# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  McCain Passes Obama In Official Gallup Poll

## Dreamworld

For the first time since june, McCain shows a clear increase over obama. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109834/Ga...-Tracking.aspx





> The race for president has been virtually tied since mid-August. In this period, Obama's support from national registered voters has consistently ranged from 44% to 46%. The 46% currently supporting McCain is technically his best showing since late May/early June, but is not a statistically significant improvement over his recent range from 43% to 45%. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)
> 
> An analysis of historical election poll trends by Gallup Poll Managing Editor Jeff Jones shows that recent presidential campaigns have enjoyed a small (though short-lived) bounce from the running mate announcement. This includes a four percentage point bounce for John Kerry in 2004 after selecting John Edwards, a 5-point bounce for Al Gore in 2000 with his announcement of Joe Lieberman, and a 3-point bounce for George W. Bush in 2000 upon choosing Dick Cheney. Bob Dole received an extraordinary 9-point bounce in 1996 after bringing Jack Kemp onto his ticket.
> 
> All of these bounces occurred before the respective party's convention began, and in most cases the candidates received an additional boost in the polls upon completion of the convention. Thus, any increase in Obama's support in the coming days would seem to be more the result of the star-studded and well publicized Democratic national convention than the apparently lackluster Biden selection.
> 
> The official Gallup records will show that support for Obama declined by two percentage points in Gallup Poll Daily tracking (from 46% to 44%) conducted immediately before and after the Aug. 23 Biden announcement. (Because the announcement was made at 3 a.m. on Saturday, Aug. 23, all Gallup interviewing conducted that day can be considered post announcement.)



We could conclude that Biden, was nowhere near favored as Governor Palin, and the 14% "unknown" voters seem to be finding there place. Palin has been searched on google 10 times more than Biden, and even more than Obama. The democratic party needs to buckle up, and apply thier resources.

----------


## ninja9578

Leave it to the democrats to take a sure thing and screw it up.  Gotta keep the faith that americans aren't stupid enough to vote for a third term for bush.

----------


## Robot_Butler

This looks like it will be an interesting season. I just can't wait for it to get ugly  :Drama:

----------


## Pastulio_

If this joke of a political stunt by McCain ACTUALLY causes him to win the election, I'm becoming a stowaway and sneaking onto a boat to France.

----------


## nitsuJ

> If this joke of a political stunt by McCain ACTUALLY causes him to win the election, I'm becoming a stowaway and sneak onto a boat to France.



A poll has shown a huge increase in white women are leaning towards McCain. It's nice to see they lean towards the party with a female running partner, that really makes a lot of the female population look bad if that's why they're doing it. Too bad Obama didn't choose Hilary, he'd be a shoe-in then, huh?

----------


## Forsaken

Obama really should have chosen Hillary.

----------


## ninja9578

> A poll has shown a huge increase in white women are leaning towards McCain. It's nice to see they lean towards the party with a female running partner, that really makes a lot of the female population look bad if that's why they're doing it. Too bad Obama didn't choose Hilary, he'd be a shoe-in then, huh?



Unbelievable, McBush voted against equal wages for women, but he chooses a woman for VP and suddenly women love him.





> Obama really should have chosen Hillary.



Duh!

----------


## drewmandan

I think it has more to do with white people not wanting to vote for a black man, and now having a plausible reason (Palin) to support McCain that doesn't make them look like racists. If this is true, then people supported McCain in the first place, and are only now declaring it.

----------


## Dreamworld

> If this joke of a political stunt by McCain ACTUALLY causes him to win the election, I'm becoming a stowaway and sneaking onto a boat to France.



 Thats democracy for ya.

----------


## Dreamworld

> I think it has more to do with white people not wanting to vote for a black man, and now having a plausible reason (Palin) to support McCain that doesn't make them look like racists. If this is true, then people supported McCain in the first place, and are only now declaring it.



 Unfortunatly we can see that race, and sex has a major role in presidential elections. 

@ Ninja - The problem is that most Americans are close minded Fundamentalists. On these forums, we see overwhemling democratic support, perhaps we are the few rationals of the country?

----------


## tkdyo

I dont support dems or republicans, and a lot of the people in my area are heavily democrat.  Idk where you get your figures that most of the country are fundamentalists, but it seems only weeks ago fundies were barely anywhere to be found.  Just because a lot of people like Paulin better than Biden doesnt make them irrational.  I think its more rational to be an independent  :tongue2:

----------


## Dreamworld

> I dont support dems or republicans, and a lot of the people in my area are heavily democrat.  Idk where you get your figures that most of the country are fundamentalists, but it seems only weeks ago fundies were barely anywhere to be found.  Just because a lot of people like Paulin better than Biden doesnt make them irrational.  I think its more rational to be an independent



 Well the problem is that the independent party has little to no influence to whos going to be president. I'm convinced that people who changed their mind because of a vice president, are irrational. Palin is attractive, and it seems as if these elections are a personality contest.. she hasn't even appealed to the press.

----------


## Jeff777

According to a CNN poll tonight, Palin seems to be attracting more attention and support from men than women.

----------


## aceofspades

> Well the problem is that the independent party has little to no influence to whos going to be president. I'm convinced that people who changed their mind because of a vice president, are irrational. Palin is attractive, and it seems as if these elections are a personality contest.. she hasn't even appealed to the press.



wow it really is all just one big popularity contest. I swear my high school student government election was less silly than this one.

This election is a joke.

----------


## Bearsy

Canada, here I come!

Who's gonna join me?

----------


## tkdyo

> Well the problem is that the independent party has little to no influence to whos going to be president. I'm convinced that people who changed their mind because of a vice president, are irrational. Palin is attractive, and it seems as if these elections are a personality contest.. she hasn't even appealed to the press.



oh, haha, Im not talking about the party, I mean as in I dont rally behind anyone or bash someone just cause of a party.  In fact, I find the idea that these parties think they can decide who you can vote for to be boarder line controlling.  Picking with the VP in mind as well isnt as crazy as you might think.  The last few VPs have picked up the position's role and its no good to have your closest confidant being weak.

but, I do agree, elections are pretty much popularity contests now...seems like a lot of people need to be reminded the ideas that the country was founded on.

----------


## The Enterer

Busted!: Gallup, CBS, USA.Today, etc. Tinkers With Party ID Again

----------


## Sisyphus50

> Busted!: Gallup, CBS, USA.Today, etc. Tinkers With Party ID Again



I just came here to post this. The Republicans are getting desperate.

----------


## Forsaken

> Busted!: Gallup, CBS, USA.Today, etc. Tinkers With Party ID Again



I feel relieved now, TY for posting that.

----------


## Jeff777

Wait...so if the poll is flawed...why isn't it all over CNN?

----------


## tkdyo

^good question

----------


## ninja9578

Don't put it past the republicans to rig the election again.  Katherine Harris managed to do it once, they can do it again.

----------


## Dreamworld

> Wait...so if the poll is flawed...why isn't it all over CNN?



 Speaking of CNN, thats where I got the Gallup poll information.

----------


## Brainchild

> If this joke of a political stunt by McCain ACTUALLY causes him to win the election, I'm becoming a stowaway and sneaking onto a boat to France.



Save me a spot, even if it's near the stinky cheeses.   ::lol::

----------


## Brainchild

> Obama really should have chosen Hillary.



I kinda think so too.

