[unreality]

It's fast approaching! Discuss, vote, etc

Edited September 14, 2008 by unreality

[itachi-san]

For the people that said that religion will affect your vote, do you mind coming forward? How exactly does it affect your vote, and toward which candidate?

I'd like to say that it won't effect my vote for the following reason: what can the next President get changed through law based on their religion that will make any impact? -I think the answer is nothing, but honestly, if I'm wrong, I'd like to hear what could feasibly be passed into law based on their personal religion.

[Brandonb]

Bb: From your posts so far, and in other topics (weren't you pro-Bush?), I'm guessing you're a registered Republican? Just a curious question, no need to answer if it's personal

Hmm, I wish I knew what thread that was from, I vaguely remember writing something a while back and addressing that the blame should have been directed towards the congress, not Bush. But no, I am not a fan of Bush (a few jokes could go there ). I'm not sure what I am registered as right now. It's either as an independent or a Democrat. I'm not sure which, but I do know that I voted for Hillary in the primaries b/c I figured McCain would have an easier time against her in the real election

I know I am not registered as a republican, and I wouldn't want to be either. Of course, I'm not a democrat by any stretch, even though I may be one on paper as a turn-coat

Edited September 15, 2008 by Brandonb

[Mekal]

For the people that said that religion will affect your vote, do you mind coming forward? How exactly does it affect your vote, and toward which candidate?

it isn't really affecting my vote, but personally i think it will make people lean towards...

MCCAIN! obama has made many religious mistakes such as going to that church that talks trash on white Americans, and then he quit it for his voters... in that he made an even worse decision because he quit AFTER it was publicized

[itachi-san]

it isn't really affecting my vote, but personally i think it will make people lean towards...

MCCAIN! obama has made many religious mistakes such as going to that church that talks trash on white Americans, and then he quit it for his voters... in that he made an even worse decision because he quit AFTER it was publicized

yeah, that's another thing. I think Obama is a straight-faced liar to put it bluntly. He clearly is lying about not having heard hate-speech after going to the same church for 20 years... that just doesn't add up. IMO Obama doesn't care about religion at all. He was raised Muslim and then converted to Christianity. I think he did this as a political tool to work his way up in Chicago because a lot of prominent black people attended Wright's Church and it got Obama into that social circle and helped propel him. I really don't think he's religious (which is fine, I'm not, but I don't lie about it) and I don't think he listened to Wright for all that time and never heard any white people and America bashing. No way.

In case anyone wonders, because I am pro-McCain for this election, I am totally Independent and registered that way. I hate both parties and am in favor of a multiple party system which I've said a few times. I think Bush was a failure as President and that Congress was also a failure these past few terms. I prefer having no bias based on political affiliations and just look at the individual and the policies they want implemented. Remember, just because Obama and McCain say they want something done, doesn't mean it will happen even if they work as hard as they can to make it happen. Congress will most likely be Democratic again, so if McCain wins, it's going to be a struggle for him to get things passed. That's why the 2 party system is awful. The other party primarily looks for ways to make their counterpart look bad.

[Brandonb]

Well said Itachi

Edit: This may revoke my "grand" status... but what does IMO stand for?

Edited September 15, 2008 by Brandonb

[itachi-san]

Well said Itachi

Edit: This may revoke my "grand" status... but what does IMO stand for?

Thanks. it means: in my opinion. the first time i saw it, it took me a while to figure it out. i think it just looks like a strange acronym. but, if anything, wouldn't that promote the "grand" status

[Brandonb]

Thanks. it means: in my opinion. the first time i saw it, it took me a while to figure it out. i think it just looks like a strange acronym. but, if anything, wouldn't that promote the "grand" status

Haha, yeah I guess so. I guess it depends if the 'Grand' refers to the Leader of, or to the Ultimate example of This time it's surely the latter. <_<

[Guest]

That's why the 2 party system is awful. The other party primarily looks for ways to make their counterpart look bad.

