Political Mortal Kombat: Obama vs. Paul

[Jake=Suck]

since Barak Obama and Ron Paul won for their respective parties in the other threads who would you vote for between the two?

[Iskandar]

Obama.

[Jake=Suck]

I said Paul, and quite frankly im suprised someone else did, i figured that this would be a landslide, of course it still could be.

[Iskandar]

Ron Paul is an Internet trend.

[Against Miik!]

Ron Paul is the only Republican that can defeat a Democrat.

[Iskandar]

Yes.

[Mr. Ron]

Ive been researching Obama lately and my opinion has changed about him, I rather like his stances on things.


But I will always prefer Kucinich.

[Jake=Suck]

Ive been researching Obama lately and my opinion has changed about him, I rather like his stances on things.


But I will always prefer Kucinich.

I wouldnt mind Kucinich winning, he seems like a decent honest guy... well at least as decent and honest as politicians get here.

[CameoRole]

I agree, Ron Paul is just rumours on the internets. It's kids who think they're superiour by not being Democrats deciding to side with the best Republican on the field who still isn't good at all, socially speaking at least. FWIW, Gravel is better than Obama but he stands no chance. I'd rather have Edwards or Obama than Hillary though. So yeah, if it's between Paul and Obama, I'm going Obama.

[BridgeToSolace]

Snakes On A Plane has shown us that internet popularity does not amount to anything in reality. I doubt that Ron Paul will get much farther than he is in the polls.

[Jake=Suck]

It's kids who think they're superiour by not being Democrats deciding to side with the best Republican on the field who still isn't good at all, socially speaking at least.
If anyting i feel inferior because im a republican, the only way a republican will win this race is if another popular dem runs as an independent and splits the democratic vote... and even then i doubt a republican would win.

[dei]

Ive been researching Obama lately and my opinion has changed about him, I rather like his stances on things.


But I will always prefer Kucinich.

Same. I like Obama but I prefer Kucinich.

[Against Miik!]

Kucinich is a hero were I live. I live like down the street from his HQ.

[CameoRole]

If anyting i feel inferior because im a republican, the only way a republican will win this race is if another popular dem runs as an independent and splits the democratic vote... and even then i doubt a republican would win.

Wait until the primaries finish, all the Republicans are winning head to head polls, just the Dems are getting more air time. But what I'm saying is, you have a lot of asshat kids who choose to be 'intellectually superiour' by goin for a 'true' Republican. It's lame and it's the internets and it just sucks.

[BridgeToSolace]

Kucinich is a hero were I live. I live like down the street from his HQ.

Plus, his wife is BANGIN'!

[Jake=Suck]

Wait until the primaries finish, all the Republicans are winning head to head polls, just the Dems are getting more air time. But what I'm saying is, you have a lot of asshat kids who choose to be 'intellectually superiour' by goin for a 'true' Republican. It's lame and it's the internets and it just sucks.

now that i can agree with.

[RNR]

I think that the Republican party has done a fantastic job of disassociating their current primaries from the current, unpopular president. However, it's the Republican party itself that controls the president's every action. I have no idea how anyone expects any Republican candidate to be better than Bush. The president is always just a puppet. Elect a party, not a man, people.

[StrangeVision]

Plus, his wife is BANGIN'!

Pics?

[dei]

http://www.offrampbums.com/kucinich.jpg

He's 60, she's 30.

[Reaganista]

nader
However, it's the Republican party itself that controls the president's every action. I have no idea how anyone expects any Republican candidate to be better than Bush. The president is always just a puppet.
you couldnt possibly be serious

[siva_chair]

Ron Paul is an Internet trend.

Obama is a fad as well.

I agree, Ron Paul is just rumours on the internets.

Except his voting record shows these "rumors on the internet" to be true. His voting record shows that he means what he says.

It's kids who think they're superiour by not being Democrats deciding to side with the best Republican on the field who still isn't good at all, socially speaking at least.

