Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SCOUTER-Terry

Ten reasons I’m voting for Obama and against McCain

Recommended Posts

Yah, BA, I heard the radio interview differently than you I guess. To me, he's just making an academic argument. He's tryin' to defend some of the decisions of the Warren Court by arguin' they really weren't that radical. Then he turns it around to say that the Civil Rights Movement blew it by relying too much on the courts as opposed to legislation. Defending the Warren Court is fairly liberal; saying that litigation isn't always the proper way to pursue an agenda is downright conservative for an urban radio call-in show.

 

Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, eh? Bush's nationalization of the financial industry in recent months as well as propping up industry through taxpayer and national bank infusions is gettin' us the closest we've been to true socialism in quite a while. It's redistribution of wealth alright. As with many socialist states, it redistributes wealth from da taxpayer to those in power and their friends.

 

As for carbon taxes, I'm a believer that industry and consumers should pay the real cost of production, includin' cost of damage to the environment. They shouldn't get a socialism-style bailout with the EPA Superfund cleanin' up their environmental mess at taxpayer expense, while they made millions degrading the environment. Same applies to global warming, clearcutting forests irresponsibly or any other issue. The price should get baked in to the cost of doin' business, not foibed off on the public. Thing is, in the case of global warmin', that principle must also apply to importers. No takin' factories to China in order to avoid carbon costs or other environmental regs.

 

B

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry, I agree with you and Beavah (I share the disdain for more bureaucracy). However, you must have known that your reasons might be viewed as a virtual 'stick in the eye' by those who disagree.

 

A few months ago I could have voted for McCain. I have said that I believe both candidates are honorable men. I still do. I believe that McCain has exhibited some characteristics of desperation. There's still a chance that he'll eek this out but that looks doubtful. But what I am reading here is more opposition to Obama than support for McCain. They seem to be voting against something, rather than FOR something. I can sympathize, I suppose.

 

Regardless of who is elected, I still don't have much optimism.

Brent mentions Carter and the concept of 'genius' in the same sentence. Comparison to Bush has already solidified Carter's genius. Neither McCain nor Obama have much chance of overcoming the economic disaster they are going to inherit.

 

But those who are disheartened by the chance that Obama will be elected should swallow this hard fact: this outcome probably would not happen if not for the incompetence and lies of George W. Bush. Bush and his cronies have practically handed the whole government over to anyone who ISN'T one of them. McCain wasn't competing with Obama. McCain was impossibly handicapped by the bitter taste left by this president. All Obama really needed to do was show how different he was. REAL change.

 

Speaking of the race card, if the race card hadn't been played by Bush against McCain in SC in 2000, McCain might have gotten the nomination and McCain probably would have led an honorable presidency. But as sure as Bush did it to McCain in 2000, he's doing it to McCain this time as well. I just wish Bush hadn't done IT to the country in the meantime. He did. I wish the winner well, and the best of luck. I'm not optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pack,

Your extreme hatred of Bush is almost entertaining. It is also amusing that you can't see the huge part the Democrats played in this financial mess, even after I provided you with video of Dems defending Franklin Raines, and stating that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in great shape. Republicans tried to change the course Franklin had us headed in, and they were accused of trying to lynch him! But no, it was all Bush's fault, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That, plus there will be more need for innovation from the five million new jobs Obama wants to create by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future."

 

Yeah sure. We'll create jobs for bunch of PhDs and engineers who'll develope the technology and then China and India will get the rest of the jobs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Brent, when 86% of the American people think the country is on the wrong track and Bush's approval ratings is in the mid 20 percentiles, I hardly think Pack's views qualify as "extreme." "Mainstream" might be more like it, as he appears to be in agreement with the great majority of Americans at this point in time. Just injecting some perspective here, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,

 

I didn't miss the point. You missed my point. My point is that we would be better off without those liberal judges.

 

Acttivist judges are not those who substitute their judgment for that of the Legislative branch, but for the Constitution. I want judges who can read the Constitution and follow it. For example, I am in favor of a woman's right to choose on abortion. Nevertheless, Rowe v. Wade was bad law. Can you read the Constition (have you ever read it?) and find where that "Right to Privacy" is? It was an activist court who wanted to find a way and they did. While I liked the result, it wasn't good reasoning and should be handled by the legislative. You mention McCain-Feingold, they didn't go far enough. It's a bad law and deprives people of their free speech rights. Wouldn't have stood if those justices you mention hadn't been there.

 

Liberals are all about "balance" and "fairness." I'm about the strict meaning of the Constitution. It's written in very simple language and was meant be understood by common citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BadenP,

 

What's not true is when you call me a gun-toting, ultra right-wing conservative. I'm a libertarian. I do own guns and hold a permit to carry a concealed weapon. However, I'm pro-choice, opposed to "don't ask don't tell" and I'm a Buddhist. I am strong for defense, but opposed to pork barrel spending. So I stand by my statement that liberals would rather call names than argue facts. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to my views. I don't mind debating, but I object to being called something I'm not.