It may be awful, but it is better than the alternative for the way the American voting system works. There is no Nash Equilibrium for a 3 party system, since if you map the candidates on a spectrum from left (liberal) to right (conservative), assuming voters will choose the candidate closest to their position, once two candidates have stationed themselves on the spectrum, there is always a way for the third candidate to choose a position in which he/she gets the most voters. But then, once the third candidate has chosen that position, one of the other candidates can move so that they now have the most voters, and this cycle continues, so that in a 3 party system no candidate who wanted to win would want to have a firm stance on the issues.

[Brandonb]

It may be awful, but it is better than the alternative for the way the American voting system works. There is no Nash Equilibrium for a 3 party system, since if you map the candidates on a spectrum from left (liberal) to right (conservative), assuming voters will choose the candidate closest to their position, once two candidates have stationed themselves on the spectrum, there is always a way for the third candidate to choose a position in which he/she gets the most voters. But then, once the third candidate has chosen that position, one of the other candidates can move so that they now have the most voters, and this cycle continues, so that in a 3 party system no candidate who wanted to win would want to have a firm stance on the issues.

Some don't take firm stances as it is. They do what it takes to get elected no matter what party they are a part of.

It seems to me that the maximum amount of parties possible anyway is 4, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Communist (and 5 if you include independent). That's about as far as it can go since the issues really only break up into Moral and Economic, and the solutions are always more v.s less Govt control. So it only splits four ways. At least if that was the case, people could vote for which aspect they believed in.

Just in case... this is the most basic and fundamental break down of each party's handling of most issues.

Dem- Moral=Less Govt, Econ=More Govt

Rep- Moral=More Govt, Econ=Less Govt

Liber- Moral=Less Govt, Econ=Less Govt

Commun- Moral=More Govt, Econ=More Govt

Edited September 15, 2008 by Brandonb

[itachi-san]

It may be awful, but it is better than the alternative for the way the American voting system works. There is no Nash Equilibrium for a 3 party system, since if you map the candidates on a spectrum from left (liberal) to right (conservative), assuming voters will choose the candidate closest to their position, once two candidates have stationed themselves on the spectrum, there is always a way for the third candidate to choose a position in which he/she gets the most voters. But then, once the third candidate has chosen that position, one of the other candidates can move so that they now have the most voters, and this cycle continues, so that in a 3 party system no candidate who wanted to win would want to have a firm stance on the issues.

Actually, I don't think a 3 party system would work and have not said so... I think. If I did, then my mistake. It has to be even numbers, either 4 or 6 parties with equal amounts on the left and right, only at different levels of right/left wing commitment. For instance, the Libertarian Party would fall on the Right Side, but be closer to the middle than the current Republican Party.

Edit: basically, what Brandonb said while I was posting

[Guest]

Thank you, Brandonb, Itachi-san. You have very educated ideas about politics, and I do not. I was simply adding a point from the point of view of Political Science, which is that with the American voting system (a plurality based voting system), there is no Nash Equilibrium for 3 or more candidates who are trying to be closest to the positions of the most voters. The same argument I provided for the 3 party system also applies to 3+ party systems.

[Guest]

Mk, quoting an old post from the discussion about healthcare near the beginning

Watch the movie Sicko. Enough said.

True that.

I mean, you would not have to pay any money at all for any hospitol visits for lots of other countries.

Also, in some places in EUROPE (Mekal) even GIVE you money to pay for a bus fair to get back home.

Whilst, in our nation, many insurance companies find any loophole they can to back out of paying money. They even hire people for this very purpose. And people have died because of it.

So, this is all about personal prefrence though, you know. But which would you prefer?

Getting cheated out of money for your life-saving surgery and dying, or getting your life-saving surgery, and having no net change of money.

Well, you know, tough descision.

And I know they often have to pay taxes through the roof, but I'd be okay with it, if it changes my standard of living so drastically.

Also, anyone know why the exact same amount of people who said that Obama was the better candidate, also said that they'd be voting for McCain?

