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
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 8
McCain vs. Obama; Round 3! Fight!
Topic Started: Oct 15 2008, 08:05 PM (4,202 Views)
Lone Stranger (S)
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Or take their company somewhere else? Simple as that. They wouldn't get closed down. Although, moving a company would take some money. But it would be worth it.

Oh, and I vote McCain because he isn't socialist, and he has the power. It is much better for a socialist to be a VP rather than be the president - the person with the greatest power.
Edited by Lone Stranger, Oct 29 2008, 09:41 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
The "sharing the wealth" "socialism" anti-Obama people (here included) keep referring to is tax cuts to the middle class (anyone making under $200,000 a year), and to small businesses, and to companies that hire new U.S. citizens. At the expense of people making over $250,000 a year, and companies that have previously had tax breaks for MOVING jobs out of the United States. If that is socialism, then hell yes, I'm all for it!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Lone Stranger (S)
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, socialism didn't seem to work for Russia, so I will learn from their mistake and vote against socialism to the best of my ability: John McCain.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Justin-ZNS
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Lone Stranger
Oct 30 2008, 02:37 AM
Or take their company somewhere else? Simple as that. They wouldn't get closed down. Although, moving a company would take some money. But it would be worth it.

Oh, and I vote McCain because he isn't socialist, and he has the power. It is much better for a socialist to be a VP rather than be the president - the person with the greatest power.
Then please point out which of Obama's plan are so socialistic. With veritable sources.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stephen
Member Avatar
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
Justin, he can't. All he can do is keep spewing the McCain'isms. He apparently wants companies who outsource American jobs to continue to be rewarded, and companies who hire U.S. citizens for jobs within the U.S. to continue being penalized for that. That's HIS brand of government. Not mine.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Lone Stranger (S)
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gwennie
Oct 29 2008, 10:44 PM
Justin, he can't. All he can do is keep spewing the McCain'isms. He apparently wants companies who outsource American jobs to continue to be rewarded, and companies who hire U.S. citizens for jobs within the U.S. to continue being penalized for that. That's HIS brand of government. Not mine.
Thanks for explaining my views. They are rather contrary to what I have tried time and again to explain to you people, but obviously your bias (or stubbornness) blocks you from understanding anything I have posted. But thanks for trying. -_-

And that is such a typical liberal; attacking the person instead of the issue.
Edited by Lone Stranger, Oct 29 2008, 11:23 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
==Kyuubi==
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Gwennie
Oct 29 2008, 09:40 PM
The "sharing the wealth" "socialism" anti-Obama people (here included) keep referring to is tax cuts to the middle class (anyone making under $200,000 a year), and to small businesses, and to companies that hire new U.S. citizens. At the expense of people making over $250,000 a year, and companies that have previously had tax breaks for MOVING jobs out of the United States. If that is socialism, then hell yes, I'm all for it!
Not quite... in fact, according to studies done by the Tax foundation between 45 and 55 percent of small business could see a nice tax hike: source

On a side note I got a good laugh out of this... so why not share it...
Quote:
 

Our U.S. Tax System Explained In Beer!
>>
>> By: David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of
>> Georgia
>>
>> Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
>> ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
>> it would go something like this:
>>
>> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
>> The fifth would pay $1.
>> The sixth would pay $3.
>> The seventh would pay $7.
>> The eighth would pay $12.
>> The ninth would pay $18.
>> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>> So, that's what they decided to do.
>>
>> The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
>> the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
>>
>> "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to
>> reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now
>> cost just $80.
>>
>> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
>> the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
>> But what about the other six men - the actual paying customers? How
>> could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
>> 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if
>> they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and
>> the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the
>> bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill
>> by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts
>> each should pay.
>>
>> And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
>> savings).
>> The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
>> The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
>> The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
>> The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
>> The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
>>
>> Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
>> continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
>> began to compare their savings.
>>
>> "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He
>> pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
>>
>> ''Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a
>> dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
>> "'That's true!" shouted the seventh man.
>> "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all
>> the breaks!"
>>
>> "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
>> anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
>>
>> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the
>> tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had
>> beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
>> discovered something
>> important:
>> They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of
>> the bill!!!!!
>>
>> And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
>> our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
>> most benefit from a tax reduction.
>> Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may
>> not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas
>> where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Edited by ==Kyuubi==, Oct 29 2008, 11:28 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Lone Stranger (S)
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
==Kyuubi==, that's EXACTLY what I have been trying to say this ENTIRE time! The rich don't want to be taxed anymore. Why would they? They give us jobs. Without them and their money, we have no jobs and therefore no economy. So why are we taxing them even more?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
==Kyuubi==
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
I'm not against penalizing some of the large corporation owners who get their enormous golden parachute rewards for failed business practices which put the lower level employees at economic risk and windfall. One of the few liberal areas I agree with... but I am against penalizing an entire demographic of income holders because an individual arbitrarily places a number on what he considers "wealthy." People who invest responsibly in the free market and take risks are rewarded accordingly, but it's not entirely to moral implications that bug me with Obama's policies, it's the method by which he's choosing to enact them, and his tax policy could hurt more people financially than it helps
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ben
Member Avatar
Quantum-locked when observed.

Obama is not a socialist. That's a silly misrepresentation being used by his opponents to scare uninformed voters (oooh, socialism is soooo scary). Obama is not a socialist, because tax cuts are not equivalent to socialism. Socialist policies may involve tax cuts, but tax cuts per se do not make a policy socialist. Even "redistributing wealth" does not a socialist policy make.

