Is Palin a Joke? (in Off-topic)

I know this is kind of old but. If you've seen any of her interviews she comes off as brainless.. SNL had a pretty good impression. They actually quoted her in their skit.

"Help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to shore up our economy... It's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation."

"Pressed on why her location enhanced her foreign policy experience, Palin said: "Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of." She added that when Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin "rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska." "

Maybe it just has to do with being terrible at interviews, but her very short record of coming from being a mayor of an extremely small town and then two years as governor isn't very impressive. I've never seen her answer a question directly and coherently with an intelligent answer.

Basically, what the heck was McCain thinking? Especially since his VP pick is actually pretty significant considering his age...

Yes, she is actually that bad.

"Help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to shore up our economy... It's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation." "

Thats actually a dig at the beauty queen who completely blew the how to save the world question. Theres a video of it on youtube, it's filled with hilarity.

You betcha!

it's a political move bringing a woman to the white house

of course it is, but I still think McCain is going to win. USA is not ready for its first black president. Doesn't matter how good he is.

So they'll get a female VP, with a president in his 70s with four fairly serious brushes with cancer already behind him. You don't need to be a genius to see how that'll go.

So the first female president will be a republican. Who thinks evolution didn't happen and that man isn't responsible for climate change. And thinks drilling for oil is more important than the environment. You'd think her family were involved in the oil business...oh wait her husband is.

It doesn't look like much of a joke from this side of the Atlantic....

Yeah, I obviously thought it was a political move to pick a woman, but he could have chosen a qualified woman. Pretty sure that was clearly to try to appeal to Hillary supporters, but I really doubt it did. I think he also choose her also to appeal to evangelicals, at the expense of alienating everyone else; McCain's not too popular with them either.

There are just so many better choices he could have gone with. Politics is so frustrating.

Henk, Obama is far more likely to win. Not only is the media quite taken with him, but he's very far ahead in the prediction markets. He's quite simply very popular, and most people are angry enough with Bush to not want to vote for another person saying the same things.

Also, in the United States Blacks got the vote just over 50 years before Women if that's any indication of US politics- kind of why I figured Hilary would not win.

There was a guy on Colbert who predicts the playoffs for baseball (apparently pretty accurately), who used his same system on the election and said Obama has an 89.4% chance of winning the election, with probably 345 electoral votes, though only about 51% of the popular vote, interestingly enough. Just need a slight lead in those big states to triple the other guy's electoral college votes, huh?

JW: Not to get in a big debate on policy, but 1. there is no scientific consensus on whether or not "global warming" (oops, I mean "climate change", because it's unnaturally cyclical) is man-caused to any significant degree. Carbon Dioxide is actually an outrageously small factor in the "greenhouse effect" given how much press it's getting. Water vapor retains much more of the heat in the atmosphere (though, by the same token, clouds reflect a large portion of incoming sunlight back out into space, so that part's pretty much a wash, too, even if we were to evaporate all the water there is). 2. Personally, I've been fooled by the argument that drilling on 2,000 acres of a 19,000,000 acre piece of land causes less environmental damage than, say, building a couple houses in a developing rural community.

As for Palin, eh. I like to look at her. She doesn't give interviews well, but then again, Joe Biden's said his fair share of stupid things. And don't even get me started on the PRESIDENTIAL candidates. Long story short, the debate on Tuesday night ruined my life. Crap, I'm getting off topic.

I have a feeling that Sarah Palin is being unfairly (read: disproportionally, not unwarranted...ly) criticized by the media, but I haven't been paying enough attention to really bring any new information to this thread. I think she connects better with audiences than McCain does, though. Oh, and every woman I know who has 5 children is voting for her, I think.

"Basically, what the heck is McCain thinking?" Something about "reaching across the aisle" and "pork-barrel spending" and "earmarks" and "my opponent's Senate voting record." I wish there were variety in the political vernacular today. I almost vomit every time I hear any of those words, which is part of why I haven't been paying as much attention as I'd like. It's like the term "pet peeve." What the crap does that mean? It doesn't make sense! Pet? I don't have any pets; they died! Peeve? Like the Poltergeist in Harry Potter? Or like anger? No, my pets aren't angry, they're dead, and I don't think their souls are mischievously throwing water balloons at Madam Pomfrey, or something.

whoever dealt it, we're the ones going to "smell" it... the methane bubbling up from the sea floor in the arctic may be "natural" but that doesn't mean it's going to be good for us...

Doesn't matter what caused it, we need to prepare for climate change and that's got a to be a world wide effort.

oh and back on topic...

I don't see an intolerant fundamentalist as a joke, she was an open attempt at pandering to the parts of our country who previously voted because of fear, hate, and xenophobia. It's also a great example of the classic "hey look over here, look at the shiny thing" play.

American politics suffers because the morals, nutrition, and education of the populace was deliberately compromised in order to create a more powerful economic engine for the subjugation of the world.

mmmm fascist!

Agreed, nov.

Don't get me wrong: I love the environment. What I mentioned about residential developments in rural communities is actually something I see as negative in a lot of cases, and I don't support stupid unnecessary human expansion into natural habitats, such as cutting down the rainforest for farm land. I think that people do abuse the earth and its resources, and that should be cut down on... but I think that drilling for oil is a financial necessity and, really, isn't much of an environmental harm.

Even if consumption of fossil fuels is as harmful a contributor to global warming as Al Gore says it is, the consumption is then the issue that needs to be addressed, not the supplying. Limiting the supply just makes it more expensive, but people have mostly just been complaining about it rather than cutting back, as far as I know.

All of you probably watch and enjoy Real Time with Bill Maher too. =P

One thing is certain, it was purely political forces that motivated her nomination. She wasn't what republicans wanted, but we're willing to compromise with a bimbo like her in order to secure those white female votes - if it means McCain will win.

There are 2 kinds of people when it comes to foreign policy: those who think 9/11 is our fault and that we defeat Radical Islam with negotiation, and those who see that Radical Islam is a horrendously evil ideology that demands the killing of innocent "infidels" in order to appease Allah and it must be destroyed and not bartered with.

Most voters realize that it's the second of those two. And furthermore, when pundits like Hitchens, Maher, O'Donnell say that Christian fundamentalism is equally as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism, they only further alienate those voters.