[Guest]

Actually, I don't think a 3 party system would work and have not said so... I think. If I did, then my mistake. It has to be even numbers, either 4 or 6 parties with equal amounts on the left and right, only at different levels of right/left wing commitment. For instance, the Libertarian Party would fall on the Right Side, but be closer to the middle than the current Republican Party.

Edit: basically, what Brandonb said while I was posting

simple sums - more candidate more split.

the winner is less tha half population when two parties, perhaps start as 6 and redusce with repeat elections - then eventual winner.

maybe take one year decide

if 6 parties then 17% or less votes win if split - is that make sense?

[Guest]

Sooo....pro-life or pro-choice? Why?

[itachi-san]

simple sums - more candidate more split.

the winner is less tha half population when two parties, perhaps start as 6 and redusce with repeat elections - then eventual winner.

maybe take one year decide

if 6 parties then 17% or less votes win if split - is that make sense?

Our candidates have been running for election for about 2 years as it is. I don't see why we can't have multiple elections to narrow the vote and get it to a near-majority for the final decision. There's certainly plenty of time for that.

[Guest]

Now the big one. Our current economic situation is a result of an increase in the price of oil. It is a commodity that is used in all aspects of manufacturing and transportation. Therefore when the price of oil goes up, the price of everything goes up because everything must cover the cost of the oil in order to maintain a profit (this is a prime example of the trickle-down economics that I was talking about earlier, the thing that Obama doesn't believe in). So our situation in the economy is that everything is getting more expensive (inflation) while the economy is slowing down (which it is world-wide. Japan is officially in a recession, as is England. China is slowing down like the USA though it's definitely not a recession) this again is a result of Oil going up so high. There's more to it... but you get the idea at this point I hope.

The way to fix this is through energy independence. Again, as I said earlier, Obama has changed his stance on most of his issues. He now kinda supports drilling. So he can't really be nailed on that issue anymore. Well he can... since he only changed his stance in order to not look like a complete fool for again not grasping the economics in his decisions. But still, as an economic issue, McCain has supported drilling. Now we can get into the argument that there are other forms of energy and we need to harvest them yada yada yada... but it's not something that can be effective in our economy RIGHT NOW. But drilling is.

So uh... yeah, that's pretty much what came to mind initially to answer your question.

Sorry, a bit of a rant here, so bear with me...

First, I'd like to say I'm no expert in any of this, but one thing about Trickle-Down Economics: I've only ever heard this term in reference to giving more money back to richer people, so that they will buy more and the benefits will "trickle-down" to the people with less money via lower prices for commodities and services. In that respect, I see the theory as an abject failure. When Reagan pushed the theory and gave large tax cuts in 1981, he was forced to rescind those cuts by the next year due to a sharp recession (admittedly, I haven't looked at the data for this myself, but I find the reasoning reliable.) In practice, it seems like if you give more money back to the rich people, they tend to hold onto it or at the very least keep it amongst themselves, not reinvesting it in the "little people" so to speak. That was the definition of trickle-down that I'm familiar with.

If the thing with oil is considered trickle-down as well, then that's a different matter, though I would say that it is more a matter of supply and demand. Like you said, oil is required for transportation of pretty much all other products and energy production, so when the demand increases compared to the supply, of course the cost of everything is going to rise, since everything is dependent on it. A lot of the problems stem from the disruption of Mideast oil (which we helped create) and artificial scarcity due to the hold of organizations like OPEC. Such as it is, we have no control over any of that at this time, so we need other solutions. We should have done something about it 30 years ago, but once the crisis of the 70s subsided, politicians (especially those highly funded by oil companies) didn't see the need to think of alternatives. Those in control *AHEM*Reagan*AHEM* should have pushed for alternatives back then, but they didn't because the problem went away on its own and there was "no need." If someone back then had said, "Let's not let that happen again. Let's find some alternatives to oil," we likely wouldn't be in this predicament right now. But instead people ignored the long-term problem.