Socialism is so much more than taxes. Socialism is a complete economic philosophy in which ownership is collective (usually by the state). I.e., if Obama were a socialist, he would be proposing that the government buy up Wall Street instead of bailing it out. A bailout may seem like a socialist manoeuvre (it's not, even if it does undermine the concept of a "free market"). However, it is ultimately a capitalist manoeuvre, because it's attempting to save a capitalist system. Socialism would require a new system altogether.

While Obama may have some policies that seem socialist in nature, he is not a socialist. Labelling him as such only does a disservice to oneself and the American people in general. It's fine to disagree with Obama's proposals for the future of the country, but debate their pros and cons, not their labels. Otherwise one undermines the democratic process.

Now let me digress into an observation as to why the American political climate is insane:
  1. A minority of Americans are "wealthy." Compared to this elite few, most Americans have an average income. We can represent the average American by "Joe the Plumber" if you like.
  2. Most Joe the Plumbers will never become wealthy. Their jobs just will never pay them that much money. Short of winning a lottery or inheriting an unforeseen sum of money, a plumber or a taxidermist aren't suddenly going to get a salary increase.
  3. Therefore, voting against a plan that proposes to tax the wealthy minority to benefit all Americans means that the majority is voting to support the minority.


For the average, middle-class plumber, socialism is a good idea. Socialism does not benefit the elite, those who are on top, as much, since it does essentially mean an end to the elite. So socialism is not irrational, and it is not impractical. Countries other than the Soviet Union practise socialism to one degree or another (most of them are in Europe, so civilized North Americans don't talk about them).

That's not to say, however, that socialism is the only rational theory of governance. Far from it. While socialism benefits the majority of the population, and thus seems like it would benefit the average voter, that doesn't mean one should necessary vote for socialist policies. It's possible that other factors may be present that means a socialist system is either a) impractical or otherwise bad for one's country. Those are valid reasons to support a competing theory, such as capitalism. So in short, what I mean to say is that socialism is a valid theory (some seem to be under the impression it's some sort of insane plan to steal everyone's money), but is not necessarily the only valid theory of governance.

Thanks for the digression. Now back on to the topic. Er ... right. What was I saying? :P Oh right, Obama isn't a socialist. In fact, I'm rather disappointed with the way the McCain-Palin campaign has been throwing out pejorative labels at Obama's campaign in the past weeks. The amount of misinformation being spread by the right is shameful. Yes, the left does it too. There's all those rumours going around saying McCain's going to send jobs overseas and whatnot. However, when you rack up the number of embarrassing clips the candidates are providing to shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report ... McCain and Palin win. :P Aside from a Biden gaffe every couple of weeks, McCain and Palin have been providing us with a nonstop source of entertainment.

So for that reason, if I were American, I would vote for John McCain. Because I can't get enough of those TV clips, and if he isn't elected President, what am I going to watch on TV and YouTube? LOLCATS? I think not.

Also, I think John McCain is more likely to eliminate high school than Obama is (high school's quite elitist, after all). If high school gets eliminated, then Disney can't make any more High School Musicals. Go McCain!!
Edited by Ben, Oct 30 2008, 12:02 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
==Kyuubi==
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Ben
Oct 29 2008, 11:59 PM
However, when you rack up the number of embarrassing clips the candidates are providing to shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report ... McCain and Palin win. :P Aside from a Biden gaffe every couple of weeks, McCain and Palin have been providing us with a nonstop source of entertainment.

Where Palin focuses on quantity Biden focuses on genuine quality but of course some his gaffe are much less of a joke...He tends to get somewhat of a free pass on his. Lest not forget as well his more recent boycott of an Orlando news station after an interview he had... link

I'm not sure what's a better focus if we're dealing with small fry issues like small gaffes of speech but if you're using that as primary criteria for evaluation then I'm curious as to which would be more pressing, the quality of the gaffe or the quantity,,,, :D :r
Edited by ==Kyuubi==, Oct 30 2008, 12:45 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stephen
Member Avatar
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.

I prefer Biden's gaffes. On another board someone said it best. Biden and McCain represent two grandfather archetypes: Biden is the grandpa who loves to spoil his grandchildren and slips them a five dollar bill when the parents aren't looking. McCain is the grandpa who likes to reminisce about how hard it was in his day and how kids today are too soft.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
Lone Stranger
Oct 29 2008, 11:21 PM
Gwennie
Oct 29 2008, 10:44 PM
Justin, he can't. All he can do is keep spewing the McCain'isms. He apparently wants companies who outsource American jobs to continue to be rewarded, and companies who hire U.S. citizens for jobs within the U.S. to continue being penalized for that. That's HIS brand of government. Not mine.
Thanks for explaining my views. They are rather contrary to what I have tried time and again to explain to you people, but obviously your bias (or stubbornness) blocks you from understanding anything I have posted. But thanks for trying. -_-

And that is such a typical liberal; attacking the person instead of the issue.
Lone, you have been CONSTANTLY explaining Obama's views. But your explanations are rather contrary to what he has tried time and again to explain to you, but obviously your bias (or stubborness) blocks you from understanding anything he has said. But thanks for trying.

And that is such a typical conservative; attacking the person instead of the issue.

LOL
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Lone Stranger (S)
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
And that is such a typical conservative; attacking the person instead of the issue.

Hey, you started it. ;)
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
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 8