Jump to content
superstition

Clinton or Obama?

131 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Please post specifics explaining why you would choose Barack over Clinton, or vice-versa.

As Bill Maher recently observed on his show "Real Time," a lot of people say they hate Hillary, but when pressed they can give no solid reasons for their hatred.
She supported Lieberman and cluster bombs because she does not want to lose support of the lobby that puts Israel first.

 

In the midst of the Lebanon conflict, Israel requested more cluster bombs! Israel had promised us that they would not use cluster bombs against civilians, but they did.

Obama supported extending it for 3 whole months so that a congressional report could be finished first. The actual vote of the Patriot Act occurred in 2001. Obama was elected in 2004.
I did not watch the debate because Dennis Kucinich was excluded. Without him the debate becomes a he said she said bickering contest between Clinton and Obama and the public ends up hearing nothing at all on their so-called universal health plans, Iraq/Iran war stances, {censored} marriage stances, the NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO nightmare, repeal of the Patriot act and impeachment. Don't let the media stop your questions from being answered! You are being duped into watching an expensive infomercial.

Here are some points that demonstrate Obama's faulty logic:

 

"{censored} rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement."

Fixed: {censored} rights movement is a civil rights movement.

 

"Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is."

Fixed: Marriage is a human right, and recognizing that is non-discrimination.

 

"We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions."

Fixed: Unless civil union replaces marriage for all, civil unions are weak.

 

"{censored} marriage is less important that equal {censored} rights."

Fixed: Marriage is part of equality.

 

"Opposes {censored} marriage; supports civil union & {censored} equality."

Translation: I oppose {censored} marriage and therefore don't support equality.

 

(Clinton, by the way, has the same positions as Obama on {censored} issues and has the exact rating, 89% from HRC.)

 

Interesting or questionable positions:

 

Do not lower drinking age from 21 to 18.

Free public college for any student with B-average.

Fair trade should have tangible benefits for US.

National smoking bans only after trying local bans.

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

On "inexperience": he wrote policy books that media ignores.

Says biggest mistake was intruding in Terri Schiavo case.

The wealthy should pay a bit more on the payroll tax.

 

Some very good positions/observations:

 

Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.

Reduce mercury and lead to protect community health.

Protect the Great Lakes & our National Parks and Forests.

Congress subsidizes megafarms & hurts family farmers.

Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

We need condom distribution to deal with the scourge of AIDS.

Homophobia prevents talking about HIV/AIDS.

America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions.

Human rights and national security are complementary.

Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus.

The cost of the Iraq war should not shortchange VA benefits.

Chief co-sponsor of IL ENDA, against {censored} job discrimination.

Pres. candidates can afford minimum wage; most folks can't.

Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs.

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing.

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation.

Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.

Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.

Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`.

Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut.

Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (HC yes)

Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (HC yes)

Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.

Clinton called Obama's proposal to raise Social Security taxes on earnings over $97,500 per year, the current upper limit on which any tax is levied, a trillion-dollar increase on "middle class families."

 

Obama defended his proposal by saying it would fall only on the upper class: "Understand that only 6% of Americans make more than $97,000--so 6% is not the middle class--it's the upper class."

There has to be a restoration of balance in our tax code. We are going to offset some of the payroll taxes that families who are making less than $50,000 a year get a larger break. I want to make sure that seniors making less than $50,000, that they get some relief in terms of the taxes on their Social Security. Those kinds of progressive tax steps, while closing loopholes and rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the top 1 percent, simply restores some fairness and a sense that we're all in this together.

 

...

 

There's no doubt that the tax system has been skewed. And the Bush tax cuts--people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.

 

But I think this goes to a broader question, and that is, are we willing to make the investments in genuine equal opportunity in this country? People aren't looking for charity. We talk about welfare and we talk about poverty, but what people really want is fairness. They want people paying their fair share of taxes.

 

One of the distressing things about Katrina was the fact that we have not made systematic investments. And the only way we're going to make it is by making sure that those of us who are fortunate enough to have the money actually make a contribution.

 

...

 

We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same. Ending corporate subsidies is one thing; reducing health-care benefits to poor children is something else. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.

 

Nowhere has this confusion been more evident than in the debate surrounding the proposed repeal of the estate tax. As currently structured, a husband and wife can pass on $4 million without paying any estate tax. In 2009, this figure goes up to $7 million. The tax thus affects only the wealthiest one-third of 1% in 2009. Repealing the estate tax would cost $1 trillion, and it would be hard to find a tax cut that was less responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans or the long-term interests of the country.