Now things are similar, not as bad yet, but its the same sort of thing. We could start developing alternatives, but "that won't help now"? I think I've heard that somewhere before...like about 30 years ago. If we don't start working on alternatives now, what are people going to be saying 30 years from now? Brandonb you say that "other forms of energy" are "not something that can be effective in our economy RIGHT NOW. But drilling is." My understanding of the situation paints a slightly different picture. Maybe we don't have the infrastructure for alternative energy to be incorporated into our economy right now as it is, but if we don't start sometime, we never will. And in regard to drilling, oil companies already hold leases on millions of acres of land that they have permission to drill on from the government, but they are not doing it. This "Drill ANWR, Drill offshore" mantra seems like nothing more than a bunch of greedy energy corps. opportunizing on voter fears. Especially since the government's own research from the Energy Information Administration estimate that oil from offshore rigs won't be on the market until 2030 if they started right now. How is that a solution "that can be effective in our economy RIGHT NOW?" Additionally, if we did drill and we got the oil tomorrow, as far as we've found, the US only has about 2.2% of the world's supply, while we are 25% of the demand. Drilling our own oil would only probably help us for 5, maybe 10, years and it certainly wouldn't offset prices significantly or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

So anyone calling for drilling is either uninformed, or pandering to the oil interests, as I see it. That's one reason I see nothing in McCain. Economically, drilling makes little sense in the long term and we need to start looking in the long term.

I know that there are people who are going to disagree with me, but I've been sort of sitting on this for a while and needed to get it out there. I'm not trying to insult anyone or anything, so please don't take this the wrong way. I also don't have time to go back through it and look for inaccuracies or ambiguities, so it may be a little haphazard. In any case, thanks for reading to the end. I'm prepared to weather whatever storms that may come.

[/vent]

[Brandonb]

First, I'd like to say I'm no expert in any of this, but one thing about Trickle-Down Economics: I've only ever heard this term in reference to giving more money back to richer people, so that they will buy more and the benefits will "trickle-down" to the people with less money via lower prices for commodities and services. In that respect, I see the theory as an abject failure. When Reagan pushed the theory and gave large tax cuts in 1981, he was forced to rescind those cuts by the next year due to a sharp recession (admittedly, I haven't looked at the data for this myself, but I find the reasoning reliable.) In practice, it seems like if you give more money back to the rich people, they tend to hold onto it or at the very least keep it amongst themselves, not reinvesting it in the "little people" so to speak. That was the definition of trickle-down that I'm familiar with.

-It is important to understand that there are basically three ways to make money with money. One is interest on savings in a bank. There is no risk involved but there is little interest earned.(keep in mind that when you get a small business loan from the bank... you are receiving the money that the rich "they tend to hold onto". Your loan was some other guy's savings in the bank.

-Another is investment in the stocks of big stable companies or government bonds. Again, this involves very little risk, and therefore very little return from the investment. (This money doesn't usually go outside of the corporation it was invested in. So where does the money go inside the company? It it put into technological and human capital. This means that someone got paid with this money. It also means that someone at another company was hired to build something, to meet the increased demand when the order was placed for the new technological capital)

-The rich make the most money by investing in small people or businesses with big potential. The risk is high, but so is the payout. A business owner tends to know business, and is therefore competent in determining smart investment decisions. Sure, there is a risk, but the payout is well worth it. For the rich, this is the fastest and easiest way to make money. By investing in small businesses, the rich receive a large turnaround in profits.

Keep in mind that with all three of these simplified options the non-rich people that were invested in gain jobs, or expand their businesses and grow rich and create jobs. Then those people gain the ability to invest money, create new business and in turn create jobs. This creates a never-ending increase in jobs and variety in the marketplace. It also is the reason that the U.S. still has one of the highest rates of individual economic mobility, both up and down.

Basically, if trickle down economics didn't work on the investment end, then you would not have a job.