If you want to win; DON'T BASH MIDDLE-AMERICA. (Alaska included)

CC I just can't take her seriously when she just got a passport AFTER the campaign started. 25% of our country has a passport, I kind of expect the people wanting to be elected to world important positions, should have some experience with travel...

When she's stuck in a corner in interviews she comes up with some very bad excuse, I know it's probably that she doesn't interview well, but c'mon my foreign experience comes from being near Russia? Which newspaper's do you read? All of them.. If she can't give straight forward answers, I don't know how to take her seriously. All politicians avoid questions, I've just never seen any answers so ridiculous as hers, and it's not just one instance. If she just passed on the questions maybe I could take her seriously, but she just said the dumbest thing she could think of.

The only records you can find on her are ridiculous too. She tried to get a library books banned albeit briefly, but quite honestly we just don't know much about her. She then fired plenty of people after getting in office, which has a little bit of a sketchy record.

Her education record is not impressive at all. She has a BS in journalism studying at about 4 different community colleges schools. This again is important to me in my elected officials who are expected to have plenty of duties. Maybe I have high standards.. but we are talking about Vice President of the United States here.

Basically, I cannot find any positive records on her, and the more and more I look the more I question her choice as a VP candidate. Most of the candidates in most elections I look on either side and say, they both look qualified even if I disagree with them. Here that's just not the case.

Not only that but her whole accusation of Obama hanging around terrorists was ridiculous; IMO one acquaintance does not equal hanging around with terrorists, I know at least one person that I disagree completely that I wouldn't be surprised if they did something radical. Then again she was just playing the political game there as everyone else is. Obama's standing there accusing McCain of being the sole reason for the mortgage crisis.

CC you are so right about the political buzz words though; I am so sick of them. Pork barrel spending, across the aisle, bipartisanship, change, reform.

i will abstain from commenting...after all abstinence works!

(off-topic, but I need to rant)
Novice, do you mean issues like the latest melamine food contamination ?
While the rest of the world was busy banning tainted Chinese imports until they clean up their act, the FDA was ruling on the acceptable levels of melamine in food products.
I realise that some things get into food and that is unavoidable. Sure, dirt gets on vegetables, but regulating how much melamine is in milk is like accepting the number of CPUs in a BLT. These things don't get in there unless someone puts them in on purpose.
So basically, the FDA is ruling that it's okay to ship substandard, adulterated products to the US as long as it keeps the prices down because what other reason could there be ?

"There are 2 kinds of people when it comes to foreign policy: those who think 9/11 is our fault and that we defeat Radical Islam with negotiation, and those who see that Radical Islam is a horrendously evil ideology that demands the killing of innocent "infidels" in order to appease Allah and it must be destroyed and not bartered with."

What EXACTLY do you mean by destroyed?

If you're suggesting we can destroy the ideology itself I'd just like to point out how difficult a task that really is. Judaism has been a target for just about every empire ever, hasn't done much to stop it. The allies crushed the Third Reich and it's Nazi ideals completely and still there are many people even in our own country who believe in it.

Are you talking about destroying the people whose daily lives are steeped in fundamentalist Islam? Maybe just the leaders and politicians who control it?

When people talk about all forms of fundamentalist religion being equally dangerous I think of the bombings we've had here in the US, not to mention the many occasions throughout history where religion has been used as a catalyst for genocide. I think any way of life that is worth killing another human being for is subject to scrutiny.

Not that you're going to, but I'd suggest you watch a movie (or better yet read the book) called The Fog of War by Robert McNamara.
He is an individual in a very unique position to be able to talk about war, and it's ethical and moral consequences.

Unless those of us who seek a better world learn to empathize with both sides of the fundamentalist coin I don't think we'll ever be able to explain to them the idea that the brother you call an enemy is still just another part of you. When we fail to see ourselves in those with whom we have differences we've already lost.

If we're ever to grow as a nation, a people, and a world we must begin to understand how we are in control of our evolution, not the other way around. War as an evolutionary tool is no longer needed, we must find a way to take the steps to control the biologically motivated fear of each other long enough to see it end.

Gah..democrats....

well I guess go McCain '08!

troll

Palin is worse than a joke, she's a national embarrassment. Luckily Americans are seeing through the deception and religious pandering this time and moving toward Obama, since there is no rational reason that I see right now to vote for McCain and his turd of a running mate.

And to the guy who said something to the effect of "I'll bet you watch Bill Maher...," well, I did before I lost HBO. Proud of it too. You probably watch Fox News.

Funny thing, on the plane back from Vegas earlier this week, I actually had an old woman tell me that she watches Fox because it's "Fair and Balanced." I was unable to fully hold back the laughter.

Haha... Fox news. Almost as much of a joke as Palin.

Aetrius Rex. I think that,
there are two kinds of people in the world, reasonable people you can argue with and people who say "there are two kinds of people in the world".

I actually find Bill Maher/O'Donnell annoying but anyway (I haven't watched Hitchens but I just wikied him, and he seems reasonable). I don't know why you think they are looking for voters, talk show hosts just talk. For the record I find Bill O'Reily and Savage far more annoying.

I don't know where you got this "attack on middle America" I was basically talking about how she's unqualified. You even seem to agree with that at least a little bit. In fact, I might even support McCain if it weren't for Palin. (I'm not voting for either)

There are plenty of examples of fundamentalists/die hard believers who are terrorists of other religions. I'm fine with people being religious, but when you want to impose your religion on other people there's going to be a conflict. This is part of the reason Israel is such a mess, both sides are fundamentalist. (Israel only has Jewish citizens so no equal rights) It doesn't matter what religion it is, forcing religion on others is always a disaster.

And always required for the religion itself to survive. Like people are actually born with christian ideas in their heads eh?

"I actually find Bill Maher/O'Donnell annoying but anyway"

On Rosie O'Donnell I certainly agree with you. I like Bill though.

Michael Palin is very funny! I love his work with Monty Python... And did you see him as the cute little stutterer in "A Fish Called Wanda"? Indeed, Palin is a wonderful joke(ster)!

....oooooohhhhh, you mean Sarah Palin? Oh yeah, then "joke" almost gets to the heart of things, except for the little detail of me not laughing. I especially like the part where her campaign is _still_ trying to link Obama to a domestic terrorist when her own husband was part of an Alaskan organization for 7 years led by a man who once said, "When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets."