----------


## Original Poster



----------


## ninja9578

> How so?
> It doesn't say you can't have one, but it does say you can.
> 
> I'm not sure if you understand what a natural right is. Sure, having a gun isn't a right, but choosing to purchase one sure is. 
> 
> I mean, what you're saying is, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention the right to purchase DVDs, ergo people don't have the right to purchase DVDs. But it doesn't work that way. People have the natural right to buy whatever they want so long as it doesn't interfere with the natural rights of others. In fact, if you look at any serious list of natural rights, you will see that they are compatible, and if you try to add a new one, like a natural "right to good health", it starts to conflict. But the right to buy guns doesn't conflict with other rights, like the right to self-determination (liberty) or property. 
> 
> Now, you might be talking about legal rights, but I'm not. I don't give a shit about legal rights. They're arbitrary and far removed from reality.



No, it says neither.  I posted exactly what is says in terms of grammar in the other thread.  Why do you think the founding fathers would include one specific about ownership?  Wouldn't they have much more pressing issues such as owning a home or something.  Those aren't rights, what makes you think they just made a grammatical error and meant that everyone has the right to a gun?  No, you do not have the right to have a DVD according to the constitution.  It's not mentioned, just like guns.  Rights are things that are guaranteed, not privileges.  DVDs are a bad example because regulating them would violate the freedom of speech.

I look at guns like a drivers license, no it's not a right, but everyone should be allowed to get one as long as they are not a danger to others.  





> It doesn't matter what people believe. The gun sellers decide that. Some require background checks because they believe the benefits (being the legal right to advertise, essentially) outweigh the costs (losing customers), yet others, like street thugs and arms dealers, choose not to require background checks.



State and federal laws handle background checks (used to.)  They were called the Brady laws and put in place by Ronald Reagan.





> Now, do you want to get into a discussion of the moral right to own a gun?



No, I already posted what I believe about gun ownership.  People who want one for hunting or self defense can have them as long as they pass a background check.  No one needs a military grade weapons except for the military and police force.





> We turned Iraq into an Al Qaeda magnet, and we eat them for lunch every day.  Al Qaeda is much weaker now, and very distracted by what we set up.



No, they're doing pretty well right now.  They're smart enough to stay out of Iraq except for grunts that they send in for suicide bombing.  the high ranking people are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 





> THE liberal areas, or like two that you mentioned?  How is the Soviet Union coming along?  What about Cuba?



Cuba and the Soviet Union were communists and totalitarians , I fail to see the comparison.  Progressive isn't socialism, why don't you understand that? 

The entire northeast is near the top of that list.  The entire south is near the bottom.  To me that clearly shows the difference in economic systems' outcomes.  The conservative controlled south is very poor because of unregulated capitalism.  The progressive controlled northeast and west coast are very wealthy because of regulated capitalism.





> Obama has lied his ass off about his associations... his very strong associations with very terrible anti-Americans.



I don't recall him ever lying about being friends with William Ayers or anyone else.  He said that he didn't agree with some of the things they they say or do, but support their charities and humanitarian work.

----------


## drewmandan

> No, it says neither.  I posted exactly what is says in terms of grammar in the other thread.  Why do you think the founding fathers would include one specific about ownership?  Wouldn't they have much more pressing issues such as owning a home or something.  Those aren't rights, what makes you think they just made a grammatical error and meant that everyone has the right to a gun?  No, you do not have the right to have a DVD according to the constitution.  It's not mentioned, just like guns.  Rights are things that are guaranteed, not privileges.  DVDs are a bad example because regulating them would violate the freedom of speech.
> 
> I look at guns like a drivers license, no it's not a right, but everyone should be allowed to get one as long as they are not a danger to others.



I chose my words very carefully. I never said that people have the natural right to owning a gun. I said they have the natural right to choose to purchase a gun. Big fucking difference. One makes sense, the other doesn't. Get your shit straight before you try to argue with me.






> State and federal laws handle background checks (used to.)  They were called the Brady laws and put in place by Ronald Reagan.



Black market, put in place by people who don't observe arbitrary laws. I don't see how this counters what I've already said. 





> No, I already posted what I believe about gun ownership.  People who want one for hunting or self defense can have them as long as they pass a background check.  No one needs a military grade weapons except for the military and police force.



I'm not talking about what people need. Nobody 'needs' a gold-plated toilet, yet some people have one. I'm talking about the *right to purchase an inanimate object*, not the right to have one, not what you do with it, just the right to purchase and own one if one so chooses.

----------


## ninja9578

You can also purchase a drivers license, but for safety reasons some are refused.  same thing with guns.  

The black market doesn't abide by the laws of the government, you can also get a fake drivers license through the black market.  Illegally obtaining anything doesn't abide by american laws and therefore have no relevance in a discussion about the law.

I'm still not entirely sure of your point.  I agree that the right to buy a gun is a natural right, it's a privilege that is not expressly given in the constitution, but of course is able to be regulated for safety reasons.  So you agree that the extremist's view that the 2nd amendment guarantees them the right to have a gun is wrong?

----------


## drewmandan

> I'm still not entirely sure of your point.  I agree that the right to buy a gun is a natural right, it's a privilege that is not expressly given in the constitution, but of course is able to be regulated for safety reasons.  So you agree that the extremist's view that the 2nd amendment guarantees them the right to have a gun is wrong?



Stated with the EXACT wording you've used in this sentence, I agree it's wrong, because it makes no sense. 

The reason I brought up natural rights in the first place is to discuss the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Considering the whole point was to protect natural rights, it makes no sense to write a 2nd Amendment with the intention of stripping a natural right. Therefore I also believe the law, as irrelevant as it is, does guarantee the right to purchase firearms as often as one chooses.

----------


## ninja9578

It also makes no sense to write a law solidifying a natural right when there were much more important ones such as the right to buy a home or land.  

The 2nd amendment doesn't strip the natural right to buy a weapon, it doesn't mention it.  That's why is specifies that the amendment is meant in terms of a state militia.

----------


## drewmandan

> It also makes no sense to write a law solidifying a natural right when there were much more important ones such as the right to buy a home or land.  
> 
> The 2nd amendment doesn't strip the natural right to buy a weapon, it doesn't mention it.  That's why is specifies that the amendment is meant in terms of a state militia.



That's fine, as long as we agree then that everyone has not only the moral right, but also the legal right to buy guns in the US.

----------


## ninja9578

I only agree if you also agree that some people aren't allowed to buy them, those who would be dangerous such as convicted felons and the mentally unstable.

----------


## Original Poster

You know what this sounds like?

"Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his which is I do not."

-Sarah Palin

----------


## ninja9578

Sarah Palin makes George Bush look smart.

----------


## dylanshmai

Mcainss policies are the same as George Bush's, and if you don't realize that, you have graduated to "idiot". 

Obamas tax cut for the rich is nothing to complain about, he is returning the favor since Bush did it to the middle class/poor. 

f*** Mcain, f*** Pailin, f*** Bush, and f*** you if you voted for any of them. You should be ashamed of yourself.

----------


## Universal Mind

> No, they're doing pretty well right now. They're smart enough to stay out of Iraq except for grunts that they send in for suicide bombing. the high ranking people are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.



Yeah, the leadership, except for the ones we have killed or captured, which is lots of them.  





> Cuba and the Soviet Union were communists and totalitarians , I fail to see the comparison. Progressive isn't socialism, why don't you understand that?



That is where socialism leads.  Governments go very corrupt when given too much power over their people.  Why don't you understand that?  





> The entire northeast is near the top of that list. The entire south is near the bottom. To me that clearly shows the difference in economic systems' outcomes. The conservative controlled south is very poor because of unregulated capitalism. The progressive controlled northeast and west coast are very wealthy because of regulated capitalism.



Those areas are still very capitalistic, just maybe not as capitalistic as the South.  The whole country has a certain degree of socialism, and we would be much better without it.  The South has been full of trash for hundreds of years, and trash breeds more trash.  The North has had less of a problem with that since forever ago.