Or they actually agree with his policy.

And he isn't socially good at all only if you are a facist. The man is socially very liberal.

[StrangeVision]

I just saw an interview and found out she's British. He married a British chick half his age who is half a foot taller. God Damn.

[CameoRole]

Obama is a fad as well.



Except his voting record shows these "rumors on the internet" to be true. His voting record shows that he means what he says.



Or they actually agree with his policy.

And he isn't socially good at all only if you are a facist. The man is socially very liberal.

And you know most DONT agree with his policy, and are just supporting him for reasons I said. I personally cannot stand behind calling a man socially liberal who opposes same-sex marriage, even if he leaves the decision up to the state. That's something that should be nationally mandated as legal. Same with abortions. Etc. I'm not saying Paul ain't consistent about his beliefs and I respect his steadfastness and refusal to politic himself with wishy-washiness, but all the net support he is nerds trying to be better than the people who put them down with supposed intellectual superiourity.

[The Stig]

Ron Paul would be a great candidate except for his foriegn policy issues. I'mm probably be voting for him come November '08.

[Iskandar]

Obama is a fad as well.Yeah, I know.

[The Stig]

Paul also has Obama far beaten in the experience department. Obama showed he has very little clue with his comments about Pakistan earlier in the summer. Someone who makes such a rash statement just to appear like he has some plan for foriegn policy will not get my vote. He could be just as impulsive in office.

[siva_chair]

And you know most DONT agree with his policy, and are just supporting him for reasons I said.

No, I don't know that, because I am not a mind reader.

I personally cannot stand behind calling a man socially liberal who opposes same-sex marriage, even if he leaves the decision up to the state. That's something that should be nationally mandated as legal.

No that should be up to the states. Not that I am personally against it or anything. At least Ron Paul isn't letting his own personal religious beliefs dictate his consistency on issues.

Same with abortions.

No, that is something also best left up to the states.

Etc. I'm not saying Paul ain't consistent about his beliefs and I respect his steadfastness and refusal to politic himself with wishy-washiness, but all the net support he is nerds trying to be better than the people who put them down with supposed intellectual superiourity.

I'm glad you can make such blanket statements about lots of people you don't even know.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Ron Paul's a hack and Obama is a democrat. Both doomed for failure.

[Otherside]

I'd rather have Edwards or Obama than Hillary though.

yup

[siva_chair]

Ron Paul's a hack and Obama is a democrat. Both doomed for failure.

How exactly is he a hack?

[WhoDidTheElf]

The guys hardly a republican. More like moderate democrat with a republican title.

[Iskandar]

Yeah, it's not fair to call him a hack. He believes what he does strongly and he is honest about it.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Meh maybe I should change it to "republican hack." The guys convicted, but he isn't a republican.

[Iskandar]

Meh maybe I should change it to "republican hack." The guys convicted, but he isn't a republican.There are old-style conservatives in the Republican party. It's just that neo-conservatism is the dominant voice.

[ringworm]

is the support for Kucinich real? C'mone, do we really want PINOCCHIO as a leader?
well, at least we could tell when he's lying I guess

http://www.offrampbums.com/kucinich.jpg
http://www.cel-ebration.com/WDCC-PINOCCHIO-I.jpg


i vote Ron knowing he doesnt have a chance

[siva_chair]

The guys hardly a republican. More like moderate democrat with a republican title.

He's more like a traditional Republican, actually. In fact, I would say he is more of an actual Republican than any other Republican running. The Republican party has become the party of big business and big government, when it used to be the other way around.

[Iskandar]

is the support for Kucinich real? C'mone, do we really want PINOCCHIO as a leader?
well, at least we could tell when he's lying I guess

http://www.offrampbums.com/kucinich.jpg
http://www.cel-ebration.com/WDCC-PINOCCHIO-I.jpg


i vote Ron knowing he doesnt have a chanceI find it hard to believe there could be any support for him in a generally conversative climate like the US.