Nice, hypocrite!

I think Palin apologists are awesome.

They say she interviews bad.
They say the media isn't being fair to her.
They say she acts the way she does because she's a maverick.
They say she is "change" because she isn't like the other politicians.
They say she appeals to the common man because of the way she speaks.

If she was actually the VP, I can see the headlines now:
-Today, talks broke down when the Prime Minister was referred to as "one of them foreigners"
-After the rare 'tie' votes in the senate today, following the recent tightening of democrat and republican votes, the VP decided to vote yes on the "Revenge of the Patriot Act" bill because, as she put it, "it just sounds right".
-A disastrous diplomatic meeting with Russia today led to strained US-Russian relations as the VP made remarks today in a press conference, "those rascals in Russia are at it again".
-The office of the Vice President again today made statements that it is doing an investigation into NEA funded projects that, as the spokesman claims, "promote terrorism".
-Tech markets made another slide down today as vague comments from the VP seemed to indicate that more regulation was on the way; "hackers use those free software programs and we're against that"

These leadership positions should be EXPECTED to be able to handle themselves under pressure, and especially in situations where they will be talking to the press, world leaders, or anyone else for that matter. Stop making excuses for her, this isn't a trivial position she will be in. She is not prepared, and shouldn't have been selected for the job, plain and simple.

Verifex, that was excellent.

As of right now, McCain will not win the election, and I am pretty sure of that - virtually all of the polls agree.

But even more convincingly, if you look at prediction markets, notably Intrade, you will see that Obama has an astounding lead. About the accuracy of the Intrade prediction markets, Intrade's predictions on every electoral state outcome in the 2004 election was correct - even when it looked like Florida was going to go to Kerry, Intrade held it for Bush.

If you want a good prediction, look at the prediction markets, not the polls.

The last thing I want is for people to think Obama is a shoo-in. That will lead to apathy. Stay lean, stay hungry, and keep all eyes on the brass ring.

"It ain't over till it's over". I'll trust Yogi Berra over Intrade any day of any year. *smile*

Mitt, you're right about not looking directly at polls, but there's a lot of evidence that In trade is a lagging indicator, not a forward looking one (ie, a poll comes out and the In trade markets move after).

Check out http://www.fivethirtyeight.com and http://election.princeton.edu

Both sites have good ways of crunching polls to get more accurate results. Five thirty eight has a lot of commentary too (mostly pro-Obama).

Bill Maher is noob.

"there are two kinds of people in the world, reasonable people you can argue with and people who say "there are two kinds of people in the world"."
And if someone is the second, unreasonable kind and decides to kill you, is attempting to reason with them the best thing to do about it?
I'm not sure what Aetrius Rex meant exactly about "destroying" fundamentalist Islam, but my thoughts on it are this: If someone is buying into "Fundamentalist" Islamic ideology, rather than simply passively subscribing to it because of where they live, than they will, at some point or other, try to kill you. And you have a total right to self-defense in that situation.

Also, don't say "Republicans" or "Democrats" unless you're talking about the candidates, or someone else who self-identifies as such (though no one should). I ask this because, first of all, any statement about what "Republican voters want" is an unfair generalization, and would be more accurately phrased as "What Aetrius Rex and friends want" or something similar. Second, comments like "Gah... Democrats!" similarly assumes that there couldn't possibly be any independent voters who make decisions, as everyone here must just be a member of a party. And I resent being associated with such people. Because the two-party system is a big pile of bullcrap whose effect is to unfairly and inaccurately polarize the nation into two big assemblies governed by group mentality. And I say no thank you to that.

Bolfen, you're absolutely right. I'm just blinded by my Econ professor always talking about Intrade. :)

Butbutbut.... Sam Wang! I went to a neuroscience certificate open house during frosh week and he teaches here!

I didn't know that he did election analysis as well...

You have self-defence, sure, you don't have "pre-emptive self-defence", which is the current doctrine of kill them first. Diss the two-party system all you want, but if you stray, you don't get voted in. Duverger's law.

Obs: I agree. Try to work them out of their insanity while there's time. But if an evil leader is hostile to America (in a real, military or terroristic sense), there shouldn't be any hesitancy to take him out.

What I meant to get about the two-party system is that there are independent voters (actually, I think only like 35%-ish percent of the country is registered in each party, with the remaining almost-30% being officially independent or nothing or something) who could vote for either candidate based on examination of the issues. Deciding to follow a party is like a free pass to not look at what candidates actually support, care about, plan to do... because you can just look and see if they're more blue or red, and there you are.

In other words, the assumption that someone not liking Sarah Palin, or even saying they are going to vote for Obama, means that they must be a Democrat is incorrect. Same goes for people who like McCain/Palin not necessarily be Republican. Maybe someone decides on a candidate-by-candidate basis, and is going to vote all across the board for their congressional and state congressional representation. Or maybe someone decides on a candidate-by-candidate basis and ends up voting for all party-endorsed candidates, anyway, because they honestly feel that way.

The idea that simply being a fundamentalist Islamic believer is enough motivation to kill is as scary as anything I've read here...

Those kind of generalizations are exactly how we dehumanize those we chose to call our enemy. You can do better CC.

just on the topic of Fox vs Maher... Stewart/Colbert ftw!

"The idea that simply being a fundamentalist Islamic believer is enough motivation to kill is as scary as anything I've read here..."

Nov: if you'll notice, I made a differentiation. As far as I can tell, the term "fundamentalist Islam" applies exclusively to dangerous people. Now, that may not be an accurate representation of the real fundamental goal of Islam, nor of many of its followers, but the term doesn't always mean what it sounds like it should mean.

Like I said, I made the differentiation between adherents to Fundamentalist Islam and those who passively live under a Fundamentalist Islamic authority of some or other kind, while having no desire to kill Americans (or the West, or anyone else). Given my definition of Fundamentalist Islam, an adherent is, by definition, dangerous. I'm well aware, though, that not every Muslim, by far, is an adherent.

Sorry for double-post, but I agree with Hatch, and I thought I should clarify that point further.

Ideology 1 says you should kill infidels.
I subscribe to ideology 1, and therefore I believe that I should kill infidels.
If I don't kill infidels, am I really a follower of Ideology 1?