If the thing with oil is considered trickle-down as well, then that's a different matter, though I would say that it is more a matter of supply and demand. Like you said, oil is required for transportation of pretty much all other products and energy production, so when the demand increases compared to the supply, of course the cost of everything is going to rise, since everything is dependent on it.

This is how the theory works on the other side. How the cost gets transferred down. It's the two sides of the same coin. One can not exist without the other.

A lot of the problems stem from the disruption of Mideast oil (which we helped create) and artificial scarcity due to the hold of organizations like OPEC. Such as it is, we have no control over any of that at this time, so we need other solutions. We should have done something about it 30 years ago, but once the crisis of the 70s subsided, politicians (especially those highly funded by oil companies) didn't see the need to think of alternatives. Those in control *AHEM*Reagan*AHEM* should have pushed for alternatives back then, but they didn't because the problem went away on its own and there was "no need." If someone back then had said, "Let's not let that happen again. Let's find some alternatives to oil," we likely wouldn't be in this predicament right now. But instead people ignored the long-term problem.

Yeah, the Regan years blew it. While Carter was in office, the legislature passed a bill requiring an increase in fuel efficiency in American vehicles. Then the Legislature revoked it during the Regan years, and Regan let it pass (of course I have no idea what good things were attached to the bill, but there must have been something decent).

And you're right. They should have handled it properly back then... but they didn't. Time to fix it now.

Now things are similar, not as bad yet, but its the same sort of thing. We could start developing alternatives, but "that won't help now"? I think I've heard that somewhere before...like about 30 years ago. If we don't start working on alternatives now, what are people going to be saying 30 years from now? Brandonb you say that "other forms of energy" are "not something that can be effective in our economy RIGHT NOW. But drilling is." My understanding of the situation paints a slightly different picture. Maybe we don't have the infrastructure for alternative energy to be incorporated into our economy right now as it is, but if we don't start sometime, we never will.

I never said anything about not pursuing the alternatives. Not doing so would be stupid. But at the same time, the alternatives cannot be effective RIGHT NOW. Though by all means we need to immerse our funding into them in the mean time.

And in regard to drilling, oil companies already hold leases on millions of acres of land that they have permission to drill on from the government, but they are not doing it. This "Drill ANWR, Drill offshore" mantra seems like nothing more than a bunch of greedy energy corps. opportunizing on voter fears.

You're right, these lands were set aside... and you know what they are? Land

Most of the land has been surveyed by their owners, and there's not much of a point in drilling for dirt. Sure, this is Pelosi's biggest selling point on her war against energy independence, but she speaks in half truths. "The companies already have all this land they they are not drilling on" is the mantra of the environmental socialist movement that is trying to destroy our capitalist market.

Especially since the government's own research from the Energy Information Administration estimate that oil from offshore rigs won't be on the market until 2030 if they started right now. How is that a solution "that can be effective in our economy RIGHT NOW?" Additionally, if we did drill and we got the oil tomorrow, as far as we've found, the US only has about 2.2% of the world's supply, while we are 25% of the demand. Drilling our own oil would only probably help us for 5, maybe 10, years and it certainly wouldn't offset prices significantly or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

One of the leading causes of the cost of a barrel of oil is the influence of the futures market. There is tons of oil out on the market, plenty to use. However, these barrels of oil are being heavily traded by what the expected future prices could be. The price of a barrel of oil remains high because we are not doing anything about drilling. There are no future expectations about a future increase in supply. So the epic amount of oil currently in the market place is selling for much higher than it could be. If we put into place a plan for increased drilling, it doesn't matter if that oil will not hit the market for 10 yrs (not 30, alternatives are estimated at 30. Oil is estimated at about 10). When that plan goes into effect, the price of a barrel of oil in the futures market should drop by about 5% over night. This means that the price of the oil currently in the market will drop RIGHT NOW.

It's not like we are starting at 0 barrels of oil and working our way up. We have a great supply right now, and the promise of an increased future supply will prevent hoarding and the high prices we are currently experiencing.

