We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
McCain vs. Obama; Round 3! Fight!
Topic Started: Oct 15 2008, 08:05 PM (4,203 Views)
Brian
Member Avatar
Go Irish!

Stephen
Oct 28 2008, 03:34 PM
Brian
Oct 28 2008, 10:20 AM
Btw, it was just a recording of an actor calling to promote Obama. Didn't listen to anything past the intro as I'm not forming my opinion based on a phone message.
If I call and tell you to vote Obama would that work? :r
Already voted so any calls from either side are wasting their time.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stephen
Member Avatar
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.

early vote eh? cool.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kezzie
Member Avatar
Elle the elephant
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How does that work actually? I've never heard of early voting before.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stephen
Member Avatar
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.

Hazel
Oct 28 2008, 03:56 PM
How does that work actually? I've never heard of early voting before.
Apparently all states have the object of mailing in absentee ballots. This is if you will be out of state on election day. But there are quite a few states now (30+ I believe) that have early voting centers. Which is pretty much just what it sounds like. Voting centers where you can submit your vote early.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
I'm a permanent absentee voter. Meaning, they always send me the ballot, I complete it at my leisure, and mail it back in. Voila, over and done, no standing in lines.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
==Kyuubi==
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Jeremy
Oct 28 2008, 12:40 AM
Brian
Oct 27 2008, 11:43 AM
Also, an interesting article on the tax proposals of the two candidates - http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/magazines/fortune/tully_henrys.fortune/index.htm
If you make over $250,000/year and you "feel middle-class" that means you're living beyond your means and trying to be more rich than you are. I know people who are making less than $100,000/year, are saving for a really comfortable retirement, and have done what they need to put multiple children through college at the same time. And they're doing just fine.

All I'm reading is a bunch of damn whining. These people need to learn how to spend their money and stop squandering it away, if they really feel that badly.
For me it's not about whether I'm poor and he's rich, it about the federal government digging into the pockets of people whose money should stay in their pockets. The wealthy want to hang on to their profits, and many of the poor just want a free ride. Both have a sense of entitlement. If you want to "spread the wealth", try penalizing the Large corporation owners (CEO's) who take unnecessary risks that place their employees' positions in economic jeopardy, while reaping benefits for the failure they inflict in bad business practices, rather than target an entire demographic that actually works for their keep and earns responsibly.

The people who reward themselves for failure, and those who claim to be victims that should be taken care of by the rich are too busy bickering over how wealth should be forcibly redistributed rather than actually thinking about what they can do to help the country. This is the essence of the country we have become. Everybody wants something for themselves or creates the argument about how much they deserve. As far as I am concerned, any candidate who can arbitrarily select a random number for what he defines as wealthy has little understanding in the principal that people pay taxes... not corporations, unless you expect buildings to start paying bills.

ETA: And neither party seems content with resolving the issue... all I know is spreading the wealth does nothing to create new wealth and if anything, other problems such as outsourcing will only be exasperated when larger firms decide to move base overseas in response to such a philosophy.

Edited by ==Kyuubi==, Oct 28 2008, 10:07 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nivexonix
Member Avatar
Love
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A few people I know sent in for Absentee ballots because they may not be able to make it. Really, I'm glad there are so many options open. It'll give people a chance to get out before the polls close.

With the "spread the wealth" idea, I think too many people are taking it way too far. It's absurd to call that socialism, in my mind. I was talking with a friend today, who makes quite a lot of money. They brought up the idea that their lifestyle would change. Yes, it'll change. But, if you can't really accept living in a diminished standard, then you live a corrupt life. So many people go through so much in their life. It's as if America is greedy. If I can help someone else out, I will. I don't see why it is so hard to accept that. :ermm:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Lone Stranger (S)
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
One last post just because I think that some people need a clarification of what a socialism is..

Quote:
 
With the "spread the wealth" idea, I think too many people are taking it way too far. It's absurd to call that socialism, in my mind.

You do realize that a socialism is just that: spreading the wealth. The very idea of a socialism is based on equality for everyone - that includes pay. A true socialism would mean complete control of the economy (which the government is trying to do), set prices (haven't seen this one yet), and.. oh yea! Equal pay for everyone.

So the reason why people are calling him/his idea socialistic is because it is. So please, read up.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Justin-ZNS
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Lone Stranger
Oct 30 2008, 02:07 AM
One last post just because I think that some people need a clarification of what a socialism is..

Quote:
 
With the "spread the wealth" idea, I think too many people are taking it way too far. It's absurd to call that socialism, in my mind.