 

...

 

Bush tax cuts help corporations but not middle class

 

Middle class families are getting squeezed. The new jobs being created in Illinois pay an average of $15,000 less than the jobs that we've lost - and fewer offer real benefits. Health insurance premiums and the cost of a college education have skyrocketed since the beginning of the Bush Administration. In the past three years, corporate profits have increased more than 60%. Workers are being paid just 3% more.

 

It wouldn't be fair or accurate to blame all of this on the Bush Administration. It is fair, however, to say that they haven't done much to help. The tax cuts they've offered have barely made a dent in reducing the burden on middle class families, while driving our nation trillions of dollars deeper into debt. They continue to support tax breaks for corporations who export jobs overseas, and have refused to enforce provisions within existing trade agreements against countries who engage in unfair trade practices.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

I like Obama over Hillary Clinton for a vast array of reasons, Many of which were just posted above! (Good {censored}, you know your stuff, unlike most people).

 

I agree with Obama on most of his issues, I don't like EVERYTHING about him (voting for the patriot act, as an example), but I overall DO like him. These are some of the reasons.

 

1.Barack Obama speaks a lot about working with republicans to get the job done, he talks about the American people, not purely Democrats (Like Hillary Clinton). This is ultimately what needs to happen, when Republicans and Democrats not only compete, but when they work together to get things done, the only people who win are the American Public.

 

2. Obama Opposes Torture, Hillary Clinton thinks its ok if we "need" it. This is not acceptable.

 

3. Obama has MORE Experience than Hillary Clinton. He has been Not only a US Senator, but he has also been an Illinois State senator, so we have legislation experience covered (making laws). He was a lecturer at University of Chicago Law school teaching Constitutional Law (So he knows the constitution inside and out, and he was in education). He was a Civil Rights lawyer (Knowing the law) and worked on behalf of people who had lost their homes and needed help (Community Organizer). He had a white mother and a Black father, he grew up with racial inequality, and he had a rough life growing up, so he KNOWS what these people have to deal with and how they feel, Hillary Clinton has only read about it. Obama is mostly a self-made man. Hillary Clinton is propped up by her husband and his friends.

 

Also lets not forget that Hillary Clinton has not been a senator for much longer than Barack Obama, and her background and experience is much less diverse than his (even if it goes back in time longer).

 

4. Diplomacy. Hillary Clinton seems to take a few pages out of George W. Bush's book when it comes to Diplomacy, she will shut out countries she doesn't like, Fuel Israel, and act as if the USA is top dog, we don't need that right now, we need somebody like Barack Obama who can talk to the rest of the world with an open mind and an open heart and SHOW the rest of the world that not everybody in the United States is arrogant, ignorant, fat, and stupid.

 

5. Barack Obama has a quality about him that Unites people, Hillary has a quality that divides people, we tried dividing, it didn't work, lets try something new!

 

6. Years and years in washington makes lawmakers of all kinds victims to the corruption of our government, we need somebody who hasn't been touched by this for too long to bring about real change.

 

7. Taxes. Obama wants to tax the rich, I have NO problem with that. Nobody deserves billions of dollars, I feel its their right to take it from the public if they figure out a way, but it should be up to the government to make that process as difficult as possible, many people don't realize that the way many people make money is not honest, and its in fact exploitative of the general public. I would also like to note that I am for taxes (on the ONE condition that the general public, the American people gets a better deal coming out than the money they put in, that is why I would abolish the Federal Income tax if I could [our economy cant be sustained on infinite interest that the government owes the banks for no reason whatsoever).

 

8. Healthcare. I don't think universal healthcare is coming to the US for a while, even though that would be amazing. Hillary Clinton's plan has many problems in and of itself but disregarding that for a moment she would never be able to get it passed through the house and the senate. I like Barack's message of trying to reduce the cost of health insurance so that people will buy it. Hillary Clinton would mandate that one BUYS insurance, putting even more money into the pockets of a greedy industry. Everybody is required to buy car insurance, however people have a choice on whether or not to buy a car. Requiring that people buy health insurance as hillary Clinton Describes will do what it did in Massachusetts, semi-poor people will be unable to afford it and the government will fine them and they will still NOT have health insurance.