The Republican party has become the party of big business and big government, when it used to be the other way around.Corporatism. It's an essential part of neo-conservatism.

Dammit I hate neo-conservatism.

[lunchforthesky]

Kucinich, Gravel and Nader.

However Obama from the two choices. Ron Paul may have convictions but he's still a dirty racist and prejudiced conservative who'd love nothing more than to abolish taxes and lock up the homeless.

[Iskandar]

I don't think Ron Paul is racist, unless socialists are a race.

[lunchforthesky]

I don't think Ron Paul is racist, unless socialists are a race.

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Zero wont like the last one, although he's not a Paul man anyway.

[Iskandar]

Zero wont like the last one, although he's not a Paul man anyway.I don't think his comment about Zionism was racist at all, although, would try in vain to convince us that it is. Zionists aren't a race.:)

[siva_chair]

Corporatism. It's an essential part of neo-conservatism.

Dammit I hate neo-conservatism.

Not a fan either.

Ron Paul may have convictions but he's still a dirty racist and prejudiced conservative who'd love nothing more than to abolish taxes and lock up the homeless.

1)He's not a racist
2)Abolishing the income tax is beneficial to the majority of Americans
3)I have never seen anything that would suggest he wishes to lock up the poor.

You accusations are ill-founded and frankly, full of ****.

[siva_chair]

Zero wont like the last one, although he's not a Paul man anyway.

He didn't say the first ones, and Zionists aren't a race.

Also:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."---Ron Paul

"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."---Ron Paul

Those don't really sound like the words of a racist to me.

[lunchforthesky]

Not a fan either.



1)He's not a racist
2)Abolishing the income tax is beneficial to the majority of Americans
3)I have never seen anything that would suggest he wishes to lock up the poor.

You accusations are ill-founded and frankly, full of ****.

For someone with your headline it is suprising you fail endlessly to spot a joke.

[lunchforthesky]

"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."---Ron Paul

Those don't really sound like the words of a racist to me.

and this is ridiculous.

Also he contradicts himself by saying these people are not a race they are individuals with similar superficial traits and then preceeding to generalise them by race in his other quotes.

[Iskandar]

"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."---Ron Paul

Those don't really sound like the words of a racist to me.I think it's bs, but that's just me. Pay me no mind.

[siva_chair]

For someone with your headline it is suprising you fail endlessly to spot a joke.

It's pretty hard when there are people out there that actually think he is a racist and do think those things about him.

and this is ridiculous.

Also he contradicts himself by saying these people are not a race they are individuals with similar superficial traits and then preceeding to generalise them by race in his other quotes.

What quotes? The one's you posted? He didn't even say those.

I think it's bs, but that's just me. Pay me no mind.

But of course you do.

[Iskandar]

But of course you do.I think he's overly optimistic about the potential of what the market can accomplish. Assuming it's always more efficient/effective than government is just as bad as assuming government is always more efficient/effective.

[ringworm]

Ron Paul may have convictions but he's still a dirty racist and prejudiced conservative who'd love nothing more than to abolish taxes and lock up the homeless.
lol how long have you had to pay taxes? to those of us that do and have, and in large quantities, that is a HUGE issue

but i guess as soon as Bush's tax cuts end in a few years and the newer Democratic policy's tax program is implemented, we'll all be homeless and more equal? :/

[Iskandar]

lol how long have you had to pay taxes? to those of us that do and have, and in large quantities, that is a HUGE issue

but i guess as soon as Bush's tax cuts end in a few years and the newer Democratic policy's tax program is implemented, we'll all be homeless and more equal? :/Lol@this. Honestly.:)

I don't get tax-abolishing libertarians. Where do they expect government to get its funding? Private initiative?

[lunchforthesky]

lol how long have you had to pay taxes? to those of us that do and have, and in large quantities, that is a HUGE issue

Ad hominem.


but i guess as soon as Bush's tax cuts end in a few years and the newer Democratic policy's tax program is implemented, we'll all be homeless and more equal? :/

Like Scandinavia where they pay plenty tax and the standard of living is hideous right? Oh wait no, it's the best in the world.