So anyone calling for drilling is either uninformed, or pandering to the oil interests, as I see it. That's one reason I see nothing in McCain. Economically, drilling makes little sense in the long term and we need to start looking in the long term.

I hope this has been enlightening about how drilling now will lower prices now. It is an informed decision, though it takes some specific knowledge that NBC isn't going to bother trying to explain, or even figure out for themselves.

Edit: Seriously though. Just for a little proof... I'm sure you've heard of the new proposal that is bouncing around in the legislature? Think back, as soon as that plan became a rumor, the price at the pump dropped. Nothing significant in the supply has happened in the last 6months, except for that plan. And the price at the pump as dropped... I dunno, probably around 20-30cents a gallon where I am. (Of course, this is all Pre-Ike) This drop in price is a result of the futures market responding to the new plan.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Brandonb

[Guest]

For the people that said that religion will affect your vote, do you mind coming forward? How exactly does it affect your vote, and toward which candidate?

The only reason I marked that choice is because, having been brought up Catholic and attending Catholic school, not to mention my own personal convictions, I am pro-life and typically the Pro-Life movement leans Republican. I don't know much about politics and I am not old enough to vote, but I do subscribe to the National Right to Life organization http://www.nrlc.org/ and I trust the research they do on the candidates. If I could vote, I would vote McCain/Palin because their convictions seem to be closest to my own.

[unreality]

Ah, the pointless pro-life/pro-choice debate. Extension of pro-life ideas: "Don't use condoms, they kill babies" ;D I'm pro-choice myself, for a lot of reasons, but that's a whole 'nother debate. I was just curious why religion would affect your vote, now I know Thanks for the insight

[itachi-san]

Seriously though. Just for a little proof... I'm sure you've heard of the new proposal that is bouncing around in the legislature? Think back, as soon as that plan became a rumor, the price at the pump dropped. Nothing significant in the supply has happened in the last 6months, except for that plan. And the price at the pump as dropped... I dunno, probably around 20-30cents a gallon where I am. (Of course, this is all Pre-Ike) This drop in price is a result of the futures market responding to the new plan.

The drilling towers actually stand up really well against hurricanes, as seen after Katrina, so that is really just an unjustified scare tactic. Not on your part Bb, I'm against the media on that one.

So anyone calling for drilling is either uninformed, or pandering to the oil interests, as I see it. That's one reason I see nothing in McCain. Economically, drilling makes little sense in the long term and we need to start looking in the long term.

Well, McCain is for every method of making America self-sustainable on energy (supposedly) which is the same stance as T. Boone Pickens. The thing is, like Bb said, alternative energy needs to get started now, but it won't be in place and beneficial to our economy for about 30 years. So what are we going to do until it's up and running? Drill here domestically. Alaska is full of oil and hardly anyone lives there or goes there. How many people travel to Anwar, Alaska every year... I don't think that "keeping the land untainted" makes much sense when we've already cultivated the rest of the country. And with the tech. now it can be done cleaner than ever before.

It's a common saying that the oil industry doesn't drill on half the land they are allowed, but why don't they? Because it's not drillable... that's the part a lot of people leave out. The oil companies are making record profits, but this is America and that's one of our nation's staples: that you can build a company and profit off of it. The regulation on monopolies and such is up to our Congress, which of course has been an abysmal failure for the past decade.

[Guest]

The drilling towers actually stand up really well against hurricanes, as seen after Katrina, so that is really just an unjustified scare tactic. Not on your part Bb, I'm against the media on that one.

Well, McCain is for every method of making America self-sustainable on energy (supposedly) which is the same stance as T. Boone Pickens. The thing is, like Bb said, alternative energy needs to get started now, but it won't be in place and beneficial to our economy for about 30 years. So what are we going to do until it's up and running? Drill here domestically. Alaska is full of oil and hardly anyone lives there or goes there. How many people travel to Anwar, Alaska every year... I don't think that "keeping the land untainted" makes much sense when we've already cultivated the rest of the country. And with the tech. now it can be done cleaner than ever before.