 

9. Records. Obama has a pretty squeaky clean record. This is evident when the only dirt that can be dug up on him involves him going to a secular muslim public school as a child, his cocaine and marijuana use in high-school, his voting "present" on a few hundered decisions as an illinois State Senator (despite voting one way or the other on over 5000 issues), and his "lack of experience". Hillary Clinton has had a much more shady and suspect record. She supports torture, voted yes for Iraq, etc. etc.

 

10. Being Genuine. Obama strikes me as a genuine, honest candidate who really cares about the people and really does want to make life better for those who have been disenfranchised by this government, he uses loose, laid back speech (saying he wished he was related to somebody cool when he found out he was related to {censored} Cheney, etc.), and knows how to get people enthusiastic about his message. Hillary Clinton does not inspire like Obama does, I believe she DOES care about the American people but unless people start to get excited and engaged in politics again, were never going to realize how messed up our government really is. I think with obama people will be enthusiastic about politics and will in turn choose to dig a little deeper.

 

11. Donations, Obama has taken a lot of money and so has Hillary Clinton. a greater percentage of Obama's money comes from the general American public, rather than from a few huge donors. So at the end of the day, the only "person" that obama owes his success to at the end of the day is the American people.

 

12. Education. I remember Obama saying once about a year ago that one of his top priorities was education, he basically said something to the effect of "once we fix the education crisis in this country, many of the other problems will begin to fix themselves". I happen to completely agree. As his candidacy has gone on he has gone into a little more specifics on how he plans to do this, pay teachers a lot more but hold them more accountable for what they do AS teachers (performance based pay).

 

I have about a hundred more but I am out of time hehe.

 

Love,

Killbot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't wait either. If either wins, my family is going to be taxed WAAAAY more.

Are they in the top 6% or 1%? If so, I can see that happening. However, Bush's policies lead to higher local and state taxes, massive federal debt, etc. The falling dollar and so forth are hardly good for the economy. Taxation is necessary for a functioning society, and progressive taxation is fair, not regressive taxation. How the money is spent is the key, as well as making sure everyone pays their fair share. Bush's folks like loopholes so that the wealthy pay far less than they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither. Both voted in FAVOR of partial-birth abortions. I just can't accept that. We're not talking third-trimester abortions here, we're talking PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS. What does this entail you might ask? Without exaggerating, the doctor pulls the fetus about to be born feet-first halfway out of the mother, and then stabs the skull with scissors. Look it up for yourselves. Not to mention, the fetus can FEEL that pain. That is just SICK. I cannot and will not ever support the kind of demented person that wants to keep this sick practice legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither. Both voted in FAVOR of partial-birth abortions. I just can't accept that. We're not talking third-trimester abortions here, we're talking PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS. What does this entail you might ask? Without exaggerating, the doctor pulls the fetus about to be born feet-first halfway out of the mother, and then stabs the skull with scissors. Look it up for yourselves. Not to mention, the fetus can FEEL that pain. That is just SICK. I cannot and will not ever support the kind of demented person that wants to keep this sick practice legal.

You mean abortions in the trimesters or the "PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I can give you a reason for my hatred of hitlery, NO PROBLEM! Lets just start with her "health-care" stance... Before I even begin cracking the book on this one, let me ask any hillary supporter this one simple question:

Can you name one program the Government runs, for the people, that works well? And no social security would NOT be a good choice.

 

Face it the government is not the answer. Giving up, and saying "not my fault, let the government take care of that" doesn't work. Imagine if you intended to retire solely on what the government has been setting aside for you!

Besides, health care is a PRIVILEGE. You earn it, by WORKING, it isn't given to you on other people's dime. Taking the money from the working and giving it to the lazy just doesn't cut it, that's called socialism, and it doesn't make for real great living standards.

 

 

Oh yeah then there's gun control. Any politician who can't trust his (or apparently "her") constituents to exercise their God given rights, doesn't deserve the trust of governing them.

 

 

And lets be honest, NONE of the candidates are any good this year, either side of the fence is pretty bleak. I'm going to end up voting independent, to register my distaste with the republicans for trotting out some lib. pile of trash. Every single candidate is pro big-government, and I don't see the "lesser evil" this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean abortions in the trimesters or the "PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS?"