[Iskandar]

Like Scandinavia where they pay plenty tax and the standard of living is hideous right? Oh wait no, it's the best in the world.Yes, this is a good example of properly used taxes.

[siva_chair]

Lol@this. Honestly.:)

I don't get tax-abolishing libertarians. Where do they expect government to get its funding? Private initiative?

It isn't all taxes, it is just the income tax.

Hell, if the government would quit wasting so much money, all that would really be needed is a consumption tax and perhaps a corporate income tax.

[siva_chair]

Like Scandinavia where they pay plenty tax and the standard of living is hideous right? Oh wait no, it's the best in the world.

Comparing Scandinavia to America is pretty retarded. They aren't ran the same way and the culture is very different.

[lunchforthesky]

Wow the man supports pulling out of the United Nations. What an idiot.

[lunchforthesky]

Comparing Scandinavia to America is pretty retarded. They aren't ran the same way and the culture is very different.

Never said they were. Also his comment was far more reatarded as he implied large taxes makes people poor which the Scandinavian example shows it does not at all.

[Iskandar]

It isn't all taxes, it is just the income tax.

Hell, if the government would quit wasting so much money, all that would really be needed is a consumption tax and perhaps a corporate income tax.I'd rather they simply started spending more effectively, tbh.

[ringworm]

I don't get tax-abolishing libertarians. Where do they expect government to get its funding? Private initiative?
better use of the funds they grossly mismanage already

Ad hominem.
a big hell no, you cant advocate high taxes if you have never experienced paying them, sorry

and i have no idea about Scandavia, I do have several friends recently transplanted from Sweden, I have no idea how much they have in common, after lengthy discussions about the many differences we have, yes, they had a few programs that were nice, like say, for new parents etc, but they also added how much they paid each year and wished to never return home, except for visiting parents etc.

was this a good overal example/view of Swedens programs, taxes etc, no, but

I will do some research on Scandavia
Comparing Scandinavia to America is pretty retarded. They aren't ran the same way and the culture is very different.
exactly

[siva_chair]

I'd rather they simply started spending more effectively, tbh.

Yeah but why do we need to tax income? Particularly since it hurts the poor and middle classes far more than anyone else.

[Iskandar]

better use of the funds they grossly mismanage alreadyBut they want to drastically cut both taxes and spending.
I will do some research on ScandaviaWell, if the people don't like having to give up some of their money in return for the highest standard of living in the world ...


... they can just GET OUT

:)

Yeah but why do we need to tax income? Particularly since it hurts the poor and middle classes far more than anyone else.That's what graduated taxation is for. Less of a burden on those who are more poor, more from people who can pay.

[ringworm]

But they want to drastically cut both taxes and spending.
which is good?

Well, if the people don't like having to give up some of their money in return for the highest standard of living in the world ...
man, i already give close to half my earnings to them already?

That's what graduated taxation is for. Less of a burden on those who are more poor, more from people who can pay.
yeah, thats a great incentive to live by :/

[lunchforthesky]

a big hell no, you cant advocate high taxes if you have never experienced paying them, sorry

and i have no idea about Scandavia, I do have several friends recently transplanted from Sweden, I have no idea how much they have in common, after lengthy discussions about the many differences we have, yes, they had a few programs that were nice, like say, for new parents etc, but they also added how much they paid each year and wished to never return home, except for visiting parents etc.

was this a good overal example/view of Swedens programs, taxes etc, no, but

I will do some research on Scandavia

exactly

That's so ****ing stupid.

Can poor people not vote on income tax then?

Strictly speaking the rich should have no say either cause while they loose money it doesn't affect them much considering how rich they are.

I've spent more than enough to now how tax feels, we have 17.5% tax on all spending here and even more on the copious amounts of alcohol i've purchased.