It's a common saying that the oil industry doesn't drill on half the land they are allowed, but why don't they? Because it's not drillable... that's the part a lot of people leave out. The oil companies are making record profits, but this is America and that's one of our nation's staples: that you can build a company and profit off of it. The regulation on monopolies and such is up to our Congress, which of course has been an abysmal failure for the past decade.

I feel like I am suffering from some mass delusion because I dont understand why anyone would vote for McCain.

he's not anti abortion or pro life. He is changing his stance on many issues to lander to the neo conservatives.

He publicly said he had no idea about what to so concerning foreign policy. He is lying all over the place and soing a poor job at it

because you can find the record of his past statements.

Sarah Palin is a horrible choice. She is just reiterating the talking points.

And explain to me why the auto industry wont make an elecric vehicle for us cause they dont have the technology but can make them to send overseas?????

OK here is my big issue...You cant give tax cuts and cut taxes!!! There are no "efficiencies" to cut from. That doesnt even make sense.

We Have to Raise Taxes! We have to spend money to keep the country afloat. Why not raise taxes on those who make over 250k a year?

I make $0 a year cause I am disabled. Who here makes 250k a year?

McCain is pandering to the hateful people of the country. Its awful!

Edited September 15, 2008 by crazypainter

[Guest]

Ah, the pointless pro-life/pro-choice debate. Extension of pro-life ideas: "Don't use condoms, they kill babies" ;D I'm pro-choice myself, for a lot of reasons, but that's a whole 'nother debate. I was just curious why religion would affect your vote, now I know Thanks for the insight

UR, don't scare away the noobs! Anyhow, I'm with you Angel Bait (love the userID, btw!) I ALWAYS vote pro-life. My two sons are adopted. If it weren't for the courage and convictions of their birthmothers I wouldn't have the two most beautiful boys on the planet! So you go, girl!

[Mekal]

Ah, the pointless pro-life/pro-choice debate. Extension of pro-life ideas: "Don't use condoms, they kill babies" ;D I'm pro-choice myself, for a lot of reasons, but that's a whole 'nother debate. I was just curious why religion would affect your vote, now I know Thanks for the insight

first off, IT IS NOT POINTLESS! Did you know that you were thinking when you were still in you mother's womb? the baby only has an aproxemently 1 1/2 minute memory span, but it can FEEL pain. It is described like you were suffocating and can't do anything about it. it's eyelid's are also not fully developed so it can't close them, so the bright light that comes from the outside blinds it. you know that video in the atheist forum about how god only seems nonexistent, there is a picture of a baby who was cut out early.

second off, i say you can have an unwanted baby, just put it in adoption, not cut it out of you.

So i'm sorry if i offended some people, but i am REALLY serious about that issue.

[Guest]

first off, IT IS NOT POINTLESS! Did you know that you were thinking when you were still in you mother's womb? the baby only has an aproxemently 1 1/2 minute memory span, but it can FEEL pain. It is described like you were suffocating and can't do anything about it. it's eyelid's are also not fully developed so it can't close them, so the bright light that comes from the outside blinds it. you know that video in the atheist forum about how god only seems nonexistent, there is a picture of a baby who was cut out early.

second off, i say you can have an unwanted baby, just put it in adoption, not cut it out of you.

So i'm sorry if i offended some people, but i am REALLY serious about that issue.

Well, I believe you can abort a baby before it is really more than just a few cells the size of a nickel that aren't doing much more than developing. And what do you mean by "It is described like you were suffocating and can't do anything about it."

Did a baby survive an abortion, reach an age of maturity, and then give an account of its death?

ONLY CHUCK NORRIS CAN SURVIVE DEATH!!

Also, Unreality brought up abortion in another thread. The focus of the thread was about human population on Earth. Eventually we will reach our carrying capacity on this planet. And many of us will die slow, painful deaths from famine, disease, and the likes. So would a controlled death in a hospitol be better, or worse, than chaos and misery in the streets?

