The democrats are all about the people

jimed14 · October 2008

prytoj wrote:

neither digster or jimjed are adressing the point of the thread, but i'll go wherever you want, I got all the ammo you can stomach.

none of which are 30 second mix tapes.

DID YOU NOT SEE THE SECOND POST OF THIS THREAD?!!??!?!

Reading Is Fundamental

i shit and i stink · October 2008

Not my business mind, I'm not even American, you guys just make me chuckle with how much you get into the small details of this stuff instead of just voting and keeping mum about it. When there is an election in Britain it is generally considered bad form to badger other people about their choices and very few people even ask who you voted for and never ask you to justify it with a list of facts and figures. A friend of mine was in the US last week and he says it is mental the way people try to twist family, friends and peple they have never met (ie. on interent forums) to their way of thinking, rather than just voting and chatting about more important stuff like which 2000 bootleg they prefer.

digster · October 2008

timmyshee wrote:

Not my business mind, I'm not even American, you guys just make me chuckle with how much you get into the small details of this stuff instead of just voting and keeping mum about it. When there is an election in Britain it is generally considered bad form to badger other people about their choices and very few people even ask who you voted for and never ask you to justify it with a list of facts and figures. A friend of mine was in the US last week and he says it is mental the way people try to twist family, friends and peple they have never met (ie. on interent forums) to their way of thinking, rather than just voting and chatting about more important stuff like which 2000 bootleg they prefer.

No offense, but that sounds awfully boring. What's the point of having an election with no debating?

Commy · October 2008

prytoj wrote:

Thanks for giving me a piece of meterial from an Obama-run (ahhhhh Annenburg-run, sorry) website.

whatever,

the fact is Obama is the most partisan politician in Congress, there's just no debating that. If anything, McCain is TOO centrist for most conservatives.
That's just plain and simple.
next...

Bill Kristol, the extreme neocon hawk in media, called Obama a 'centrist liberal' who will "disapoint" many people because his views aren't as far left as they hope.

that's saying something.

McCain's voted with Bush on the economy 100% of the time. If you liked Bush and this great recession you'll love McCain. Centrist is a terrible way to describe McCain. He is a republican, working for the rich, taking from the poor. Its what they do.

prytoj · October 2008

taking the girls trick or treating,
we'll take this up tomorrow
better bone up on your facts, you'll need it.

jimed14 · October 2008

prytoj wrote:

taking the girls trick or treating,
we'll take this up tomorrow
better bone up on your facts, you'll need it.

read the second post. If you don't take the thread off subject ... can't wait.

enjoy your evening.

digster · October 2008

I like prytoj. He's like a great representation of the McCain campaign.

"Now, the facts prove 2+2=18."
"No, 2+2=4."
"No! It equals 18! Look at the facts! Next!"

i shit and i stink · October 2008

digster wrote:

No offense, but that sounds awfully boring. What's the point of having an election with no debating?

Just seems to me that there is a difference between debating and forcing your opinions on others. We listen to the facts, we make our minds up and we respect others right to their own opinion. As an outsider observing the American election, it seems that the fine line between respectful productive deabte and abusive comments questioning other peoples points of view is crossed more often than now. It has become a media scrum and a abuce-via-the-internet circus. That is boring!

digster · October 2008

timmyshee wrote:

Just seems to me that there is a difference between debating and forcing your opinions on others. We listen to the facts, we make our minds up and we respect others right to their own opinion. As an outsider observing the American election, it seems that the fine line between respectful productive deabte and abusive comments questioning other peoples points of view is crossed more often than now. It has become a media scrum and a abuce-via-the-internet circus. That is boring!

I'd agree with that, but what you mentioned in your earlier post (i.e. asking people to back up their statements and trying to refute them), seems like good debate to me. It definitely crosses the line in many instances, but I'd say that stupidity knows no borders or boundaries. But the part where you vigorously debate things, I like that part of the election, and I wouldn't want it to be a country where it didn't occur. I agree with you on everything else, however.

_ · October 2008

timmyshee wrote:

Just seems to me that there is a difference between debating and forcing your opinions on others. We listen to the facts, we make our minds up and we respect others right to their own opinion. As an outsider observing the American election, it seems that the fine line between respectful productive deabte and abusive comments questioning other peoples points of view is crossed more often than now. It has become a media scrum and a abuce-via-the-internet circus. That is boring!