> I don't recall him ever lying about being friends with William Ayers or anyone else. He said that he didn't agree with some of the things they they say or do, but support their charities and humanitarian work.



Come on.  He at first said William Ayers was some guy in the neighborhood and pretty much left it at that, very misleadingly.  He said he never knew Reverend Wright was such an America hating racist nut ball, after going to his church services twice a month for twenty years and being very, very close to him.  Do you really believe that shit?  No, you don't.





> Mcainss policies are the same as George Bush's, and if you don't realize that, you have graduated to "idiot". 
> 
> Obamas tax cut for the rich is nothing to complain about, he is returning the favor since Bush did it to the middle class/poor. 
> 
> f*** Mcain, f*** Pailin, f*** Bush, and f*** you if you voted for any of them. You should be ashamed of yourself.



No, McCain very often opposed the other Republicans.  Educate yourself.  Tax cuts are great, but increasing taxes on the people who create jobs is a dumb ass idea.  

You have to be at least 15 to be a member here.

----------


## ninja9578

> That is where socialism leads.  Governments go very corrupt when given too much power over their people.  Why don't you understand that?



You're contradicting yourself.  You said that you support McCain.  Totalitarian is where the government has control of people, not socialism.  And where do you keep getting the idea that the progressive states are socialist? 





> Those areas are still very capitalistic, just maybe not as capitalistic as the South.  The whole country has a certain degree of socialism, and we would be much better without it.  The South has been full of trash for hundreds of years, and trash breeds more trash.  The North has had less of a problem with that since forever ago.



True, but they also provide services for their people, which you are calling socialism.  They also highly regulate the market.





> No, McCain very often opposed the other Republicans.  Educate yourself.  Tax cuts are great, but increasing taxes on the people who create jobs is a dumb ass idea.  
> 
> You have to be at least 15 to be a member here.



Not true at all, where the hell did you get that information?  Did you assume it because he calls himself a Maverick?  He's the truth coming straight from John McCain's mouth.



You continue to criticize Obama for raising taxes, but you fail to state where you think the money for the war in Iraq will come from.  Bush caused the tax hikes because he spent so much money, you're not allowed to blame Obama for having to balance the budget.

You support the war, but not paying for it?  Can I use the same system get a new Prius?  PLEASE!  :Puppy dog eyes:

----------


## Universal Mind

> You're contradicting yourself. You said that you support McCain. Totalitarian is where the government has control of people, not socialism. And where do you keep getting the idea that the progressive states are socialist?



1. I said McCain is better than Obama but sucks.  
2. I said socialism leads to too much government power over the people, not that it equals totalitarianism automatically.  Please read what you respond to. 
3. I said the whole country has a level of socialism, not that any states are full blown socialist.  Please read what you respond to. Thanks.  





> True, but they also provide services for their people, which you are calling socialism. They also highly regulate the market.



A degree of sociasm, not full  blown socialism.  How many times do I need to clarify that?  





> Not true at all, where the hell did you get that information? Did you assume it because he calls himself a Maverick? He's the truth coming straight from John McCain's mouth.



He opposed Bush roughly 10&#37; of the time.  Look it up.  





> You continue to criticize Obama for raising taxes, but you fail to state where you think the money for the war in Iraq will come from. Bush caused the tax hikes because he spent so much money, you're not allowed to blame Obama for having to balance the budget.



Tax decreases will result in more revenue, which will result in more tax money.  Yes, lowering tax percentages will result in more tax money.  When we are facing a second Great Depression, raising taxes will be suicide.  Do you want that?  This is no time to play silly coffee shop games. 

Also, we can cut lots of fat.  Why didn't you think of at least that? 





> You support the war, but not paying for it? Can I use the same system get a new Prius? PLEASE!



Your strawman tactics are getting old.

----------


## ninja9578

> 1. I said McCain is better than Obama but sucks.  
> 2. I said socialism leads to too much government power over the people, not that it equals totalitarianism automatically.  Please read what you respond to. 
> 3. I said the whole country has a level of socialism, not that any states are full blown socialist.  Please read what you respond to. Thanks.



Then why do you call them socialist?  Socialism is total government control of money and services.  The fact is that the places that have some socialism do better than those with little socialism. 





> He opposed Bush roughly 10% of the time.  Look it up.



But Bush has been wrong 90% of the time.  See the amount of overlap?  Barrack Obama opposed Bush 90% of the time. 





> Tax decreases will result in more revenue, which will result in more tax money.  Yes, lowering tax percentages will result in more tax money.  When we are facing a second Great Depression, raising taxes will be suicide.  Do you want that?  This is no time to play silly coffee shop games.



McCain taxes the middle class, which is the engine that drives the economy.  Obama cuts taxes for the middle class.  The middle class is what drives the economy.

Calculate your own tax cut.  This is an independent bipartisan group.  http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

If you don't believe that one you can google how much you'll get from either candidate.  Every economist in the world says that if you're middle class you'll get more back from Obama.

Why do you want less money, don't you know that money is what stimulates the economy?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Then why do you call them socialist? Socialism is total government control of money and services. The fact is that the places that have some socialism do better than those with little socialism. 
> 
> 
> But Bush has been wrong 90% of the time. See the amount of overlap? Barrack Obama opposed Bush 90% of the time. 
> 
> 
> McCain taxes the middle class, which is the engine that drives the economy. Obama cuts taxes for the middle class. The middle class is what drives the economy.
> 
> Calculate your own tax cut. This is an independent bipartisan group. http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
> ...



You trust the liar way too much.  He talked about not raising taxes on people who make under 250 thousand a year, then said he would not raise taxes on anybody who makes under 200 thousand a year.  Now Biden is saying they won't raise taxes on anybody who makes under 150 thousand a year.  Those clowns are screwing up their own words because they are full of shit.  Don't you see the insincerity?  And guess what...  Obama voted to raise taxes on people making more than 42 thousand a year.  Go figure.  

The super rich drive the economy big time, and raising taxes on them now would create an economic nightmare.  Do you know how many people Bill Gates employs, for example?  

But don't worry.  Obama is not going to win.   :wink2:

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Original Poster

There's a little distinction between Ayers and Al Quada. Just a little.  The main one being Ayers doesn't want to bankrupt the American economy by instigating them into foreign wars.  Yeah, he's pretty much just an old crazy hippy.  Terrorists are a real threat, though, and you make it into a joke by using Ayers to try to discredit Obama.

Also Obama isn't a socialist.  Burden of proof lies on you for that one.

----------


## Xei

> 



Are you being serious?

----------


## Universal Mind

> There's a little distinction between Ayers and Al Quada. Just a little. The main one being Ayers doesn't want to bankrupt the American economy by instigating them into foreign wars. Yeah, he's pretty much just an old crazy hippy. Terrorists are a real threat, though, and you make it into a joke by using Ayers to try to discredit Obama.



Ayers is a terrorist.  What you said does not contradict that. 





> Also Obama isn't a socialist. Burden of proof lies on you for that one.



He believes in greatly increased socialism, even if he does not want it on the level the Soviet Union had it, which he probably does.  Do you know what "spread the wealth" means?  He was talking to a fucking plumber when he talked about taking his money and "spreading the wealth".  





> Are you being serious?



Yes.  His name is Bill Ayers.  Most of the media won't talk about him because today's media is more interested in playing politics than in reporting news.  Pretty sick, huh?

----------


## Xei

...you're very weak minded when it comes to propaganda, aren't you?

----------


## ninja9578

> You trust the liar way too much.  He talked about not raising taxes on people who make under 250 thousand a year, then said he would not raise taxes on anybody who makes under 200 thousand a year.  Now Biden is saying they won't raise taxes on anybody who makes under 150 thousand a year.  Those clowns are screwing up their own words because they are full of shit.  Don't you see the insincerity?