The sad truth is. We're going to have to controll our population, and abortion, if nothing else, helps.

[itachi-san]

CP, I'm not really sure why you quoted my comments about drilling and then said nothing about them, but I'd be happy to address your concerns. I'd like to further point out that I'm not a McCain fan, I just prefer him to Obama on many issues. If I could pick a President out of all the people who ran/are running I would have liked Ron Paul or Bob Barr. The only thing they lack is the only thing Obama has: presence in appearance and voice.

I feel like I am suffering from some mass delusion because I dont understand why anyone would vote for McCain.

he's not anti abortion or pro life.

actually he is prolife and anti-abortion and I'm certain he has always been. If you can provide a concrete statement I'd honestly like to hear it. He's also pro-adoption and wants to make it easier and less expensive, which I also agree with.

He is changing his stance on many issues to lander to the neo conservatives.

Every candidate has changed stances. It's negatively termed "flip-flopping" but if they make the right change, then why come down on them? McCain was against all the alternative energy plans. He admitted he was wrong and now is for them. I do not think that is bad, I think that is good. He admitted a mistake in policy and corrected it.

He publicly said he had no idea about what to so concerning foreign policy. He is lying all over the place and soing a poor job at it because you can find the record of his past statements.

I think you mean Economics, not Foreign Policy. I thought this was bad too, but that's why Presidents have cabinets and advisers.

Sarah Palin is a horrible choice. She is just reiterating the talking points.

She hasn't really been around long enough to make judgments. I say wait for the debates when she goes up against Biden. I do think she was a terrific choice though. McCain did what Obama failed to do: put a women in the VP slot. It totally energized McCain's ticket and so far, I like her. I think her record is actually pretty intriguing and more accomplished than McCain, Obama and Biden combined. I also find it funny how she is always being compared to Obama. He is running for President, while she is running for VP... there's a big problem there if the Presidential nominee is being compared to someone running for a lesser position.

And explain to me why the auto industry wont make an elecric vehicle for us cause they dont have the technology but can make them to send overseas?????

This is an abysmal failure not just by the govt. but by the auto-makers, oil companies, environmental boards and us the people. I suggest you watch Who Killed the Electric Car? it's a fascinating documentary about the electric cars GM made in the 90's that were literally torn from the owners' hands and demolished. One thing is that outlet stations would need to be put in place of/or in addition to gas stations which is a big project, but yeah, everyone involved really screwed us over on the electric car. The only good outcome was that the whole event insipred Japan to start making hybrids, which is why we have hybrid cars now.

OK here is my big issue...You cant give tax cuts and cut taxes!!! There are no "efficiencies" to cut from. That doesnt even make sense.

We Have to Raise Taxes! We have to spend money to keep the country afloat. Why not raise taxes on those who make over 250k a year?

Firstly, raising taxes on the top 5% of the wealthy will not amount to the trillion dollars of govt. spending Obama wants, so where is he going to get the money from to pay for all those govt. run programs? There are a lot of hidden taxes in his plan, like capital gains, etc... also, recently, Obama admitted that this cornerstone of his economic plan indeed makes no sense, so his economic plan is really falling apart already.

I make $0 a year cause I am disabled. Who here makes 250k a year?

McCain is pandering to the hateful people of the country. Its awful!

I'm sorry to hear about that. I hope you don't think I'm hateful. I really have looked into this quite a bit and have come to the conclusion that Obama supporters are really falling in love with the image and not the policies. Also, Bush was so bad, the word Republican has a bad taste for almost everyone. Things are starting to turn around already though. The economy grew and did well this past quarter. I'm looking forward to the debates, but I find it to be an awful state of affairs that only the 2 candidates get to debate. In 2000 Nader wasn't even allowed on the premises, which he sued and won actually because it was unlawful. Like I said, I'm not a McCain fan so I'm not happy about voting for him. It's an evil EVIL thing. Though I don't think anyone running right now is evil... they're all just wrong a lot. This time, IMO, McCain is wrong less than Obama.