 

Yes, the Republicans have not done a good job over the past several years and they are getting thumped for it. But electing worse people won't help. Congress, led by Pelosi and Reid has a much lower approval rating than Bush. Like 12%. Couple that with a far left Democratic president and they will over reach, you can bet on it.

 

BTW, if you think Obama is an intellectual, think again. He's a con man, an empty suit. He's a product of corrupt machine politics, an associate of crooks, and bereft of ethics, IMHO. If he is elected today, you will have a chance to see in the next four years just what I'm talking about(This message has been edited by kahuna)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent, 'hatred' is your term. I think that I have never said that I hate Bush. That's your interpretation. Besides, I have to wonder about the concept of degrees of hatred (minimal vs extreme..or would minimal be one of two extremes?).

Anyway, I don't hate Bush (here, think in terms of a famous Nixon quote). No, I pity Bush (here, think Nietzsche) and I have contempt for what he's done to our country.

If you think those crafty, sinister Democrats pulled one on the poor, unsuspecting, innocent Republicans, dream on. Bush had the entire government under his control for six years. Control, opportunity, power. They could have addressed these problems and they could have taken the country into fiscal responsibility. They didn't.

I don't worry for my sake. I'll be dead in a few years and none of this will matter. But I do worry for my children - and yours. I see really bad possibilities and I fear they are unavoidable. They were avoidable 8 years ago. Here's one difference between your view and mine.

In 2000 I was optimistic and hopeful about Bush even though I didn't vote for him. I wasn't prejudiced. I didn't change my view until several years into his term. His actions were the basis of my negative view.

In contrast, in 2008 you've already decided about the likely next President. Now think about that term 'extreme'.

 

Anyway, in 2000 Bush could have led the country out of trouble. In 2000 I was actually optimistic that he might. Instead, Bush led all of us into it. Yes, he was responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lisa,

If you are really interested in perspective, check out the approval rating for the Democrat-controlled congress. That number makes Bush look like Mr. Popularity.

 

Terry - you forgot to mention what is going to happen to the PRICE of energy that you and I pay. It is going to go through the roof! $4.50/gal gas is going to look like an absolute bargain! And all in the name of the greatest hoax of the 21st century - globull warming.

 

Our only hope is all the Obama voters can't operate a touch-screen any better than Oprah, and McCain wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, pack, just so I understand. The Republicans were trying to make the Democrats do the right thing about Fannie and Freddie, but were brow-beaten and accused of publically lynching a black (crooked) man, so they backed down. And since they failed, you now want to put the Democrats in charge of everything? The very ones who were defending the crooks? The very ones who approved of the actions that put us in this huge mess? The very ones who fought the Republicans at every turn? Sorry, but I just don't understand how that makes any sense. You are going to have to explain that one to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent, since I teach on this topic, I want to understand different viewpoints. So what is YOUR approach to the national energy problems? Go into as much detail as you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pack wrote: "In 2000 I was optimistic and hopeful about Bush even though I didn't vote for him. I wasn't prejudiced. I didn't change my view until several years into his term. His actions were the basis of my negative view.

In contrast, in 2008 you've already decided about the likely next President. Now think about that term 'extreme'."

 

Actually, I felt the same way about Clinton when he was first elected. I actually hoped he might live up to all the hype. Nope, not a chance. It didn't take long to see who he really was. Luckily, the country did as well, and the Republican revolution of '94 kept him in check.

 

So, no, I won't fall for that again. Trick me once....

With all the "extreme" things Obama has said, I don't see how my views can be considered "extreme" at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pack,

It's very simple, and only involves a few concepts. Use a carrot, not a stick. The technology must make economic sense as well as environmental sense. The free enterprise system will solve the problem. Get government out of the way.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And since they failed, you now want to put the Democrats in charge of everything?"

If you've read my posts on this topic, you'd know I don't want to put Democrats in charge of everything.

The likelihood is that they're GOING to be in charge of two branches of government but that won't be my doing. It will be the wish of the majority of the voters, mostly because they are so fed up with the Republicans. In this sense, the Republicans did it to themselves.

You are interpreting my views way too positively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Bush's approval rating was in the 20's, it still was almost twice as much as Congresses, which I beleive is Democratic. So, while we really really dont like the president, we really really really dont like the Congress. Except of course for "my" congressman who opposes all that pork other congressmen try and got us the funds for the new bridge, senior center downtown and kept the Nike Base from closing because half the towns economy depends on it

 

Then again I am in Pennsylvania, clinging to my gun and Bible

 

edited part,

 

looking over my entry I realized I went with the old argument of yeah, my guy sucks but your guy sucks more which is a pretty stupid argument. While standing in line to vote today, I felt like asking the person in front of me if he wanted to throw the rascals out or keep the bastards in. Either way, its not much of a choice.(This message has been edited by oldgreyeagle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×