I don't know where you are getting this information.  His tax plan is played out on his website.  It has not deviated from 250,000.  You trust liars way too much.





> And guess what...  Obama voted to raise taxes on people making more than 42 thousand a year.  Go figure.



That is a flat out lie from John McCain.  No one can collaborate that and he won't say where he got that information.  Even Fox says that it was a lie.  Voting records and who sponsored what bill is public information.  That never happened.  Lies.



Have you heard and / or understand the proverb:
A dumb man doesn't learn from mistakes;
A smart man learns from his mistakes;
but a wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

You've been throwing out a lot of speculation about things, but have no data to back it up.  I've always used real data.

You say that the liberal tax plan of taxing the wealthy and lowering taxes for the middle class causes economic instability and looses jobs.  History from Clinton, FDR, and Kennedy says the opposite.

You say that the conservative tax plan of giving handouts to the rich creates a strong economy and creates jobs.  History from Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush says the opposite.

You say that spending money on the military that the government doesn't have will keep the country stable and safe.  History from Mesopotamia, Rome, Greece, Byzantines, Mongols, Persians, Egyptians, Turks, French, British, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and soviets says the opposite.

You say because Japan has problems with health care that socialized medicine doesn't work.  Canada, England, France, Germany, Norway, Finland and Spain says the opposite.  Why don't you stop listening to propaganda and go there or better yet, ask someone who lives there.  Would you like a list of DV members that have socialized medicine?  There are quiet a few of them.

Do you know what caused the mortgage crisis?  It was people borrowing more money than they could pay back.  Sound familiar.  The terrorist plans are not to fight the US head to head, its to drain our economy in wars that cost too much.  By supporting John McCain, you support the terrorist plan, and ergo: the terrorists.

Ignorance, a powerful ally for the Republicans.

I'm going back to my coffee shop to talk politics, why don't you stop with the gun club politics?

----------


## drewmandan

> He believes in greatly increased socialism, even if he does not want it on the level the Soviet Union had it, which he probably does.  Do you know what "spread the wealth" means?  He was talking to a fucking plumber when he talked about taking his money and "spreading the wealth".



If you really understood the notion of socialism beyond what the republican party propaganda tells you, you would understand that McCain is, if anything, more socialist than Obama.

----------


## Universal Mind

> ...you're very weak minded when it comes to propaganda, aren't you?



Don't be a douche bag, asshole.  If you can't debate me, don't pretend like you are doing it.  It is very convenient for you to sit there and pretend that reality is a fiction story when it is actually fact, but it is not going to work.  Obama did in fact give a pro-Ayers speech in Ayers' living room, Obama did in fact become Ayers' partner in public speaking, Obama did in fact chair an organization with Ayers, and Obama has many other very close associates who are that left wing crazy.  If you are going to put your head up your ass and cop out by saying that stuff is not true, you might as well be asserting that Puerto Rico does not exist.  

If I were weak minded when it comes to propaganda, I would support the war on drugs and be either a Christian or a leftist, one of the two national REALIGIONS.  YOU are weak minded and sucking up the most left wing and loonie propaganda.  YOU are a sheep and are not thinking.  YOU are in denial of the facts.  Don't try that stupid shit on me.





> If you really understood the notion of socialism beyond what the republican party propaganda tells you, you would understand that McCain is, if anything, more socialist than Obama.



Shut up.  Seriously.  Like I just told your fellow cult member, atheists who support drug legalization do not blindly accept Republican propaganda.  Study Obama's history and know what you are talking about.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I don't know where you are getting this information. His tax plan is played out on his website. It has not deviated from 250,000. You trust liars way too much.



It's on video.  YOU trust liars too much.  Do I need to dig it up on You Tube?  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8sWT_SSQwE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZTbTYGxdM

I can't find the one with the $200,000 figure, but I'm pretty sure it's in his infomercial.  I just came across it yesterday.  It does exist.  





> I don't know where you are getting this information. His tax plan is played out on his website. It has not deviated from 250,000. You trust liars way too much.
> 
> 
> That is a flat out lie from John McCain. No one can collaborate that and he won't say where he got that information. Even Fox says that it was a lie. Voting records and who sponsored what bill is public information. That never happened. Lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard and / or understand the proverb:
> A dumb man doesn't learn from mistakes;
> ...



You are a broken record.  Kennedy was big on low taxes, and there are speeches on video that show him preaching it.  And once again...  Political correctness from your stupid cult caused the mortgage crisis.

Socialism killed the Soviet Union.  The riches nations are captialistic.  Republicans have been guilty of certain degrees socialism too, but usually their Democratic Congresses damaged the economy.  War has repeatedly saved nations and even the world.  I never said anything about giving handouts to the rich.  You have lost your mind.

----------


## Xei

> Don't be a douche bag, asshole.



Never heard of one of them before.  ::|: 




> f you can't debate me, don't pretend like you are doing it. It is very convenient for you to sit there and pretend that reality is a fiction story when it is actually fact, but it is not going to work. Obama did in fact give a pro-Ayers speech in Ayers' living room, Obama did in fact become Ayers' partner in public speaking, Obama did in fact chair an organization with Ayers, and Obama has many other very close associates who are that left wing crazy. If you are going to put your head up your ass and cop out by saying that stuff is not true, you might as well be asserting that Puerto Rico does not exist.
> 
> If I were weak minded when it comes to propaganda, I would support the war on drugs and be either a Christian or a leftist, one of the two national REALIGIONS. YOU are weak minded and sucking up the most left wing and loonie propaganda. YOU are a sheep and are not thinking. YOU are in denial of the facts. Don't try that stupid shit on me.



I'm not sure how left wing loonie propaganda is supposed to reach me over here, but everything I've heard indicates that Obama didn't really associate with that man at all.

Certainly he didn't 'launch his political career in a terrorist's living room', whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. I also hear that this terrorist is now a philanthropist..? Did he ever actually do any damage to anything or anyone?

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm not sure how left wing loonie propaganda is supposed to reach me over here, but everything I've heard indicates that Obama didn't really associate with that man at all.



Then you have been lied to.  Obama admits to it.  Jesus Fucking Christ.  





> Certainly he didn't 'launch his political career in a terrorist's living room', whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. I also hear that this terrorist is now a philanthropist..? Did he ever actually do any damage to anything or anyone?



The jackass bombed the capitol building, the Pentagon, and NYC Police Headquarters.  He tried to kill in the process but only injured one person.  His case got botched and was dismissed, but he admits what he did, says he wishes he had done more, and has never apologized.  Obama got his career into major swing when he later gave a speech in the terrorist's honor in the terrorist's living room.

----------


## ninja9578

Well, that first video didn't say anything about Obama changing his plan, the second one turned out to be a misstatement by Joe Biden.  Even intelligent people say things wrong sometimes.  Obama's' tax plan is on his website.

If you are referring to the plan to give people earning under 190,000 which was proposed a few days ago, that's for this year, not for when he takes office.  That's for 2009.


You said that Reagan killed the Soviet Union  ::?:   Soviet Union aside, I put 10 other countries that have had runaway military budgets, all of them collapsed.

We had a red president and a red congress from 2000 to 2006.  It has caused more damage than anything since Hoover gave tax breaks to big companies in 1929.

Kennedy was big on low taxes for the middle class, not all taxes.  He had NASA to fund, he knew that that money had to come from somewhere.