Either, but I was referring to partial birth abortions. In both, the fetus can fully feel pain, although I feel that pulling it halfway out of the mother and then stabbing its skull with a pair of scissors is the worse of the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either, but I was referring to partial birth abortions. In both, the fetus can fully feel pain, although I feel that pulling it halfway out of the mother and then stabbing its skull with a pair of scissors is the worse of the two.

You'll need to take into account the environmental degradation policies of Republicans like Bush if you care about human welfare/suffering more than any other issues, which appears to be the case. Bush exempted the number one (by far) source of mercury pollution, power companies, from his Trojan Horse "tough new anti-mercury pollution regulation". He also has tried to roll back all sorts of environmental regulations from the Clinton years. As a Texas governor, he used the illogical "voluntary regulation" and carried that thinking over to his presidency.

 

It's unacceptable to abort pregancies but acceptable to poison mothers and their children with mercury and arsenic? What about Bush's pull out of nuke treaties and decision to begin testing more nukes? His "underground" testing shoots radioactive pollution into the atmosphere.

 

Overpopulation reduces quality of life and so that must also be taken into account. Bush's anti-contraception anti-sex education policies lead to higher unwanted pregnacy rates and thus higher abortion and overpopulation. People myopically obsess about the symptom (abortion), but never the causes. Ashcroft, Bush's first-term attorney general, sued doctors and nurses for providing birth control for poor women. He tried to get the doctors barred from practicing medicine. Abortion is not a silver bullet issue that makes a Democrat unacceptable. The "pro-business (pro rich people)" attitude of the Republican party means less food safety, overpopulation, more poverty, and more pollution.

 

I don't favor the abortion of fetuses, either. However, there are larger issues involved. Why aren't condoms readily available in schools? Why isn't sex education being promoted, instead of the "abstinence only" nonsense which is scientifically proven to not work. Keeping kids ignorant about sex and making them go to great lengths to buy condoms is not going to lead to lower abortion rates. Guess what happens when abortion is made illegal? The rich go to Europe to have them and the poor use coat hangers, dirty secret clinics, and picnic tables.

 

The other thing... as animalistic as it may sound. Some babies are better off being aborted, particularly with Republican policies that increase the number of poor and imprisoned. I've seen the results of unwanted pregancies where the mothers/fathers drink, abuse drugs, beat their children, etc. Many of the kids, if they survive, end up homeless or have birth defects. Also, where is the compassion for the huge number of {censored} kids who are thrown out of their homes by their parents because of religious nonsense? Why do people focus on unborn fetuses so much but don't care much about actual kids being thrown out like trash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Hillary, what can I say? I dislike overblown and irrational arguments and hate against her. I like Obama too, but I think Hillary will be better for the job. But whatever, I'm a South African, I don't even get to vote!

 

As long as a Republican doesn't win (and they won't), I'm happy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't wait either. If either wins, my family is going to be taxed WAAAAY more.

 

Good.

If you have more money, you should be taxed more - makes sense to me, works fine over here.

What you could do is get rid of those SUVs you don't need and get a sensible car, that way, you will save a lot of money.

 

Clinton and Obama don't have strong enough environmental policies (ie, carbon taxing, massively increased renewables, huge government funding for alternative fuels, seizing profits of oil companies, etc, etc)

 

Al Gore :) (pfft, I wish)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't favor the abortion of fetuses, either. However, there are larger issues involved. Why aren't condoms readily available in schools? Why isn't sex education being promoted, instead of the "abstinence only" nonsense which is scientifically proven to not work. Keeping kids ignorant about sex and making them go to great lengths to buy condoms is not going to lead to lower abortion rates. Guess what happens when abortion is made illegal? The rich go to Europe to have them and the poor use coat hangers, dirty secret clinics, and picnic tables.

 

The other thing... as animalistic as it may sound. Some babies are better off being aborted, particularly with Republican policies that increase the number of poor and imprisoned. I've seen the results of unwanted pregancies where the mothers/fathers drink, abuse drugs, beat their children, etc. Many of the kids, if they survive, end up homeless or have birth defects. Also, where is the compassion for the huge number of {censored} kids who are thrown out of their homes by their parents because of religious nonsense? Why do people focus on unborn fetuses so much but don't care much about actual kids being thrown out like trash?

 

I couldn't agree more. There is never ending hypocrisy from many anti-abortionists, who are for the most part conservatives, thus they seem to care only about abortion, but not about other human rights, including (the abolition of) the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't agree more. There is never ending hypocrisy from many anti-abortionists, who are for the most part conservatives, thus they seem to care only about abortion, but not about other human rights, including (the abolition of) the death penalty.

