a fictitious name and address ("12345 No Way") to the Obama campaign, while her contribution was rejected by the McCain campaign. Times reporter Michael Luo verified "Della Ware's" account and reported it online at the Times' campaign blog. But Luo missed the story's point.
"To be fair to the Obama campaign," he wrote, its "officials have said much of their checking for fraud occurs after the transactions have already occurred. When they find something wrong, they then refund the amount."
But the Obama campaign is running a system that complicates the discovery of "something wrong." It has chosen to operate an online contribution system that facilitates illegal falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits.
Obama backers making such contributions may not be worried that "something wrong" will be detected if they have no intention of complaining about it.
According to journalist Kenneth Timmerman, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently - in contrast not just with McCain but also with Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign required US citizens living abroad to fax copies of their passports before it would accept donations. By contrast, foreign donors to Obama can just use credit cards and false addresses.
Why has the Obama campaign chosen to operate without the basic automated credit-card controls that would prevent or hamper fraud and illegal contributions? Has it made a conscious decision to assist the evasion of federal campaign law or worry about it after it has had the use of the money?
It's hard to see any other motive.
Post a Comment