[ringworm]

Can poor people not vote on income tax then?
i didnt mean that, i was debating your usage of Ad hominem, which was lame in this case
Strictly speaking the rich should have no say either cause while they loose money it doesn't affect them much considering how rich they are.
ughh
I've spent more than enough to now how tax feels, we have 17.5% tax on all spending here and even more on the copious amounts of alcohol i've purchased.
but we're talking earnings being taxed?
spending taxes, lol

"i buy gum all the time, so i know what I am talking about"
watch your paycheck for a few years, then listen to someone who doesnt work talk about how your money could be used to help them, and see if it doesnt anger you :p

[lunchforthesky]

watch your paycheck for a few years, then listen to someone who doesnt work talk about how your money could be used to help them, and see if it doesnt anger you :p

Except I do work.

[ringworm]

oh, now you say :)

what percentage is taken out and what percentage do you have left over

[lunchforthesky]

oh, now you say :)

what percentage is taken out and what percentage do you have left over

Not a lot seen as i'm part time whilst at Uni. I just scrape into the lowest tax bracket. Probably like 10/15%

[ringworm]

which was my earlier point, that you claimed ad hominen on

get a job, work for SEVERAL years, then tell me that someone who wants to cut taxes isnt attractive to you

and i dont mean ANY of that to be condescending or mean spirited

[lunchforthesky]

which was my earlier point, that you claimed ad hominen on

get a job, work for SEVERAL years, then tell me that someone who wants to cut taxes isnt attractive to you

and i dont mean ANY of that to be condescending or mean spirited

Well it doesn't bother either of my parents. Who earn around £70,000 a year each and continue to vote left wing at every election.

This isn't about being self serving it's about what is good for everyone. You misunderstand the left wing position.

[ringworm]

Well it doesn't bother either of my parents. Who earn around £70,000 a year each and continue to vote left wing at every election.

This isn't about being self serving it's about what is good for everyone. You misunderstand the left wing position.
but increasing what i pay should come last to a broken system

social security is being dipped into to cover expenses, money is wasted, red tape is in the way, but oh, lets increase taxes first to allocate new programs designed for other people, many of whom have no desire to ever contribute

sure there are geniune people in need, current funds and reform should easily cover that, but most Dems/Liberals arent viewed that way, and people like me are viewed as the problem, even though we are the ones that rarely ask for anything from anyone

[dei]

Why would you leave same-sex marriage up to the states?

[The Stig]

Lol@this. Honestly.:)

I don't get tax-abolishing libertarians. Where do they expect government to get its funding? Private initiative?

Abolishing the income tax does not imply abolishing taxes. The Fair Tax is one of the methods of eliminating the income tax. And if he abolishes as many federal programs/departments/agencies as he wants, he can effectively lower other taxes sharply, as there is less to pay for.

Hell, if the government would quit wasting so much money, all that would really be needed is a consumption tax and perhaps a corporate income tax.

You don't understand the concept of corporate income taxes very well, do you?

[lunchforthesky]

but increasing what i pay should come last to a broken system

social security is being dipped into to cover expenses, money is wasted, red tape is in the way, but oh, lets increase taxes first to allocate new programs designed for other people, many of whom have no desire to ever contribute

sure there are geniune people in need, current funds and reform should easily cover that, but most Dems/Liberals arent viewed that way, and people like me are viewed as the problem, even though we are the ones that rarely ask for anything from anyone

I'm not going to bother arguing this. There is no right or wrong or ground to be gained, we just completely disagree.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Nothing could be worse than the neo-cons who are in power at the moment, IMO. Actually, they could, but all the candidates are better than Bush and his assorted cronies, so I don't mind as much as before when Al Gore won the election. (v. good candidate loses against v. bad candidate IMO). Now it's a case of not so bad candidate vs fairly good candidate.