It's not always hypocrisy, though. Sometimes it's just myopia. There is a lot of propaganda about abortion and people can be persuaded to buy into the notion that politicians get a free pass on everything else as long as they project an anti-abortion image/message. If one really cares more about quality of life than anything else, then one should support politicians who want to:

 

1. Reduce social stratification.

2. Reduce prejudice of all forms (nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.)

3. Reduce overpopulation.

 

Really, it all comes down, in the end, to stratification. Even prejudice tends to be a function of that. By keeping others down, via prejudice against their class/group... Overpopulation is linked to poverty (stratification). The lower a country's average income, the higher the fertility and mortality rates are.

 

Obama seems to me to be the best choice of the candidates right now when it comes to stratification. Do I expect a huge improvement? No. But, it's hard to do worse than Bush.

 

The only thing a candidate should represent, before anything else, is the elimination of the fact that 1% of the population, both in the USA and in the world as a whole, hoards 40% of the financial wealth. That's stratification, and the origin of the majority of human suffering. (Money/greed truly IS the root of evil...)

 

If the hoarding/exploitation/greed model is replaced with fairness, then the consumption/waste model also goes out the window and is replaced by environmentalism and progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'll need to take into account the environmental degradation policies of Republicans like Bush if you care about human welfare/suffering more than any other issues, which appears to be the case. Bush exempted the number one (by far) source of mercury pollution, power companies, from his Trojan Horse "tough new anti-mercury pollution regulation". He also has tried to roll back all sorts of environmental regulations from the Clinton years. As a Texas governor, he used the illogical "voluntary regulation" and carried that thinking over to his presidency.

 

It's unacceptable to abort pregancies but acceptable to poison mothers and their children with mercury and arsenic? What about Bush's pull out of nuke treaties and decision to begin testing more nukes? His "underground" testing shoots radioactive pollution into the atmosphere.

 

Overpopulation reduces quality of life and so that must also be taken into account. Bush's anti-contraception anti-sex education policies lead to higher unwanted pregnacy rates and thus higher abortion and overpopulation. People myopically obsess about the symptom (abortion), but never the causes. Ashcroft, Bush's first-term attorney general, sued doctors and nurses for providing birth control for poor women. He tried to get the doctors barred from practicing medicine. Abortion is not a silver bullet issue that makes a Democrat unacceptable. The "pro-business (pro rich people)" attitude of the Republican party means less food safety, overpopulation, more poverty, and more pollution.

 

I don't favor the abortion of fetuses, either. However, there are larger issues involved. Why aren't condoms readily available in schools? Why isn't sex education being promoted, instead of the "abstinence only" nonsense which is scientifically proven to not work. Keeping kids ignorant about sex and making them go to great lengths to buy condoms is not going to lead to lower abortion rates. Guess what happens when abortion is made illegal? The rich go to Europe to have them and the poor use coat hangers, dirty secret clinics, and picnic tables.

 

The other thing... as animalistic as it may sound. Some babies are better off being aborted, particularly with Republican policies that increase the number of poor and imprisoned. I've seen the results of unwanted pregancies where the mothers/fathers drink, abuse drugs, beat their children, etc. Many of the kids, if they survive, end up homeless or have birth defects. Also, where is the compassion for the huge number of {censored} kids who are thrown out of their homes by their parents because of religious nonsense? Why do people focus on unborn fetuses so much but don't care much about actual kids being thrown out like trash?

So you're addressing the issue...by ignoring it? Typical. In case you haven't noticed (and it's apparent that you haven't because you completely fail to address anything I said) I haven't mentioned a normal abortion in this thread. We're talking partial-birth abortions and third-trimester abortions. Not about irrelevant {censored} like overpopulation, because usually stabbing a baby in the back of the skull with scissors after pulling it halfway out of the mother isn't the best way to deal with overpopulation. It's these abortions that are absolutely the most disgusting things I've ever seen. And FYI, not just "conservatives" are against partial-birth abortion - it also happens that the Supreme Court ruled against it. All science points to the fact that the fetus feels everything and it is the same as stabbing any other human in the back of the head with scissors. To vote against a ban on partial-birth abortions is not only sick and ignorant. You can not address what I said and be like "OH WELL BUSH DID THINGS TOO," or you could actually take a look at the presidential candidates and what they support - a somewhat more relevant topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good.