Nowhere did you disagree with any of the facts I put there.   :Clap:

----------


## Universal Mind

> Well, that first video didn't say anything about Obama changing his plan, the second one turned out to be a misstatement by Joe Biden. Even intelligent people say things wrong sometimes. Obama's' tax plan is on his website.
> 
> If you are referring to the plan to give people earning under 190,000 which was proposed a few days ago, that's for this year, not for when he takes office. That's for 2009.



And now we have a new figure.   ::?: 





> You said that Reagan killed the Soviet Union  Soviet Union aside, I put 10 other countries that have had runaway military budgets, all of them collapsed.



Reagan killed the Soviet Union by speeding up their collapse, which was happening because of socialism.  





> We had a red president and a red congress from 2000 to 2006. It has caused more damage than anything since Hoover gave tax breaks to big companies in 1929.



Raising taxes in 1932 is what really turned the country on its head when it was already struggling.  I already told you the Republicans in Congress didn't do shit when they had their chance.  Attempt to stop arguing stuff we have already settled.  This is getting old.  





> Kennedy was big on low taxes for the middle class, not all taxes. He had NASA to fund, he knew that that money had to come from somewhere.



Obama is not big on tax cuts for the middle class, just like Clinton turned out not to be even though he preached it in his campaign.  I can't believe you trust Obama so much.  





> Nowhere did you disagree with any of the facts I put there.



You really don't mind lying, do you?

----------


## ninja9578

> And now we have a new figure.



That's from the senate, that's for immediate relief.  Obama's plan for the white house has not changed.





> Raising taxes in 1932 is what really turned the country on its head when it was already struggling.  I already told you the Republicans in Congress didn't do shit when they had their chance.



Uhm... I'm not sure what history book you're looking at, but the democrats were in control in 1932. 





> Obama is not big on tax cuts for the middle class, just like Clinton turned out not to be even though he preached it in his campaign.  I can't believe you trust Obama so much.



Even if he does half of what he says, that more than we know that McCain will do. 





> You really don't mind lying, do you?



Which statements were lies?  The ones about Reagan and Bush having terrible economies and little if no job creation and Clinton and Kennedy having great economies, creating lots of jobs, and cutting back the military.   Or that every one of those empires that I mentioned have collapsed?

----------


## dylanshmai

> No, McCain very often opposed the other Republicans.  Educate yourself.  Tax cuts are great, but increasing taxes on the people who create jobs is a dumb ass idea.  
> 
> You have to be at least 15 to be a member here.



Don't worry about me, I am as educated as need be to vote. Obviously you are the one who has not a clue about Mcain (FACT). Meanwhile, do some real research and get your shit strait. He has turned down 2 bills made by a Republican...thats not very many...imagine around 2 bills out of the hundreds and hundred he has signed yes on over the years he has been senator. Not to mention the bills that he favored greatly by George W  Bush. Get you're fucking facts strait buddy.

----------


## drewmandan

> Shut up.  Seriously.  Like I just told your fellow cult member, atheists who support drug legalization do not blindly accept Republican propaganda.  Study Obama's history and know what you are talking about.



Study history in general, especially the USSR, and you'll see that ever-growing military spending is always the quick route to socialism, fascism, and eventual collapse. McCain clearly wants to continue funding, and in fact, increase funding to the military. You don't see this as a problem?

Or, to put it another way, do you think there's something special about the US that makes it immune to collapse due to military spending?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Don't worry about me, I am as educated as need be to vote. Obviously you are the one who has not a clue about Mcain (FACT). Meanwhile, do some real research and get your shit strait. He has turned down 2 bills made by a Republican...thats not very many...imagine around 2 bills out of the hundreds and hundred he has signed yes on over the years he has been senator. Not to mention the bills that he favored greatly by George W Bush. Get you're fucking facts strait buddy.



Out of how many bills?  How many bills did he propose that Republicans did not like?  How much speaking did he do against Republican proposals that never became bills?  Reality is not as small as what's inside your head.  Besides, Republicans are right on the big issues far more than Democrats are.  Get reality straight, buddy.   :wink2:  

It is scary that people like you vote.  





> Study history in general, especially the USSR, and you'll see that ever-growing military spending is always the quick route to socialism, fascism, and eventual collapse. McCain clearly wants to continue funding, and in fact, increase funding to the military. You don't see this as a problem?
> 
> Or, to put it another way, do you think there's something special about the US that makes it immune to collapse due to military spending?



Ninja, pay attention to this.  You apparently did not last time, which is a bad habit of yours.  Military spending can wreck a country big time if the country has a bad economic system.  It has happened a lot.  Truly capitalistic countries have a history of not collapsing. 

History is going to look back on the fact that somebody as worthless and sick as Barack Obama made it this far in politics.  What is happening now reminds me of Nazi Germany in the 1930's.  It is very scary that shit like this can happen because people are such sheep.  Have fun at the coffee shop pretending you have rational ideas.  It's fun, I'm sure.

----------


## drewmandan

> Ninja, pay attention to this.  You apparently did not last time, which is a bad habit of yours.  Military spending can wreck a country big time if the country has a bad economic system.  It has happened a lot.  Truly capitalistic countries have a history of not collapsing.



Truly capitalistic countries wouldn't collapse, but they wouldn't have the world's largest military either. You can't have both. So again I ask, do you not see that the course of ever increasing military spending will wreck the US?

----------


## ninja9578

> Out of how many bills?  How many bills did he propose that Republicans did not like?  How much speaking did he do against Republican proposals that never became bills?  Reality is not as small as what's inside your head.  Besides, Republicans are right on the big issues far more than Democrats are.



Name one.  Military?  Nope, they support bigger military.  Health care?  No, the oppose universal health care (which is not socialized.)  Economic?  No, they are making the same mistakes as Reagan and Bush Sr.  Education?  ::lmao:: 





> Ninja, pay attention to this.  You apparently did not last time, which is a bad habit of yours.  Military spending can wreck a country big time if the country has a bad economic system.  It has happened a lot.  Truly capitalistic countries have a history of not collapsing.



Actually, pure capitalism leads a corporate run government.  Huge corporations give huge amounts of money to senators so that they get laws that they wanted passed.  John McCain has no problem with this and takes tons of money from lobbyists.  All of Barrack Obama's money has come from citizens.





> History is going to look back on the fact that somebody as worthless and sick as Barack Obama made it this far in politics.  What is happening now reminds me of Nazi Germany in the 1930's.  It is very scary that shit like this can happen because people are such sheep.  Have fun at the coffee shop pretending you have rational ideas.  It's fun, I'm sure.



No, Totalitarianism of George Bush and John McCain should remind you of Saddam Hussein.  You people just give into to irrational fear mongering.  Have fun at your gun clubs pretending that you have rational ideas.  We'll let the prosperity of the next four years speak for us.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Name one. Military? Nope, they support bigger military. Health care? No, the oppose universal health care (which is not socialized.) Economic? No, they are making the same mistakes as Reagan and Bush Sr. Education?



He opposed Bush 10&#37; of the time.  





> Actually, pure capitalism leads a corporate run government. Huge corporations give huge amounts of money to senators so that they get laws that they wanted passed. John McCain has no problem with this and takes tons of money from lobbyists. All of Barrack Obama's money has come from citizens.



That does not counter my point, and pure capitalism kicks pure socialism's ass.  





> No, Totalitarianism of George Bush and John McCain should remind you of Saddam Hussein. You people just give into to irrational fear mongering. Have fun at your gun clubs pretending that you have rational ideas. We'll let the prosperity of the next four years speak for us.



I am not a member of a gun club.  I disgree with Republicans on too much to join one of their clubs.  You might even think I am a hippy if you ever met me.  A lot of people call  me that.  I have a way of confusing the shit out of both cults because I am not sheep enough to fit the stereotypes.  