Obama all the way though. Except he is totally against any sort of US involvement in foreign affairs as far as I can see. i.e. if it was him in place of Clinton in the 90s we would not have had US peacekeepers in Kosovo and Bosnia, unstable parts of Africa and Asia, etc. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And being an idiot. btw I could be wrong I don't keep that in tune with US politics (less variation than in the UK and Europe IMO) so don't attack harshly if I am wrong.

[The Stig]

Obama said he would invade Pakistan in a heartbeat if he felt they supported terrorism.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Seeing as this has strayed into taxation. Yes, the US government wastes a lot of money.

The thing that I think is a total misuse of taxpayers/government money is the contracting of anything and everything out to private corporations, with a lack of oversight or competition (thus negating the whole point of privatisation i.e. competition will theoretically reduce prices, increase efficiency, etc), as this is just lining the pockets of the owners and executives of large companies with taxpayers money. I don't know about anyone else, but I would like my taxes to go towards either increasing public goods or reducing public bads (or rather, a bit of both) rather than paying loads out to companies in what amounts to cross subsidy, whilst not providing adequate public services (health, education, support for those who are disadvantaged so as to make the country more meritocratic, etc.)

If we scrap privatisation (which contrary to right wing doctrine has in many cases increased prices for the citizen while they still often pay for it in tax for subsidy) of things such as the military (PMCs), we will save so much taxpayer money. This is relatively simple to do - all it takes is the right administration to come to power.

What may take longer is increasing efficiency, reducing "red tape" (in many cases misused as a catch-all just as "political correctness" is in the UK), etc., will require a lot of reorganisation of the machinery of the state, and possibly the state itself, which is not only harder and involving more major changes but also harder to direct from a political point of view - it need managerial know-how amongst other things and (I would think) be incredibly hard for one person or group of people to oversee. Therefore I think saying taht cutting down on government waste should be a priority, but given that it will not be an immediate or complete process it may be necessary to raise taxes in the short or medium term to ensure that the things taxes are paying for are provided adequately in the mean time; things like improving healthcare and education cannot wait.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Obama said he would invade Pakistan in a heartbeat if he felt they supported terrorism.

Oh dear. We're gonna be in for a rough ride then :\

No to peacekeeping but yes to invasion. Good choice MX. And me. Damn. I think any American president would consider invasion of terrorist supporting nations.

Actually, come to think of it, I think it would be political suicide to launch another Iraq-type campaign, both in the USA and in terms of international relations, not to mention impossible given the situation with US troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. And also the USA would almost certainly not succeed IMO.

edit: he said he would. makes more sense, he probs wants to just show is a hard-nut to appeal to those who are scared of terrorism, and to show he is not soft on crime etc, and people in the middle bits of the USA with an unhealthy attraction to firearms.

I say we want either Mr. Clinton (the ex-president, I forget his name but want to call him George) or Al Gore as president. Too bad Al Gore won (I mean lost -?) the election in 2000. Oh I love democracy.

[Iscariot]

http://www.offrampbums.com/kucinich.jpg

He's 60, she's 30.

i don't think she's hot at all :\\\

i vote obama

[siva_chair]

Why would you leave same-sex marriage up to the states?

Because the states are the one's who issue marriage licenses.

You don't understand the concept of corporate income taxes very well, do you?

Sure I do.

[The Stig]

So you would understand that raising corporate taxes would just raise the price of goods and that the corporations don't pay anything. It's passed onto the consumer. Thus, eliminating income taxes and replacing them with a corporate tax would only drive up prices for goods, and we'd still be paying them as consumers.

And there would be no prebate program or flat rate like with the proposed Fair Tax.

[siva_chair]

So you would understand that raising corporate taxes would just raise the price of goods and that the corporations don't pay anything. It's passed onto the consumer. Thus, eliminating income taxes and replacing them with a corporate tax would only drive up prices for goods, and we'd still be paying them as consumers.

And there would be no prebate program or flat rate like with the proposed Fair Tax.

This is a nice incentive to purchase things from small businesses and help fight against monopolies. Plus, if a free market were to happen, prices would be kept down due to technological advances and competition.