If you have more money, you should be taxed more - makes sense to me, works fine over here.

What you could do is get rid of those SUVs you don't need and get a sensible car, that way, you will save a lot of money.

 

Clinton and Obama don't have strong enough environmental policies (ie, carbon taxing, massively increased renewables, huge government funding for alternative fuels, seizing profits of oil companies, etc, etc)

 

Al Gore ;) (pfft, I wish)

We are taxed enough. Over 50% of the money we make goes to the state. And to be honest the small cars we buy are the expensive. Our GMC cost us about 35k 5 years ago. Luckily this car is old and is going to be replaced by the 1st GMC hybrid coming out of the retail place near our house. Our BMW M5, which costs 110k, has less fuel economy and is way smaller. I want McCain to win. If Huckabee wasn't religious I would vote for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are taxed enough. Over 50% of the money we make goes to the state. And to be honest the small cars we buy are the expensive. Our GMC cost us about 35k 5 years ago. Luckily this car is old and is going to be replaced by the 1st GMC hybrid coming out of the retail place near our house. Our BMW M5, which costs 110k, has less fuel economy and is way smaller. I want McCain to win. If Huckabee wasn't religious I would vote for him.

 

McCain is no different than Hitlery or Obama. I think I'm going to end up voting independant this year just to register my distaste with the "best" America has to offer. They are ALL pro big-government. And that scares me. Any time the government takes over something, it takes away the individual's freedoms. And as we all know, when the government takes over something, like say healthcare, it's extremely efficient, and would allow for tax cuts... Just look at social security, that's going SWELL!

Face it, the government is set up to serve itself, not the people. I can make better choices for myself than Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, or John McCain can. And I'd wager you can make better choices in your life than they can for you. Of course this comes down to the crux of the conservative vs. liberal argument. It takes responsibility to live a life of freedom. Noone should have to hand me money because I was late three days in a row and got fired. Noone should have to give me healthcare because I bought new rims with my savings and "can't afford it" And you know what? That's fine with me. Getting a paycheck every two weeks isn't a right, it's a result. Same goes for healthcare, it's not a right. It's a choice. Take care of yourself, so the government doesn't have to, because when Big Brother steps in, noone wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pro big government.
Guess what the smallest form of government is? Anarchy. This "big" vs. "small" government stuff is pointless. Bush's spending is big, bigger than any president in history. Does that qualify as "big government"?
stabbing a baby in the back of the skull.
We've been through that already. First of all, not everyone defines an unborn fetus as a child or baby. Some consider it a fetus. I personally think abortion should only be legal as long as the unborn fetus is unable to survive outside the womb (without fancy equipment). But, that's my opinion.You have to look at the points I made, particularly concerning the causes of abortions, instead of just focusing on the horror of the act. Most analysts have noted that partial birth abortion bans are designed as a stepping stone to make abortion completely illegal. Some, like Ashcroft, don't want people to even use contraceptives.If you want to minimize abortions, this is what you can do:

 

1. Make contraceptives extremely easy to obtain. This includes the Morning After pill, although pre-conception contraceptives that protect against STDs should be the first priority.

 

2. Provide high-quality sex ed in schools, not abstinence propaganda. It's fine to teach kids about the dangers of sex, but withholding information isn't education.

 

3. Minimize social stratification. The poorer a person is, the more likely that person will have an unwanted pregnancy. This is likely the most important factor.

 

4. Make it less expensive and difficult to adopt. Right now a crack head can have a baby but a normal person has to go through a million hoops and a lot of money to adopt.

 

5. Reduce the American irrational fear/loathing of the human body that leads to risky behavior. Janet Jackson's nipple should not be a cause of controversy, fines, or scandal.

 

6. Remember picnic tables, coat hangers, dirty alley/back room ORs, and trips to Europe before posting about scissors.

 

7. Reduce homophobia so teenage boys can once again mess around with each other without anxiety about being called {censored}. There are studies that have found that the level of this anxiety among teenage boys has increased so dramatically that the rate of same-sex adolescent activity has plummeted (as compared to the 1940s, for instance). Some cultures have historically found that teenage boys, when given such an outlet, can better control unwanted pregnancy until they get married. Unfortunately, this solution is complicated by STDs, so sex education and condoms are more important than ever.