Not every Muslim is governed by Ideology 1. Few are. But there are some. And those people are dangerous.

McCain chose her so the people who wanted Clinton, because she was female, now still have a chance to vote female, but for the opposing party. That's how my entire family saw McCain's pick.

I think it's phrases like that the cause much of the problem with our image in the middle east. A fundamentalist here is someone who accepts the bible as the divinely inspired word of god. Why should it mean something different for anyone else? It's almost as bad as W's use of the phrase Islamic Fascists, which is just stringing together scary words to make them even more likely to inspire blind fear and rage.

I bet if you went and studied Islam, you would find little in it about killing infidels.

You could chalk it up to passages in the text that specify propagation of the word through the sword... that are also to be accepted as divinely inspirational to a "true" fundamentalist.

...and all that stuff in the bible about crushing the enemy into a fine powder?

I tried it Nov, but all I got was ... well ... kinda mud.

"I bet if you went and studied Islam, you would find little in it about killing infidels."
It doesn't matter. I've already stated surreptitiously that it's not an issue with Muslims, it's an issue with certain Muslims. If I'm a Buddhist who believes that the meaning of life lies in pooping on everyone's front porches, it doesn't matter whether Buddhist teaching backs that up, because I'll be a problem for my neighbors either way.

Obs: That's an interesting observation. I suppose so.

Nov: wiggidy-what? I hardly think there's any sort of commandment to Christians to crush people into fine powder. Actually, if I understand what you're referring to, I think it's figurative language for what Jesus will do to the evil of this world when he establishes his kingdom. But that's end-time prophecy, which I know nothing about, so don't really ask me about it more.

Leviticus 24:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Old Testament biblical justice.

Edy: If someone knocks your tooth out, and you're angry about it, and you're the kind of person who would go hurt him in return, would you just go up to him and knock his tooth out? Or would you do something more extreme? Is retaliation usually equal, or does it escalate?

Eye for eye- that's equal. Isn't justice equality of penalties?

Ancient Israel was a society that used capital punishment in a lot of cases. The "eye for an eye" rule was a limiting measure, not a guideline saying "you have to hurt them at least as badly as they hurt you." And, actually, it was a guideline for legal punishments, and not for vigilante retribution.

The idea, though, is "the punishment must fit the crime." You get put to death (or get life in prison) for killing another person, but you don't get life in jail for stealing a candy bar.

"And of thy mercy slay my foes, let all destroyed"

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Exodus 15:6 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.

Exodus 17:13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.

Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
[Deific genocide?]

32:27,28 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Ezekiel 25:6,7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast clapped thine hands, and stamped with the feet, and rejoiced in heart with all thy despite against the land of Israel;
Behold, therefore I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and will deliver thee for a spoil to the heathen; and I will cut thee off from the people, and I will cause thee to perish out of the countries: I will destroy thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD.

Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.



(a site trying to explain the violence of the bible and thereby condemn the Qur'an)
http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/violence.html

Cubicle bboard: Maybe it just has to do with being terrible at interviews, but her very short record of coming from being a mayor of an extremely small town and then two years as governor isn't very impressive. I've never seen her answer a question directly and coherently with an intelligent answer.

-She at least has actual executive experience, which is something both men on the Democratic ticket lack. As for dodging tough questions, Obama and Biden certainly haven't made a point of clearly answering tough questions.

There are just so many better choices he could have gone with. Politics is so frustrating.

-Such as who? The rest of the primary candidates have a lot of baggage, compared with the relatively light load that Palin brings with her.

Henk, Obama is far more likely to win. Not only is the media quite taken with him, but he's very far ahead in the prediction markets. He's quite simply very popular, and most people are angry enough with Bush to not want to vote for another person saying the same things.

-He's not the same as President Bush, as just a casual comparison of their beliefs and statements would make clear.

CC I just can't take her seriously when she just got a passport AFTER the campaign started. 25% of our country has a passport, I kind of expect the people wanting to be elected to world important positions, should have some experience with travel...

-The United States has had more than a handful of presidents who did well in office without spending much or any time abroad prior to election.

The only records you can find on her are ridiculous too. She tried to get a library books banned albeit briefly, but quite honestly we just don't know much about her.

-The book-banning myth just won't die, it seems.

Henk Bres: USA is not ready for its first black president. Doesn't matter how good he is.

-America is certainly ready for a black president. Don't confuse disagreement with Obama's policies with widespread racism.

Johnnywas: So the first female president will be a republican. Who thinks evolution didn't happen and that man isn't responsible for climate change. And thinks drilling for oil is more important than the environment. You'd think her family were involved in the oil business...oh wait her husband is.

-Regarding anthropogenic climate change, my meteorology professors back in college weren't exactly sold on the idea. As for oil drilling, we need to exploit domestic supplies to both buy time for research and development of future energy-production and storage methods and to ensure that instability in other oil-producing areas around the world doesn't completely wreck our economy. Petroleum isn't going anywhere for decades to come.

Novice: Doesn't matter what caused it, we need to prepare for climate change and that's got a to be a world wide effort.

-Actually, the United States is doing much better than most other nations in reducing carbon emissions. We could do even better if the government got out of the way and allowed more nuclear plants to be built, though an Obama administration wouldn't exactly be willing to allow that.

I don't see an intolerant fundamentalist as a joke, she was an open attempt at pandering to the parts of our country who previously voted because of fear, hate, and xenophobia. It's also a great example of the classic "hey look over here, look at the shiny thing" play.

-She such an intolerant fundamentalist that she made sure to sign equal benefits for homosexual couples into law. Keep trying.

Lord Bob: Palin is worse than a joke, she's a national embarrassment. Luckily Americans are seeing through the deception and religious pandering this time and moving toward Obama, since there is no rational reason that I see right now to vote for McCain and his turd of a running mate.

-There are plenty of rational reasons to vote for McCain, you probably just don't see them or agree with them.

Sutekh137: I especially like the part where her campaign is _still_ trying to link Obama to a domestic terrorist when her own husband was part of an Alaskan organization for 7 years led by a man who once said, "When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets."

Nice, hypocrite!