> Truly capitalistic countries wouldn't collapse, but they wouldn't have the world's largest military either. You can't have both. So again I ask, do you not see that the course of ever increasing military spending will wreck the US?



We are the most capitalistic country in the world (and the wealthiest).  Our military spending could really hurt us if we don't become more capitalistic, but it probably won't ever wreck us.

----------


## dylanshmai

> Out of how many bills?  How many bills did he propose that Republicans did not like?  How much speaking did he do against Republican proposals that never became bills?  Reality is not as small as what's inside your head.  Besides, Republicans are right on the big issues far more than Democrats are.  Get reality straight, buddy.



Of course he did, it was the ear 2000 I believe when he was running against george bush. Obama did the same with Hillary and many other democratic senators. Oh yeah republicans are so much more right than...no, fuck you, you racist pig

Go fuck you're asshole buddy  :wink2: ...oh sorry, you might not get that one. 

P.S: Its sad rednecks like you have the right to vote. You have to be 15 years of age to vote.

----------


## drewmandan

> Actually, pure capitalism leads a corporate run government.  Huge corporations give huge amounts of money to senators so that they get laws that they wanted passed.



That's not pure capitalism. What you're describing is a form of fascism.

You see the inconsistency, don't you? On the one hand you assume there are no laws to regulate big corporations, and on the other hand, you say big corporations influence the laws which are now somehow so pervasive that they're a problem, but if they were that pervasive then your original assumption of pure capitalism is contradicted. =><=






> We are the most capitalistic country in the world (and the wealthiest).



As an arancho-capitalist at heart, I agree that it's no coincidence that the least regulated country has the largest economy. You're preaching to the choir here. However, you go on to say:





> Our military spending could really hurt us if we don't become more capitalistic, *but it probably won't ever wreck us*.



This is pure fantasy. Any government program that is funded by taxes and that expands without bound will destroy a country. That's just a matter of deductive logic. You can't argue with that. 

So I really don't understand how you think that an ever-increasing military could possibly be sustainable, especially given the numerous historical examples of both capitalist and non-capitalist states alike falling victim to having a military that is too large. Have you heard of Rome? The British Empire? The Spanish Empire? Macedonia? Hello?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Of course he did, it was the ear 2000 I believe when he was running against george bush. Obama did the same with Hillary and many other democratic senators. Oh yeah republicans are so much more right than...no, fuck you, you racist pig
> 
> Go fuck you're asshole buddy ...oh sorry, you might not get that one. 
> 
> P.S: Its sad rednecks like you have the right to vote. You have to be 15 years of age to vote.



Some of those qualify as sentences.  

You have to be 18 to vote, and you should take antipsychotic medication for Schizophrenia.

----------


## Universal Mind

> This is pure fantasy. Any government program that is funded by taxes and that expands without bound will destroy a country. That's just a matter of deductive logic. You can't argue with that. 
> 
> So I really don't understand how you think that an ever-increasing military could possibly be sustainable, especially given the numerous historical examples of both capitalist and non-capitalist states alike falling victim to having a military that is too large. Have you heard of Rome? The British Empire? The Spanish Empire? Macedonia? Hello?



If we cut the vast amount of wasteful spending we engage in, and it IS vast amount, we would be okay.  However, I am about ready for us to cut our military budget any way.  We have done about what we need to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Once those wars are over, I will be all for cutting military spending a lot.  But I am ready to cut a great deal of the other stuff right this second.

----------


## drewmandan

> If we cut the vast amount of wasteful spending we engage in, and it IS vast amount, we would be okay.  However, I am about ready for us to cut our military budget any way.  We have done about what we need to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Once those wars are over, I will be all for cutting military spending a lot.  But I am ready to cut a great deal of the other stuff right this second.



Just a moment ago you said that you're all for ever-increasing military spending, now you want to cut spending. You should be more articulate. 

Oh, by the way, your boy McCain wants to start another war in Iran. That doesn't jive with what I just quoted you saying.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Just a moment ago you said that you're all for ever-increasing military spending, now you want to cut spending. You should be more articulate.



I am all for a lot of our past military spending.  It was necessary.  You should be more intellectual.  





> Oh, by the way, your boy McCain wants to start another war in Iran. That doesn't jive with what I just quoted you saying.



McCain is not my boy.  How many times do I need to say that?  Learn to read.  This conversation is pathetic. 

If we must go to war with Iran, then I will support increased military spending again.  I will also support major cuts in bullshit liberal garbage programs.  Bitch about those.  Eventually, Iraq and Afghanistan will be able to handle the remaining rotten Middle Eastern governments.  

This conversation is pathetic.

----------


## Original Poster

Neither McCain nor Bush were purists.  They have given bucket loads of tax money to corporations.  They've given no bid contracts to their friends.  They've allowed our stock brokers to sell fake investments to our own citizens as well as foreign investors and then used tx money to bail these stock brokers out of their scam.

They are doing what you described as fascism, Drewmandan.

It's bullshit to hide behid the Purist Capitalist model, it's being used to justify ignoring the common needs of people in pursuit of a domination of wealth by a handful of people.

And it has led to the corruption of many of our institutions and a backwards, insufficient use of our farms.  I don't support socialism, but I do support a more communitarian model to our government, led on a local level so the federal govenment can't retain power.  The federal government should have basic regulations, but be capitalist in spirit, and then allow local ogvernments to step in and make sure the money from their industries goes to the people.

----------


## John11

It's amazing how much this debate has degraded over the past week.  :tongue2:

----------


## drewmandan

> I am all for a lot of our past military spending.  It was necessary.  You should be more intellectual.  
> 
> 
> 
> McCain is not my boy.  How many times do I need to say that?  Learn to read.  This conversation is pathetic. 
> 
> If we must go to war with Iran, then I will support increased military spending again.  I will also support major cuts in bullshit liberal garbage programs.  Bitch about those.  Eventually, Iraq and Afghanistan will be able to handle the remaining rotten Middle Eastern governments.  
> 
> This conversation is pathetic.



So, to summarize:

i) You are opposed to increasing military spending unnecessarily and understand that such spending wrecks countries

ii) You would support increasing military spending if it was "needed"

I posit that _any_ increase in US spending would be accompanied by a PR campaign explaining why it's "needed". Thus, *if* you always believe your government when they say they need to invade Arabistan because Ahmanutjob is "developing WMDs" or is "gassing people", then you will always be in favour of increased military spending, by part (ii) above. 

So, as you can see, the fact that you're opposed to military spending is completely irrelevant if you're unable to differentiate between real existential threats and PR campaigns. But judging by your support of the Iraq war, I would say that you can't tell the difference.

----------


## Universal Mind

> So, to summarize:
> 
> i) You are opposed to increasing military spending unnecessarily and understand that such spending wrecks countries



No, that is way more general than what I said.   ::roll:: 





> ii) You would support increasing military spending if it was "needed"
> 
> I posit that _any_ increase in US spending would be accompanied by a PR campaign explaining why it's "needed". Thus, *if* you always believe your government when they say they need to invade Arabistan because Ahmanutjob is "developing WMDs" or is "gassing people", then you will always be in favour of increased military spending, by part (ii) above.



If Aunt Martha had a penis, she would be Uncle Fred.  





> So, as you can see, the fact that you're opposed to military spending is completely irrelevant if you're unable to differentiate between real existential threats and PR campaigns. But judging by your support of the Iraq war, I would say that you can't tell the difference.



So let's see here...  You disagree with the very long list of reasons for the Iraq war that I have backed with facts and logic, therefore I believe EVERYTHING my government tells me about the need for war, therefore I am wrong in EVER supporting military spending.  Uh, okay, military spending BAD.  Dude, how old are you?  