I think frequently the problem is that what people present as facts informing their opinions are actually not true. So people feel obligated to set the facts straight and this necessarily calls into question the points of view that are based on the original misinformation.

i shit and i stink · November 2008

scb wrote:

I think frequently the problem is that what people present as facts informing their opinions are actually not true. So people feel obligated to set the facts straight and this necessarily calls into question the points of view that are based on the original misinformation.

Agreed, but is there any chance that original misinformation can become real hard facts when it is misquoted, miscontextuallised, misused across a range of media and generally tailored to meet either sides need in any argument?

I'm speaking particularly about the internet, which is largely unpoliced and unregulated, where any old number can become a hard fact, whilst at the same time people feel more able to participate in debates without the normal contraints, as they are anonymous figures and can say whatever they feel without fear and thus they cross boundaries that they would not in normal life.

I'm not trying to knocked freedom of speecha dn freedom to debate, but I would say that I see the same facts being quoted by both sides with different spin - rather than allowing us to get to the bottom of the facts, I think the internet and increased voter participation in the information sharing process has simply led to more misinformation than ever before.

Good luck on Nov 4th, though!

walden freeman · November 2008

prytoj wrote:

There was a time when I had no idea who I was voting for
That was until I looked at the record.

Obama can clain credit for ONE SINGLE PIECE of legislation that I can see.
It's called the Exelon bill, passed when he was a state legislator, which was watered down by lobbyists of the same nuclear power industry the bill was aimed at.

Maybe the smarter folks here can tell me what other legislation Obama has brought and was able to pass.

Google "obama exelon" for reference.

The guy is a media creation, plain and simple.

That's called forming my own thoughts, jimjed should try it sometime.
Thanks for the bump

As much as agree with you about Obama being all hype, I have to say, look at the man's voting record. He's good on social issues. What he's accomplished and what he fights for are two different things.

That being said, anyone who thinks the democratic party is any different than the republican party in Washington is fucking insane. These people don't care about you.

You've all been tricked into thinking that being a democrat makes you open-minded and artistic and enlightened. It's a scam. Just because your favorite celebrity likes something, doesn't mean it's good. Eddie Vedder is a great musician, but, I couldn't care less who he supports for president. I know that sentiment will make me unpopular but, it's a fucking message board, I don't care.

The democratic party is full of corruption and scandal, just like the republican party is.

prytoj · November 2008

digster wrote:

Dude, he's absolutely correct...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html

McCain did in fact vote with Bush that often; 95% in 2007 alone. Just because you're right in your own head doesn't make you right in reality.

while this statement is true, it is carefully edited to avoid the bottom line in the article itself:

"So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time MOST RECENTLY, BUT LESS SO IN EARLIER YEARS. And Obama has voted PRETTY CLOSE TO 100 PERCENT IN LINE with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career."

http://arcanebliss.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/08/1552947-mccain-voted-with-bush-95-of-the-time-in-2007

THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOT A MIX TAPE. no hypocrisy allowed here. If you;re going to call me out for being partisan (which i proved was bs), you better hold yourself to the same standard.

prytoj · November 2008

Obama has voted PRETTY CLOSE TO 100 PERCENT IN LINE with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career

what more do your need

prytoj · November 2008

chiefojibwa wrote:

7 of 8 years, 89 percent or more. nice "argument".

Obama has voted PRETTY CLOSE TO 100 PERCENT IN LINE with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career

what more do you need

very clear hypocrisy to make your argument.
its so easy to use your own stuff against you

digster · November 2008

prytoj wrote:

while this statement is true, it is carefully edited to avoid the bottom line in the article itself:

"So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time MOST RECENTLY, BUT LESS SO IN EARLIER YEARS. And Obama has voted PRETTY CLOSE TO 100 PERCENT IN LINE with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career."

http://arcanebliss.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/08/1552947-mccain-voted-with-bush-95-of-the-time-in-2007

THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOT A MIX TAPE. no hypocrisy allowed here. If you;re going to call me out for being partisan (which i proved was bs), you better hold yourself to the same standard.