-Ayers and Dorhn were part of a group that bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and several other buildings, and tried to kill a federal judge and the judge's family using car bombs. The organization that Todd Palin belonged to, to the best of my knowledge, has never set bombs or attempted to kill anyone. Actual terrorists on one hand, a bunch of blowhards on the other. Yeah, I can't tell them apart, that's for sure! Give me a break, Sut.

"-Regarding anthropogenic climate change, my meteorology professors back in college weren't exactly sold on the idea. As for oil drilling, we need to exploit domestic supplies to both buy time for research and development of future energy-production and storage methods and to ensure that instability in other oil-producing areas around the world doesn't completely wreck our economy. Petroleum isn't going anywhere for decades to come."

back in my college days, mid to late eighties, there were many of us that thought that instead of pushing oil as the only solution, we needed to explore alternate sources of energy. many of us were frustrated by what we saw as the lobbyists and the automobile and petroleum industry pouring out lots of money to keep the status quo which also happened to mean mega profits for many in those industries.

forgive us now for not getting behind the domestic oil exploitation to buy some time for research and development, had we of started 20 or more years ago we wouldn't need to buy time at all. some of us do blame that on one particular party and a couple of different industries. our current president, and my former governor, happens to represent two of those evils as some of us see them.

sadly you are right and petroleum products will be around for decades to come...at least two decades longer than some of us feel was necessary though.

equal benefits but separate from the institution of marriage?...

sounds familiar

*and yes I know the two clowns on the dem side are also pandering to hate and fear by opposing gay marriage

*Sigh*

First to respond to the most recent developments:

IA: Nice. I'm with you, man.

As for gay marriage, it's a stupid issue. Why does everyone care so much about whether homosexuals can get "marriages" vs. "the exact same thing as marriage, except for gay people" vs. anything else. If it's the exact same thing, it's the exact same thing. People who make a big deal out of the fact that someone's not allowing it to be called "marriage" comes across (to me) as as much of a nitpicky idiot as someone who wants to grant rights but refuses to let it be called marriage. If anything, the argument can be made that the point of language is for clarity and specificity, and it makes for more efficient communication to employ two different terms, rather than using "marriage" with qualifiers thrown in front and behind, etc. I could see that argument being made; however, at this point, I'm not adamantly behind anything.

Nov: What did you put that first link in there for? You want me to go through the entire Bible and address every instance of violence that has taken place? Given how unnecessarily lengthy my posts already are, I would suspect it would be longer than the Bible itself, and you wouldn't read it.

Yes, human interactions are violent in many cases... many of them completely independent of God's commandments. Much of the Old Testament is primarily an historical account of the nation of Israel. Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo; Amalek was defeated in the land of Canaan; Jewish villages were destroyed in Russian pogroms. Do these facts give us insight into the nature of God? The fact that Cain killed Abel, or that Amnon raped Tamar, is recorded because it is fact.

As for the second link you posted, I failed to notice any glaring errors in logic in that article. I assume you've noticed some factual errors, then? If not, I don't see how your question/issue hasn't been answered already.

I may go through each verse you listed and address it, but I'm not sure that would be helpful. I'll still look 'em all up, but I dunno if another long post would not bore anyone.

IA: She at least has actual executive experience, which is something both men on the Democratic ticket lack. As for dodging tough questions, Obama and Biden certainly haven't made a point of clearly answering tough questions.

First, IA I thought you were better then spouting party talking points ;) Second, just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean they are a good leader (you of all people should know that), if you look at some of her executive experience, it seems as thought she wasn't very good at managing her small town. [source]

IA:Such as who? The rest of the primary candidates have a lot of baggage, compared with the relatively light load that Palin brings with her.

A couple people had a better VP in mind, of course the ironic thing would have been that he wouldn't have garnered as much support from his female base voters this way.

IA: The book-banning myth just won't die, it seems.

She didn't have books banned, she asked if it was possible. [source]

IA: Actually, the United States is doing much better than most other nations in reducing carbon emissions. We could do even better if the government got out of the way and allowed more nuclear plants to be built, though an Obama administration wouldn't exactly be willing to allow that.

Wrong on nuclear statement. [source] We are doing better then most other nations I agree, but we need to do better when we put out more then almost everyone else, combined (except China) we need to take the lead on this issue. [source]

IA: Ayers and Dorhn were part of a group that bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and several other buildings, and tried to kill a federal judge and the judge's family using car bombs. The organization that Todd Palin belonged to, to the best of my knowledge, has never set bombs or attempted to kill anyone. Actual terrorists on one hand, a bunch of blowhards on the other. Yeah, I can't tell them apart, that's for sure! Give me a break, Sut.

It's specious reasoning to say Obama has anything in common with that madman other then they happened to be in the same place at the same time a while ago. I find it disappointing that anyone on here would even give this ridiculously deceptive issue traction. [source]

"
As for gay marriage, it's a stupid issue. Why does everyone care so much about whether homosexuals can get "marriages" vs. "the exact same thing as marriage, except for gay people" vs. anything else. If it's the exact same thing, it's the exact same thing. People who make a big deal out of the fact that someone's not allowing it to be called "marriage" comes across (to me) as as much of a nitpicky idiot as someone who wants to grant rights but refuses to let it be called marriage. If anything, the argument can be made that the point of language is for clarity and specificity, and it makes for more efficient communication to employ two different terms, rather than using "marriage" with qualifiers thrown in front and behind, etc. I could see that argument being made; however, at this point, I'm not adamantly behind anything."

There are explicit federal legislated benefits to having a definite marriage licence. It DOES matter in the eyes of the law. That's mostly what they care about: they can always say whenever that they're "married", but in reality they're currently being discriminated against in the courts.

Obs: Unless I misunderstand the "civil union" thing, the ways that it matters in the eyes of the law are covered by that. If a civil union grants the same benefits as another civil union (marriage), is it different?

I mean, what are the differences? If someone gets a civil union, what part of marriage are they missing out on (in a legal sense)?

the main way that i see civil unions as inferior is the lack of legal precedent as compared to marriages in this country. for example, after mom died dad explored his sexuality and formed a civil union with his best buddy leroy. all the family is pretty upset by it. when dad dies, the family sues stating that he was grief stricken about mom and suffering from dementia.

with marriages, we have case law precedents going back many years and barring any prenuptial agreements the court stands by that union in most instances. how will the civil unions hold up? they may end up every bit as strong as marriages in the united states, but without the legal precedent granted by it simply being termed marriage, it is starting off unequal and at somewhat of a disadvantage already.

so what you're arguing is "different name but equal" this is the same old crap

timely headlines post of the day:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11trooper.html?em

it seems at least some people are not getting the joke.