 

----

 

If it were truly possible to have a late-term abortion ban without having it be a Trojan Horse for a total ban and without the health of mothers being ignored, then I'd support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've been through that already. First of all, not everyone defines an unborn fetus as a child or baby. Some consider it a fetus. I personally think abortion should only be legal as long as the unborn fetus is unable to survive outside the womb (without fancy equipment). But, that's my opinion.You have to look at the points I made, particularly concerning the causes of abortions, instead of just focusing on the horror of the act. Most analysts have noted that partial birth abortion bans are designed as a stepping stone to make abortion completely illegal.

 

If it were truly possible to have a late-term abortion ban without having it be a Trojan Horse for a total ban and without the health of mothers being ignored, then I'd support it.

 

Wow, do you have any idea what a partial-BIRTH abortion is? The baby is BORN when they stab it in the back of the head with scissors - it CAN survive outside the mother because it IS born. The only reason it's called PARTIAL-birth is because the doctor only pulls it halfway out of the mother so that he can stab it without having to see it. Now that I hope I've made that clear for you - although I highly doubt you'll ever get it - maybe you can see that even if you don't consider it a human until it's been born and could survive on its own, (a minority position both in the scientific and political world - most call it a human at viability or gestation) then, even according to your logic, it's stabbing a full human in the back of the head with scissors.

 

Yes going after the causes IS important, but first we should ban any practices that are as barbaric as that.

 

Oh, and partial-birth abortions ARE banned, FYI. No SANE person has ever been for partial-birth abortions - the bill was passed in 2003 and upheld by the Supreme Court last year. Some Trojan Horse, hmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are taxed enough. Over 50% of the money we make goes to the state. And to be honest the small cars we buy are the expensive. Our GMC cost us about 35k 5 years ago. Luckily this car is old and is going to be replaced by the 1st GMC hybrid coming out of the retail place near our house. Our BMW M5, which costs 110k, has less fuel economy and is way smaller. I want McCain to win. If Huckabee wasn't religious I would vote for him.

 

That's because the M5 is a high performance car - that is an unfair comparison.

Just because it is a hybrid, doesn't make it good.

 

You are an only child?

They why don't you get a hatch back? They easily do 50+ MPG and cost much, much less.

 

And don't say you *need* a car to take all the stuff back and forth between your many houses, as I will say that you don't *need* more than one house

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4. Make it less expensive and difficult to adopt. Right now a crack head can have a baby but a normal person has to go through a million hoops and a lot of money to adopt.

Yeah, adoption is waay to difficult at the moment.

1. Make contraceptives extremely easy to obtain. This includes the Morning After pill, although pre-conception contraceptives that protect against STDs should be the first priority.

If contraceptives were easier to obtain, a lot of abortions wouldn't be happening.

2. Provide high-quality sex ed in schools, not abstinence propaganda. It's fine to teach kids about the dangers of sex, but withholding information isn't education.

Kids (and people) are going to have sex. Pretending that they won't isn't helping fight STDs or stop unwanted pregnancies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's because the M5 is a high performance car - that is an unfair comparison.

Just because it is a hybrid, doesn't make it good.

 

You are an only child?

They why don't you get a hatch back? They easily do 50+ MPG and cost much, much less.

 

And don't say you *need* a car to take all the stuff back and forth between your many houses, as I will say that you don't *need* more than one house

Sorry I need a 4 wheel drive car. And one that can sit more than 6 people. Unlike some people I have these things called "friends." And sometimes these "friends" are lazy and want to be driven around. And because I have a house, that according to you shouldn't exist, they need to be driven up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry I need a 4 wheel drive car. And one that can sit more than 6 people. Unlike some people I have these things called "friends." And sometimes these "friends" are lazy and want to be driven around. And because I have a house, that according to you shouldn't exist, they need to be driven up there.

 

 

What a lame excuse. Can't they get the bus or are they too snotty and upper class too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess what the smallest form of government is? Anarchy. This "big" vs. "small" government stuff is pointless. Bush's spending is big, bigger than any president in history. Does that qualify as "big government"?We've been through that already. First of all, not everyone defines an unborn fetus as a child or baby. Some consider it a fetus. I personally think abortion should only be legal as long as the unborn fetus is unable to survive outside the womb (without fancy equipment). But, that's my opinion.You have to look at the points I made, particularly concerning the causes of abortions, instead of just focusing on the horror of the act. Most analysts have noted that partial birth abortion bans are designed as a stepping stone to make abortion completely illegal. Some, like Ashcroft, don't want people to even use contraceptives.If you want to minimize abortions, this is what you can do:

 

1. Make contraceptives extremely easy to obtain. This includes the Morning After pill, although pre-conception contraceptives that protect against STDs should be the first priority.