Okay, that's it.  This is the stupidest damn political debate I have ever been in on this site.  I am playing a game with relentless strawman posters and hopeless idiots.  It's like teaching a crying kindergarten class.  I'm out of here.

----------


## Xaqaria

> I'm out of here.



One can only hope.

----------


## ninja9578

I'm sorry that you're getting upset  :Sad:   But this is how predictive sciences work.  No one knows how the Mammoth acted, so we look at it's closest relative, the elephant and interpolate the variables.

No one is saying that Obama is Clinton or Kennedy.  We don't know how he will act in the white house so we look at the people who had similar political beliefs as he.  Obama's closest match is Bill Clinton.  McCain's closest match is Dubya.  You say that McCain voted against Bush 10&#37; of the time, that still means that he agreed with him 90% of the time.  Was bush right 90% of the time?  Not by a long shot.

----------


## Original Poster

:smiley:

----------


## Original Poster



----------


## ninja9578

:smiley:

----------


## Xei

Did I see on the news that McCain accidentally agreed in a speech to Texas with the suggestion that Texans were idiots?  ::|:

----------


## ninja9578

Most are, they overwhelmingly voted for Dubya.

----------


## ninja9578

Lol, did anyone else see this?



I've actually gotten calls from the McCain robots.

----------


## drewmandan

I don't really get robocalls. Like, are Americans actually stupid enough to think they're listening to a real person, or...?

----------


## John11

> Most are, they overwhelmingly voted for Dubya.



Not as much as some other central US states.

I just got back from early voting in Texas.  I voted for Obama  :smiley:

----------


## ninja9578

::D:

----------


## aceofspades

> Not as much as some other central US states.
> 
> I just got back from early voting in Texas.  I voted for Obama



you sir are the lotus in the mud  :tongue2:

----------


## Xei

BBC says that early polls tentatively suggest McCain making a rapid political comeback...

Jesus guys, nothing personal but if McCain wins this one then you'll never be able to rid yourselves of your reputation as a nation of stupid hypocritical two faced racists.

----------


## Original Poster

It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it.

----------


## ninja9578

> BBC says that early polls tentatively suggest McCain making a rapid political comeback...
> 
> Jesus guys, nothing personal but if McCain wins this one then you'll never be able to rid yourselves of your reputation as a nation of stupid hypocritical two faced racists.



That won't happen.  We won't let it.

----------


## nitsuJ



----------


## ninja9578

> Truly capitalistic countries have a history of not collapsing.



Athens.


 ::lmao::   It is projected that there will be a tight race in Arizona.  That's where John McCain has represented for 29 years  ::lol::

----------


## Captain Sleepalot

> BBC says that early polls tentatively suggest McCain making a rapid political comeback...
> 
> Jesus guys, nothing personal but if McCain wins this one then you'll never be able to rid yourselves of your reputation as a nation of stupid hypocritical two faced racists.



Yeah, they must be using the same hand-picked polls that the McCain campaign tries to claim victory on...their Republican buddies Rasmussen and Zogby (but mostly Rasmussen) are pretty good at skewing results.

----------


## tkdyo

> BBC says that early polls tentatively suggest McCain making a rapid political comeback...
> 
> Jesus guys, nothing personal but if McCain wins this one then you'll never be able to rid yourselves of your reputation as a nation of stupid hypocritical two faced racists.



lol, are you serious?  Just because we dont vote for a guy who is half black that makes us racist?

----------


## Original Poster

What do we have anything to do with it anyway?  Any precinct official that wants to can change the results of their precinct in favor ot McCain or Obama.  Votes haven't decided an election since Diebold started.

----------


## Xei

> lol, are you serious? Just because we dont vote for a guy who is half black that makes us racist?



Sorry this was a bit too complicated for you; no. Not just because of that at all; but because when asked about it in unofficial, public polls, a landslide majority said that they _would_ vote for the guy who is half black.

You're all very big on talk when it comes to freedom and equality and the great American dream, but when it comes to biting the bullet, if it all turns out to be just that - big talk - then you're going to look ridiculous. There's quite a lot of pressure on the US electorate now.

----------


## tkdyo

Uh huh, that's not what you implied in my quote.  The unofficial polls say that McCain is making a comeback, so, actually that wouldnt be hypocrisy at all if McCain is elected.  If the Polls where indicating McCain was still sliding and he ended up winning then I would be inclined to agree and see where you were coming from.

edit:  On a side note, I believe Obama will win, it all reminds me of that South Park episode.

----------


## Xei

...well, that is what was implied by what I said. Hopefully there's nobody so hopelessly PC that they think not voting for a black person is somehow inherently racist.

I believe the polling was of people who had voted early, but anyway; the polls _have_ been saying that McCain is sliding, for a good month or more. You can't seriously think that McCain's going to suddenly win everybody over in the last 2 days..?

----------


## drewmandan

> I believe the polling was of people who had voted early, but anyway; the polls _have_ been saying that McCain is sliding, for a good month or more. You can't seriously think that McCain's going to suddenly win everybody over in the last 2 days..?



Bradley effect. I don't personally believe it will happen, but I wouldn't be astonished if it did.

----------


## Xei

Well exactly. That was my point. It would show them up as a nation of hypocritical racists.

This is all conditional of course; no offense intended (yet).

----------


## nitsuJ

McCain and Palin have ties with Nazis? WHAT?!

----------


## ninja9578

All Nazis want McCain to win.  UM said in the other thread about Al Qaeda's choice mattering.   Every bad group in politics: KKK, Nazi Party, NRA, Baby Eaters Anon, The Bush Mafia... all want McCain to win.

----------


## Universal Mind

> All Nazis want McCain to win. UM said in the other thread about Al Qaeda's choice mattering. Every bad group in politics: KKK, Nazi Party, NRA, Baby Eaters Anon, The Bush Mafia... all want McCain to win.



Are you worried that any of those groups might blow up U.S. cities any time soon?

----------


## juroara

did you vote? did you vote? did you vote?

I VOTED!  did you! who is left to vote?  ::banana::

----------


## ninja9578

> Are you worried that any of those groups might blow up U.S. cities any time soon?



More so than someone who's devoted their life since the 1970s to chairity.

I just cast my vote for president elect obama.  I democrats are having a victory party at their headquarters later, I'm debating whether or not I should go.

----------


## Universal Mind

> More so than someone who's devoted their life since the 1970s to chairity.



 ::?:   Election day dodgeball?

The terrorist you brought up out of nowhere is still unrepentant, and Obama started his political career with that guy.  The Pentagon got bombed on 9/11 and we went to war with Islamofascism in general as a result, and now we are facing the possibility that the commander of the wars will be somebody who got his political career started with a sicko who bombed the Pentagon.  The irony of extreme stupidity... Duuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....  

I still say Obama is going to lose.  The last drop of faith in humanity I have says that enough people are seeing reality more clearly now that they are having to deal with reality.

----------


## drewmandan

> Election day dodgeball?
> 
> The terrorist you brought up out of nowhere is still unrepentant, and Obama started his political career with that guy.  The Pentagon got bombed on 9/11 and we went to war with Islamofascism in general as a result, and now we are facing the possibility that the commander of the wars will be somebody who got his political career started with a sicko who bombed the Pentagon.  The irony of extreme stupidity... Duuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....



Wait, so let me get this straight. You think Obama is going to use the power of his office to stage a terrorist attack against the US and kill thousands of innocent citizens?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Wait, so let me get this straight. You think Obama is going to use the power of his office to stage a terrorist attack against the US and kill thousands of innocent citizens?



That was not my point in the topic Ninja and I first discussed today or in the tangent Ninja went off on.  