Verifex: First, IA I thought you were better then spouting party talking points ;) Second, just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean they are a good leader (you of all people should know that), if you look at some of her executive experience, it seems as thought she wasn't very good at managing her small town.

-I never said that she was the best mayor and governor in history, just that she had experience that the other candidates all lack.

She didn't have books banned, she asked if it was possible.

-So we agree, she didn't actually try to ban books from the library.

Wrong on nuclear statement.

-I saw a televised stump speech during the primary where Obama stressed that while nuclear power was an option, new plants would have to wait before safer ways of using and storing the fuel would be found. Perhaps he has simply changed his position to suit the needs of his current campaign, not unlike many other positions he changed once he knocked Hillary out of the race. Still, "exploration" into building more power plants isn't exactly firm support, given the last thirty years of government disdain for nuclear power.

We are doing better then most other nations I agree, but we need to do better when we put out more then almost everyone else, combined (except China) we need to take the lead on this issue.

-Our carbon emissions are in line with the portion of global GDP for which we account.

One more I forgot...

Verifex: It's specious reasoning to say Obama has anything in common with that madman other then they happened to be in the same place at the same time a while ago. I find it disappointing that anyone on here would even give this ridiculously deceptive issue traction.

-"In the same place at the same time" is downplaying their connection, I think. They served together on at least two different organizations, ie. the Woods Funds and the Annenberg Challenge, and Ayers hosted a kick-off party for Obama's first campaign at his house. Hardly just happenstance, Veri.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Obama is a terrorist or agrees with the actions the Weathermen took during their campaign of bombings, robberies and attempted murders. This is about who Obama chose to associate with over the years, and who he would bring into circles of power on his coattails once elected.

"so what you're arguing is "different name but equal" this is the same old crap"

I'm not arguing anything. I'm questioning the usefulness of arguing over it. What does it accomplish to have this name or that name? dudemus actually gave an answer to that question.

Really, though, what was the deal with those links, Nov?

IA: Wow, you are the last person I would have ever figured for an apologist. Obama never frequented with Ayers. That's the point. I never said Ayers was like Felker (not sure that's the right name, am operating from memory). I was talking about hypocrisy. Pushing HARD on something when your own doorstep is every bit as dusty.

You don't ever say much, IA. In fact, you rarely say anything of substance. I don't care much, but you call me out in a forum and I won't lie -- I'm pissed off. SAY SOMETHING. Take a stand. You just let other folks say things and then find foibles. Ohhhh, that's hard. I remember doing it a lot -- when I was 22 years old (ask Bast if you need verification on my previous (and probably continuing) issues). I am pretty sure you are older than that.

Grow up. If you support McCain/Palin, at least have the balls to say so.

(And tell us why. If it ain't worth prostletyzing, what's it worth?)

"-There are plenty of rational reasons to vote for McCain, you probably just don't see them or agree with them."

I'm still waiting to hear one.

Don't hold your breath, LB, that's IA you're talkin' to!

As Bast said: "You betcha!"

"Not that you're going to, but I'd suggest you watch a movie (or better yet read the book) called The Fog of War by Robert McNamara. He is an individual in a very unique position to be able to talk about war, and it's ethical and moral consequences."
-novice

Okay, thanks for the reference! I've heard about it before now and have just reserved it from the local library online. I look forward to reading it. ;)

Lord Bob: I'm still waiting to hear one.

-Divided government.

Sutekh137: IA: Wow, you are the last person I would have ever figured for an apologist. Obama never frequented with Ayers. That's the point. I never said Ayers was like Felker (not sure that's the right name, am operating from memory). I was talking about hypocrisy. Pushing HARD on something when your own doorstep is every bit as dusty.

-We're going to have to disagree, then.

You don't ever say much, IA.

-Not in the CB forums. Seeing as CB isn't exactly a hotbed of libertarian-right adherents, I generally don't attempt to discuss my political interests on CB's boards. I get enough odd-man-out treatment elsewhere, I don't need more of it here.

In fact, you rarely say anything of substance.

-Thanks. I do my best.

I don't care much, but you call me out in a forum and I won't lie -- I'm pissed off. SAY SOMETHING. Take a stand. You just let other folks say things and then find foibles. Ohhhh, that's hard. I remember doing it a lot -- when I was 22 years old (ask Bast if you need verification on my previous (and probably continuing) issues). I am pretty sure you are older than that.

-If there was a need to defend Obama from spurious attacks, such as the flag-pin stupidity, cracks about his middle name, heritage and race, I would do so as I have done elsewhere, including at the McCain rally I attended a few days ago. Seeing as there is no shortage of Obama supporters around here, I don't need to bother with that.

Grow up. If you support McCain/Palin, at least have the balls to say so.

(And tell us why. If it ain't worth prostletyzing, what's it worth?)

-I didn't vote for McCain in the primary, and I'm not voting for him in the general.

"As for gay marriage, it's a stupid issue. Why does everyone care so much about whether homosexuals can get "marriages" vs. "the exact same thing as marriage, except for gay people" vs. anything else. If it's the exact same thing, it's the exact same thing. People who make a big deal out of the fact that someone's not allowing it to be called "marriage" comes across (to me) as as much of a nitpicky idiot as someone who wants to grant rights but refuses to let it be called marriage. If anything, the argument can be made that the point of language is for clarity and specificity, and it makes for more efficient communication to employ two different terms, rather than using "marriage" with qualifiers thrown in front and behind, etc. I could see that argument being made; however, at this point, I'm not adamantly behind anything."

CC, it's not the same thing, not the same thing at all. Legally it protects people for sure, but it's not all about the legalities. A straight man meets a straight woman, they fall in love they get married. The marriage is a ceremony that is something people have done for thousands of years. It's ingrained in people's conscious and subconsious. It validates that partnership. Whether you're religious or not. The word 'married' when used in an official sense has a lot of weight with people. Civil partnership just sounds like a business deal. And, despite what a lot of religions would prefer, being gay doesn't mean you can't be religious. Imagine being religious and not being allowed to validate your relationship in a church, the same way you can if you're straight.