I am certainly not against the Fair Tax (quite the contrary, as long as spending cuts come along with it). And, a corporate income tax would probably be unneccessary if the Fair Tax plan were to be implemented effectively, but I would much rather some Corporation be taxed then my labor wages.

[Shred Danson]

Seeing as how the American public is comprised mostly of IDIOTS, I'd say Obama would win this one on 2 counts:

1). He's young and (half) black. He'd be a "historic" president.
2). He's a democrat.

There's not that much that's endearing about him really :-/

[Iscariot]

Seeing as how the American public is comprised mostly of IDIOTS, I'd say Obama would win this one on 2 counts:

1). He's young and (half) black. He'd be a "historic" president.
2). He's a democrat.

There's not that much that's endearing about him really :-/

speaking of idiots what makes you think the american public would vote for obama on the basis that he's black that of all things is a typical deterrent for voters who want to see an upstanding white man in office

let's go out on a limb here and say that obama's policies are actually worth supporting instead of sitting here going, "rawr rawr rawr i'm an angry republican don't vote for that negro"

[The Stig]

This is a nice incentive to purchase things from small businesses and help fight against monopolies. Plus, if a free market were to happen, prices would be kept down due to technological advances and competition.

I am certainly not against the Fair Tax (quite the contrary, as long as spending cuts come along with it). And, a corporate income tax would probably be unneccessary if the Fair Tax plan were to be implemented effectively, but I would much rather some Corporation be taxed then my labor wages.

Valid points, but what I'm saying is that you will still be bearing the burden of paying that corporate tax.

[Iskandar]

which is good?Not necessarily. What's much better is spending properly.
And if he abolishes as many federal programs/departments/agencies as he wants, he can effectively lower other taxes sharply, as there is less to pay forThere would be consequences to abolishing a ton of federal programs.

[The Stig]

Such as greater efficiency in education and less welfare abuse.

[Iscariot]

and less delay in the processing of government information

[Iskandar]

Such as greater efficiency in education and less welfare abuse.Effectiveness is more important than efficiency in education. I see a lot of libertarians talking about efficiency, but it's only one side of the coin in economics.

[The Stig]

Efficiency breeds effectiveness. Why do you think private schools (which as a whole cost far less per student to run) produce better students?

[Iskandar]

Efficiency breeds effectiveness. Why do you think private schools (which as a whole cost far less per student to run) produce better students?Their students are richer.

[Sephate]

Obama said he would invade Pakistan in a heartbeat if he felt they supported terrorism.

He didn't actually say anything of the sort. I presume that you're talking about this speech, and particularly these paragraphs.


As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

If you actually read that it's completely clear what he's saying - if the US knows where senior Al Qaeda figures are within Pakistan, and the ISI can't or won't get them, then the US will get them themselves. This is current US policy. The US has carried out special operations in countries without permission from the governments of those countries in question when they believe high-value terrorists to be there. It's not actually even controversial.

Now, let's look at the alternative. That would be Obama saying that if the US knew where terrorists were in Pakistan but the Pakistani government wouldn't do anything about it, then the US would ask Pakistan to reconsider its decision and do something about the terrorists that the US could point to on a map. Does that actually sound like something you'd want a President to do? Does it sound like something that anyone running for President (other than a fringe candidate) would ever actually say? Of course it doesn't. Obama hasn't once advocated invading Pakistan, and all he's actually proposed is a policy that is very obvious.

[Reaganista]

Efficiency breeds effectiveness. Why do you think private schools (which as a whole cost far less per student to run) produce better students?
by not being required to accept every student
wtf kind of question is that

[clairvoyant]

Wow the man supports pulling out of the United Nations. What an idiot.

Who?

[Knifeboy]

It would be awesome if Ron Paul won, and abolished all the things he wants to get rid of... Then America would crash into the ground, and a sane person could take over and rebuild everything from scratch!