 

2. Provide high-quality sex ed in schools, not abstinence propaganda. It's fine to teach kids about the dangers of sex, but withholding information isn't education.

 

3. Minimize social stratification. The poorer a person is, the more likely that person will have an unwanted pregnancy. This is likely the most important factor.

 

4. Make it less expensive and difficult to adopt. Right now a crack head can have a baby but a normal person has to go through a million hoops and a lot of money to adopt.

 

5. Reduce the American irrational fear/loathing of the human body that leads to risky behavior. Janet Jackson's nipple should not be a cause of controversy, fines, or scandal.

 

6. Remember picnic tables, coat hangers, dirty alley/back room ORs, and trips to Europe before posting about scissors.

 

7. Reduce homophobia so teenage boys can once again mess around with each other without anxiety about being called {censored}. There are studies that have found that the level of this anxiety among teenage boys has increased so dramatically that the rate of same-sex adolescent activity has plummeted (as compared to the 1940s, for instance). Some cultures have historically found that teenage boys, when given such an outlet, can better control unwanted pregnancy until they get married. Unfortunately, this solution is complicated by STDs, so sex education and condoms are more important than ever.

 

----

 

If it were truly possible to have a late-term abortion ban without having it be a Trojan Horse for a total ban and without the health of mothers being ignored, then I'd support it.

 

Superstition, I have found it very difficult for me to disagree with almost anything you've had to say on this forum so far. Its great!

 

On abortion I totally agree with you.

 

I would also like to point out to others that partial birth abortions and third trimester abortions are extremely rare, the vast majority of people believe that this is wrong. The only reason why some people are hesitant to outlaw that part of it is because it would then pave the way to ban it completely.

 

the vast majority of people who get abortions get them within the first trimester, when the fetus is not even close to developed.

 

The abortion argument will never be won however on one side or the other, and the reason for this is a difference in definition. People who are ok with abortion (such as myself) do not see a fetus as a PERSON, it is a potential person, something that is developing into a person, but until biology has completed its task, it is not a full person.

 

People however who are AGAINST abortion do see the fetus as a full person, so trying to argue to them that abortion is ok will only end in futility.

 

The one thing however that REALLY gets to me is that these people who are against abortions are also against contraception, comprehensive sex education, etc. which has been found worldwide to drastically reduce abortions.

 

There is something else at play here, its that essentially these two kinds of people live in two completely different worlds, they lenses through which they see the world are metaphorically different colors. We either have to choose to live in a world where we look to the future, use science, use technology, multiculturalism, adapt to the changing world, or we have to choose to do what many nations throughout the past has tried to do at one point or another (unsuccessfully I might add) and that is to try to make everybody act like us, think like us, and die like us. I choose the former.

 

HOWEVER, Back to the issue at hand! One thing also that Barack Obama has said has really impressed me. At the start of his candidacy and after, he has repeatedly said "After this election, if you just go and sit down in front of the TV and stop taking action, no matter who is in office, NOTHING will change, you have to stay involved, etc etc etc."

 

Other proposals hes had (whether they will succeed or not) have been focusing around the idea of "we'll help you out with __________ if you do community service, volunteer at a hospital, etc." One concrete example of Obama saying something like this i when he said "We will invest in young people in this country. They will get a $4000 dollar credit a year to go to college, this wont be free however, you are going to have to work for it, by volunteering at a homeless shelter, blank blank, etc." This is the kind of politics we need in Washington. Politics of "you can have the good life if you contribute to your society in a meaningful way". I realize that many of these programs would require tax revenue for them to actually become a reality, Obama's stance on generating this money has been that he would raise the caps on taxes, meaning that rich people would have to pay more taxes, and that money would be reinvested back into the middle class. And to be honest, that is 100% ok with me. There shouldn't be caps on taxes anyway. How does it make any sense that the more money you make the less taxes you pay? How can anybody argue with that? And NO, Reaganomics (giving money to the rich with the intention of it trickling down to the poor) do NOT work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Announcements

×