By not allowing 'marriage' in the real sense you're relegating gay relations to second class in the eyes of the world.

"-Divided government."

I said a GOOD reason. I'm rooting for the Dems to keep Congress and take the White House.

"By not allowing 'marriage' in the real sense you're relegating gay relations to second class in the eyes of the world. "

I'm not! I don't believe in separate but equal. So I say ... down with marriage! Everyone gets a civil union, which confers all those "rights" associated with spousedom. Anybody who also chooses to be a party to the sacrament of marriage may feel free to do so if they can find a religion to bless'em.

Separation of Church and State!

*It is ideas like this one that give the Christians the idea they're being "persecuted".

I'd have to say that Bast's argument makes the most sense from the standpoint that marriage is an important institution that needs to be "protected" in any sense. If homosexual marriages are "bad" for religious purposes, or if marriage needs to be more exclusive than that, then it only makes sense that at least like 80% of heterosexual marriages are just as invalid, from a moral standpoint. If the idea is making marriage more than just a legal contract, I totally see that argument.

Make the legal portion of the issue a legal document, with a legal name, in every case... it does make a lot of sense, doesn't it?

""I'm still waiting to hear one."

"-Divided government."

I said a GOOD reason. I'm rooting for the Dems to keep Congress and take the White House."

You won't have any money left, sir. It seems like no candidate nor party is truly interested in not overspending the budget anymore, but at least one party has to act like they're taking it into consideration.

The worst thing about raising taxes is that people who don't want to pay taxes get angry, and government revenues decrease. Nice. So your constituency turns against you, and you haven't actually gotten the money you need to buy everyone health care.

Oh oops, I forgot what I was getting to with divided government being a good reason. Sorry about the triple posting, I'm just bored because I'm waiting for XP time.

If the Congress remains Democratic-controlled and Obama takes power, there will be no stopping them. That's what I meant about you not having any more money: they'll pass spending bills like excess Vitamin C. If McCain is elected, at least he'll veto something.

^you seem to be basing this off of past experience with when the republicans controlled both? i would like to remind you though of when we last had balanced budgets.

the republicans say that the democrats are the "tax & spend" party while they are all about "smaller government." i find it quite ironic then that when the republicans were in control they did nothing for balancing the budget and spent like crazy. we did get the smaller government through deregulation of the financial industry and you can see where that has gotten us.

i am going to vote for the minority guy. Just because it is cool!

Go Hussein O!

retract my last statement, i was sleep typing.

dude: first off, the current financial crisis was far from being any one person, political party, organization, etc. etc.'s fault. So don't say things like "The Republicans were in control, they deregulated something, and now the economy's crashed." Since that "They didn't pass the bailout bill... what did you do?", I've done some research on it, and I have some interesting findings that I've only not posted here because that thread seemed to have died before I really got all my information together. Would you like to hear it? I'll give you a sneak peak: a particular piece of government regulation contributed heavily to the formation of the housing bubble. And there has to BE a bubble in the first place in order for it to pop.

Secondly, I think I typed something about "neither party nor candidate really seems to believe in not overspending the budget anymore" in my last post. I'm well aware that the Republicans have recently been spending out of control. However, if there is at least some conflicting ideology dominating the Legislative vs. Executive branch, both parties will hopefully have trouble passing spending bills. And I really do believe that John McCain intends to spend less than Obama, regardless of what Bush has done with the national debt.

"However, if there is at least some conflicting ideology dominating the Legislative vs. Executive branch, both parties will hopefully have trouble passing spending bills."

i agree with your sentiment, however historically this has not been the way it has panned out. when they have to work together it ends up with the budget suffering as everyone tacks on their favorite spending options knowing that the other side will do the same, then they cut some to give taxpayers a "token" effort and we all get screwed.

what it does take is a president who will not except anything less than a balanced budget. even the republican spin masters are saying that if the election is focused on the economy, mcain loses. why do you think that is if he will be responsible fiscally and his party is truly the alternative to tax and spend government?

both parties are responsible for the current issue to a certain extent. much of this is due to lobbyist efforts and mega money being spent to ensure the deregulation. which party do you think is more eager to put a damper on that activity.

i am all for everyone deciding these things and then voting for the one they think will guide the country in the direction they want it to go. i just want everyone to get beyond the campaign blurbs and the fear mongering and actually decide on the issues.

as i stated in another thread, most of my voting decisions are based on the factors above...who has the best fiscal record, who behaves responsibly when in power, etc. the other main factor though is supreme court nominees and which party will appoint ones that are more in line with where i think the country needs to go both domestically and internationally as well as constitutionally.

"If the Congress remains Democratic-controlled and Obama takes power, there will be no stopping them."

There was "no stopping" the Republicans when they controlled Congress for Bush's first four years. I think we need a Democratic government for a while to clean up their mess.

And about the Democrats spending us into oblivion, the Republicans have blown how much on the Iraq war now? At least with the Dems, I know my money will be going to good use instead of a useless war and tax cuts for the wealthiest people and businesses.

"even the republican spin masters are saying that if the election is focused on the economy, mcain loses." Why? Does Obama know anything about the economy? If the election is focused on the economy, Ron Paul wins.

Another thing to be said: predictions of who will win does not equate to "this person has good policies." All it equates to is "the average person thinks that this person's policies are better than this other person's policies." And we all know how much the average person knows about the economy, international terrorism, and healthcare. It's why the electoral college system is in place.

"why do you think that is if he will be responsible fiscally and his party is truly the alternative to tax and spend government?" I don't think his party truly is the alternative, but there are two candidates, and it's for sure that one would tax and spend more than the other would.

"much of this is due to lobbyist efforts and mega money being spent to ensure the deregulation. which party do you think is more eager to put a damper on that activity." I dunno. The free market economy is what has made this country prosper, though. I'm not defending bribery of politicians, but I guess some lobbyist groups decided you gotta spend money to make money.

"as i stated in another thread, most of my voting decisions are based on the factors above...who has the best fiscal record, who behaves responsibly when in power, etc." Who has the best fiscal record? Who does behave responsibly while in power? Because, honestly, when you bring up these issues, I really don't have an answer for you. I do agree that it's important, but it seems like it's a tie because both candidates suck, so I started looking at economic policy, and a couple of other things.