You do realize that a socialism is just that: spreading the wealth. The very idea of a socialism is based on equality for everyone - that includes pay. A true socialism would mean complete control of the economy (which the government is trying to do), set prices (haven't seen this one yet), and.. oh yea! Equal pay for everyone.

So the reason why people are calling him/his idea socialistic is because it is. So please, read up.
Then I suppose Alaska qualifies as socialist, right? After all, Palin pretty much called it such:

http://europeendless.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/contours-of-the-realm/
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Lone Stranger (S)
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The difference is that a President has more power than a VP. Therefore, unless McCain dies, it wouldn't matter if she has socialistic views (which I have never really heard her say).

Further, there is a difference between having a terminal cancer and just having a history of cancer, for those of you who think he is just going to die. Example: my grandfather has a terminal illness. He was given a year to live. It's been 2 years since the doctor said that. (Though he seriously is getting worse every day.) Whereas, my old Biology teacher HAD skin cancer. She is still alive and kicking. Er, maybe not kicking, but she is alive and doing well, anyways.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Justin-ZNS
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Lone Stranger
Oct 30 2008, 02:18 AM
The difference is that a President has more power than a VP. Therefore, unless McCain dies, it wouldn't matter if she has socialistic views (which I have never really heard her say).

Further, there is a difference between having a terminal cancer and just having a history of cancer, for those of you who think he is just going to die. Example: my grandfather has a terminal illness. He was given a year to live. It's been 2 years since the doctor said that. (Though he seriously is getting worse every day.) Whereas, my old Biology teacher HAD skin cancer. She is still alive and kicking. Er, maybe not kicking, but she is alive and doing well, anyways.
Oh, you have GOT to be kidding. You will go to the ends of the earth to crucify Obama for being a socialist, but it's a-ok for Palin? Are you crazy?! She's a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world, her viewpoints are every bit as important as McCains.

And what does the cancer bit have to do with anything? Did I miss a post earlier? ^o)

Edit: Read the story. She said herself that "So we [Alaska] share in the wealth". That, according to all your posts, is textbook socialism - sharing/spreading the wealth.
Edited by Justin-ZNS, Oct 30 2008, 02:23 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Lone Stranger (S)
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh please. That's not socialism. Sharing the wealth of oil companies that willingly.. WILLINGLY.. pay is a bit different that FORCIBLY taking hard earned money and then giving it to the "poor".

There is a big difference Justin and I think that you know it.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
TheLetterQ
Member Avatar
I want to break free from your lies/ your so self-satisfied/ I don't need you
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Your hypocrisy is absolutely amazing. Whats the difference between spreading the wealth and sharing it exactly? Sure oil companies willingly pay it, but its not like they have a choice. Either they pay the taxes, or no Alaskan oil. By your definition of willingly then everyone willingly pays taxes, because we can always go somewhere else. So.... whats the difference again?
Edited by TheLetterQ, Oct 30 2008, 02:31 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Lone Stranger (S)
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
It's the same for the rich. But they have an alternative; pay the taxes, or take their money outside the country. I believe that may be why they do it..

Back on-topic. Would you rather someone willingly give you a present for your birthday, or be forced to? The oil companies are willing to pay the taxes that go to everyone. Why? They get something out of it: money. The taxes are a small amount to pay for the large amount of income their company gets.

Now, Obama wants to instead force the rich to pay taxes. It's either they pay the taxes, or they move out of the country/go to jail. There are plenty of places for an oil company to drill, but no so many places for a person to make good money. Thus, they are forced to pay their taxes or leave.

So yes, the oil companies have a choice. The rich do too, but not as big of one.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Justin-ZNS
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Lone Stranger
Oct 30 2008, 02:27 AM
Oh please. That's not socialism. Sharing the wealth of oil companies that willingly.. WILLINGLY.. pay is a bit different that FORCIBLY taking hard earned money and then giving it to the "poor".

There is a big difference Justin and I think that you know it.
Why isn't it socialism, because it came from a Republican?

I can pretty much guarantee you those companies aren't paying that money because it makes them feel good. Chances are they either pay up, or get closed down. Same with a taxpayer - either pay your taxes or go to face the consequences [which is usually jail]. So no, there is no difference.

Quote:
 
It's the same for the rich. But they have an alternative; pay the taxes, or take their money outside the country


A business can do that as well. It's a two way street.
Edited by Justin-ZNS, Oct 30 2008, 02:38 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Locked Topic