We weren't talking about Obama's record. I wasn't claiming Obama had a bipartisan record; he doesn't. We were talking about McCain's record, and when you were proven wrong you tried to change the argument. That, to me, is a partisan.

prytoj · November 2008

well, whatever. at least this partisan gave the WHOLE story, not just bits and pieces to fit my argument.

McCain has been in line on most votes, very true. But has departed from Bush on many key issues:

1. Constitutional ban on gay marriage
McCain does not support equal rights for homosexual couples (i disagree here), but believes that this is a states-rights issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/

2. Tax cuts.
McCain opposed the tax cuts before the financial "crisis," and has had to switch his position here in light of the recent economic developements, which is pretty fair.

"I think he recognizes that to allow these tax cuts to expire would be the equivalent of a tax increase at a time when the economy is really struggling," Thune said. "So, he believes, and I think rightly so, that extending the tax relief is important to the economy expanding and continuing to create jobs."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91544414
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808150005

3. Energy policy
McCain and Bush are clearly at odds on energy policy. There is no dispuiting this. However, Obama voted in favor of the Bush/Cheney energy plan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/400/
http://www.city-data.com/forum/2008-presidential-election/398602-obama-supported-bush-cheney-energy-plan.html

4. The war in Iraq.
McCain staked his career on saying that the surge was necessary to achieve victory, which Bush Sec. Def. Rumsfled opposed. McCain to this point has been proven right, and Rumsfeld cost himself his job largely due to being wrong on this.

So yeah, birds of a feather....but when you look at many of the issues that have been critical to our people, you can clearly see that McCain is a truly independent thinker.

bootlegger10 · November 2008

digster wrote:

Dude, he's absolutely correct...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html

McCain did in fact vote with Bush that often; 95% in 2007 alone. Just because you're right in your own head doesn't make you right in reality.

You see, you SAY that if McCain votes with the President 95% of the time, then he is pretty much George Bush II (or III I guess), but when Joe Lieberman voted 95% of the time with Liberals, your side thought he was a conservative and tried to vote him out as Senator.

digster · November 2008

You mean to tell me you think that John McCain changed his mind on the tax cuts because of economic developments? He shifted to the right to get the nomination; even the most ardent McCain apologists I've seen have been willing to admit that. Remember, these were the tax cuts he found 'offensive' in 2003. What changed between then and now? He ran for President.

Let's look at the backtracking he's done. Immigration policy? He now says that he would vote against his own legislation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgvFkICnRoo) that allowed a path to citizenship. This is a far cry from the McCain who worked with Senator Kennedy on said bill. Tax policy? Well, take a look at this socialist; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY. What was McCain's ideology eight years ago is now 'socialism.' The candidate who decried 527s now uses them to do his dirty work. The man who harshly criticized President Bush for his abhorrent robo-calls in the 2000 South Carolina primary now uses robo-calls against his opponent. The man who said in 2000 that he would "not support repeal of Roe v. Wade" in 2008 considers it important that the Supreme Court overturn its' previous ruling. The candidate who called Jerry Falwell and his ilk "agents of intolerance" later praised him and accepted his support. He caved in on opposing Bush's use of torture when he initially opposed the administration.. And the list keeps going on and on. So, please don't try to sell us that McCain is still this "maverick" that he was in 2000. I respect him then and now, but he sold out his ideology to get the nomination. There's the evidence I gave above and far, far, far more.

And in regards to the war in Iraq, he was one of its' most ardent supporters at its' onset, unlike his opponent, if we really want to talk about bucking popular opinion.

But like I said; we weren't talking about Obama's record. We were talking about McCain's record. It's plain and simply not as bipartisan as you have been claiming; it is slightly, but only slightly less partisan than Obama. And the facts show this, so I understand why you wanted to change the argument; I can understand why you keep wanting to bring up Obama, because you have nothing to defend McCain with.

digster · November 2008

bootlegger10 wrote:

You see, you SAY that if McCain votes with the President 95% of the time, then he is pretty much George Bush II (or III I guess), but when Joe Lieberman voted 95% of the time with Liberals, your side thought he was a conservative and tried to vote him out as Senator.

Huh? Who is talking about Lieberman?

The democrats are all about the people

Comments

Categories