Obama is not passionately opposed to terrorism.  That is the problem.  Now that you bring it up, I do question whether he is a mole for a terrorist group.  Knowing what you now know, how shocked would you be to find that out?  Would your mind explode with surprise?

----------


## drewmandan

> Obama is not passionately opposed to terrorism.  That is the problem.  Now that you bring it up, I do question whether he is a mole for a terrorist group.  Knowing what you now know, how shocked would you be to find that out?  Would your mind explode with surprise?



It would surprise me that the terrorists would go to all the trouble of sending him to Harvard and doing years of community service and a couple of years in the senate, so yes.

----------


## ninja9578

I believe that the american people will do the right thing.  The democrats in my town have their victory party underway.  I might go later.

----------


## Universal Mind

> It would surprise me that the terrorists would go to all the trouble of sending him to Harvard and doing years of community service and a couple of years in the senate, so yes.



That is what it took for him to work his way to the doorstep of the presidency.  If terrorists wanted one of their own to be president of the United States, they would do exactly what you described.

----------


## drewmandan

> That is what it took for him to work his way to the doorstep of the presidency.  If terrorists wanted one of their own to be president of the United States, they would do exactly what you described.



You're fucking paranoid. Listen to yourself. At the beginning of this thread you were arguing policy, but now you just think Obama is a terrorist. Get your head out of your ass.

----------


## Xei

UM what the hell. :\

Looks like Obama's got it anyway. Pen., Ohio, and just now New Mexico. Could be a landslide.

----------


## ninja9578

He believe the fear mongering.

----------


## Xei

He also believes Obama's gonna loose... guess the polls passed him by?




> Obama is not passionately opposed to terrorism. That is the problem. Now that you bring it up, I do question whether he is a mole for a terrorist group. Knowing what you now know, how shocked would you be to find that out? Would your mind explode with surprise?



Just lol. Some Americans really are like that, huh? Good work UM.

----------


## ninja9578

Again, he is just soaking up the fear mongering of the republican party like a sponge.

----------


## Sornaensis

So, do you have a statement all ready for when McCain is announced as the winner, Ninja?

So much for a landslide, btw.... Not even going to be a big gap at all :/

----------


## John11

> So, do you have a statement all ready for when McCain is announced as the winner, Ninja?
> 
> So much for a landslide, btw.... Not even going to be a big gap at all :/



What are you watching?  How is McCain possibly going to win at this point?  It most definitely looks like it will be a landslide.

----------


## ninja9578

Nope, never needed one.

----------


## Xei

> So, do you have a statement all ready for when McCain is announced as the winner, Ninja?
> 
> So much for a landslide, btw.... Not even going to be a big gap at all :/



Uh wha.

Obama's stolen 3 and McCain's stolen 0 so far, and the pro-Democrat states are yet to come.

----------


## Sornaensis

But when he wins then what will you say?

----------


## ninja9578

Uh... "I told you so" ?

----------


## Xei

Could well pass 270 in the next 12 minutes. Woo...

----------


## ninja9578

He only has to get to 215, the 55 of CA are guaranteed.

Oops, nevermind, I thought that there was another hour before CA closed its polls

----------


## Xox

> Barack Obama is going to lose the election because he is Opie Taylor playing presidential candidate in his tree house fort with his cuckoo bird kid friends.  He is a joke.  He will never be president of the United States.  And by the way, he is good buddies with an admitted terrorist and has an America hater for a spiritual mentor.  That is a formula for epic fail by itself.  I told you months ago that the polls then didn't mean anything and that Barack is not going to win the election.  Get the Barack Obama presidency out of your heads.  It is not reality.  
> 
> Oh, and hello to all of you again.



 ::banana::

----------


## Original Poster

*Sigged.

----------


## Xei

::banana::  ::banana::  ::banana::  ::banana::  ::banana:: 

Sucks when condescending bullshit comes back and hits you in the face like that, huh.

----------


## ninja9578

President Elect Barack Obama.

 ::banana::  ::banana::  ::banana::  ::banana::  ::banana::

----------


## Sornaensis

I know.

Pity people in America are so stupid, right?

----------


## Xei

You can hardly say the only other realistic option was remotely intelligent.

----------


## Sornaensis

> You can hardly say the only other realistic option was remotely intelligent.



The other guy WASN'T going to raise Corporate texes to 50%, and he WAS N'T going to impose more taxes on the middle-class.

Otherwise, we really needed Nader.

----------


## ninja9578

Obama's plan is to lower taxes on the middle class.

It's a landslide.  He won popular vote by 3&#37; so far and has doubled McCain's electoral vote.

----------


## Xei

Nader wasn't realistic.

The other guy voted with Bush 90&#37; of the time and supports the War... it's just Bush again. I don't understand American politics. How can you support for the candidate for the party which is so extremely unpopular?

----------


## Sornaensis

> Obama's plan is to lower taxes on the middle class.
> 
> It's a landslide.  He won popular vote by 3% so far and has doubled McCain's electoral vote.



Uh, ninja, $200,000 for damilies IS the middle class.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Uh, ninja, $200,000 for damilies IS the middle class.



...in what country?  ::wtf::

----------


## Soldier

[Deleted By Mod]

----------


## Original Poster

I pray AIDS on you and your family.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

If you enjoy hanging around here, Soldier, I'd suggest you act like a mature human being and choose your words a little more intelligently.

----------


## Xei

God that man's an amazing orator...

Even in the UK's it hard not to feel excited about what this means.

----------


## Xox

Yes.  ::D: 

Also I couldn't resist UM..

----------


## nitsuJ

Talking about getting destroyed.

Nice try McCain, nice try!  ::D:

----------


## Universal Mind

Yep, this country has gone bat shit stupid crazier than I ever thought.  To all of you who voted for and rooted for Barack Obama, I have something to say to you, and I mean this from the deepest levels of my soul....  DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.....    ::|:

----------


## ninja9578

Nope, crazy would be voting for a third term for Bush even though his policies failed soooo badly.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Nope, crazy would be voting for a third term for Bush even though his policies failed soooo badly.



If you are talking about the sub-prime political correctness that wrecked our economy, you can thank the Democrats.  If you are talking about the liberations of two nations, you can ask Democrats why they talk out of both sides of their mouths.

----------


## skysaw

The long and mighty reign of fear and hate is coming to an end. Those who don't realize this and who cling to their negativity will be left behind and not likely missed. 

After hearing his concession speech last night, I finally got to see a likeable John McCain. He was gracious, tempered, and appeared very sincere -- qualities he had kept well-hidden up to this point. I honestly believe that he would have won if he had told the RNC/Rove big brother machine where to go, and instead ran a decent and clean campaign. The reason his positive ideas were consistantly lost was that they were drowned out by the noise of his own party going well over the top in their attacks and smears. 

Hopefully the republicans can do some soul-searching and find a way to reinject some integrity into their platform. We will always need healthy discourse over the issues from both sides, and the only way to do that is to drop the pitchforks and rejoin the civilized world.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

WallE will clean it up.

----------


## nitsuJ

> After hearing his concession speech last night, I finally got to see a likeable John McCain. He was gracious, tempered, and appeared very sincere -- qualities he had kept well-hidden up to this point. I honestly believe that he would have won if he had told the RNC/Rove big brother machine where to go, and instead ran a decent and clean campaign. The reason his positive ideas were consistantly lost was that they were drowned out by the noise of his own party going well over the top in their attacks and smears.



My dad said the exact same thing, and I agree. All the McCain/Palin ticket did was attack Obama/Biden every chance they got, while Obama/Biden were not on the attack train. This is one of the reason's I didn't like McCain/Palin, they tried to attack and play out a dirty campaign. That makes a lot of people dislike them too, I'm sure.

----------