"the other main factor though is supreme court nominees and which party will appoint ones that are more in line with where i think the country needs to go both domestically and internationally as well as constitutionally." Holy crap. I forgot about that. Ron Paul needs to get back in this race right now!

"and it's for sure that one would tax and spend more than the other would."

which one are you referring to? i think you mean the democrats but i am wondering why you say that when you look at past performance.

campaign promises mean very little, it is something said to get elected at which point they tend to do whatever is in their, or their parties, best interest in regards to reelections.

what i like to go by is actual history, i think we can more likely assume that republicans will behave as republicans have and democrats the same. that brings up your other question regarding who behaves more responsibly. instead of looking at empty campaign promises, go back in history and see who has as a rule policies that agree with yours.

this is very difficult and time-consuming which is why most voters make decisions based on empty campaign rhetoric instead or fear-mongering.

"I think we need a Democratic government for a while to clean up their mess." How would the mess get cleaned up? It sounds to me like you're saying "Republicans made a mess, the only way to reverse it is to put Democrats into office, because they're the exact opposite so they'll neutralize it all." It's not like we're dealing with acids and bases, here. It's not like every bad idea has been implemented, and if we were to change anything, every option taken would be good. There's plenty of bad policy to go around. Do you have an example of how the mess would be cleaned up by the Democratic party?

"And about the Democrats spending us into oblivion, the Republicans have blown how much on the Iraq war now? At least with the Dems, I know my money will be going to good use instead of a useless war and tax cuts for the wealthiest people and businesses."
Firstly, I'm not worried about government spending as much as how much I have to contribute to it. Raising taxes slows job creation and business expansion, as well as putting disproportionate stress on small business, causing more to fail. So aside from my personal desire to save whatever extra money I would have to pay, I don't want to see our economy suffer. Our economy can be strong despite our national debt, but only if we don't encourage more unemployment.

Secondly, I happen to be unconvinced that my money will be going to "good use" if Obama gets to spend it.

Thirdly, since you brought up the war, withdrawing without establishing stability in Iraq is the last thing we want to do. Both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden came to power because we got military involved in deposing a middle eastern government at some point in history, and left without really setting up something that would work in the future. In fact, Western involvement and colonialism in the Middle East after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire post-WWI resulted in arbitrarily-drawn national boundaries that led to sectarian violence such as that experienced by the Kurdish people. The Kurds occupy a large territory, but it's split between three different countries. As a result, they're a minority in three countries hostile to minorities, rather than being a majority in their own country. And they have no real way of seeking protection from any international organization.
If we learn anything from history, it is that leaving the Middle East to work out it's own problems after we get involved only causes more problems that we have to deal with 20 years down the road.

"I know my money will be going to good use instead of a useless war and tax cuts for the wealthiest people and businesses"

The World War was what brought the US out of the Great Depression, not the "New Deal" introduced by democratic ideals.

Why should the wealthiest people have to pay the most taxes? Just because they have more money? That is rubbish. If they pay 38% and you only pay 15%, where is the equality in that? Obama's tax reform plan will give $1,000 back as a tax refund to _everyone_ who does not even currently pay _any_ taxes. Why the hell should people who are not even paying taxes at all, get free money from the government and the wealthy pay for it?

I will try to keep my composure while I comment regarding business taxes. America is what it is today because of small businesses and its capitalistic stance toward free enterprise. Small businesses are the heart beat of America. Most people do not even realize the current taxes that businesses have to pay, and when you factor in health care costs, unemployment and all the other nice things most businesses provide, they should be given tax cuts.

Less government, less regulation of the private sector, and less government spending = my view of what needs to change.

Obama is for more government, more regulation and more spending.
McCain is for less government, less regulation and less spending.

While I don't think either candidate is a very good choice, McCain imo fits better into my view of government and what needs to be done to help the economy out of the rut that the current administration has put it in.

Also as a final point, everyone is blaming the government for the economy, but I tend to put the responsibility more on the people who borrowed when they shouldn't have and have not been able to pay their bills and caused a financial strain across the board. The Great Depression was caused in large part due to the introduction of consumer credit and the irresponsible/reprehensible way that said credit was used.

"If we learn anything from history, it is that leaving the Middle East to work out it's own problems after we get involved only causes more problems that we have to deal with 20 years down the road."

perhaps we should have learned to not get involved in the first place?

"Less government, less regulation of the private sector, and less government spending = my view of what needs to change."

you yourself, later i your post, states that it is people that have caused the financial woes. if you truly believe that, why would you think that people, or companies ruled by people, would do a great job of self-regulation.

also, why are you voting for a republican to get us out of a mess that you state yourself was created by a republican president working much of his tenure with a republican congress?

ﾓWhile I don't think either candidate is a very good choice, McCain imo fits better into my view of government and what needs to be done to help the economy out of the rut that the current administration has put it in.ﾔ

Iﾒm with you, Relic. Nice.

ﾓwhich one are you referring to? i think you mean the democrats but i am wondering why you say that when you look at past performance.

campaign promises mean very little, it is something said to get elected at which point they tend to do whatever is in their, or their parties, best interest in regards to reelections.ﾔ

I was referring to Obama, yes. Looking at past performance, I donﾒt think the Democratic Party has ever been for less spending. So what if theyﾒve managed a balanced budget a couple of times when there was an economic surplus?
As for campaign promises, Iﾒm well aware that reality can end up being quite differentﾅ but it strikes me as rather odd that someone would, while campaigning, promise to spend more of your money than they actually intend to. Donﾒt you think? I think McCain will spend more than he says he will, and I think Obama will spend more than he says he will. And since Obama is already promising to spend more, I think he would probably end up spending more.

ﾓperhaps we should have learned to not get involved in the first place?ﾔ
That point is moot, as we are already involved. Now, do we want to leave the mess weﾒve made, and have to play World Police again in 2018? Or do we want to fix the mess and stay out of there militarily for good?
Yes, letﾒs learn not to get involved. But when itﾒs a mess weﾒve left un-cleaned-up, I think weﾒre more inclined to get re-involved at a future date. As exemplified by Cheneyﾒs and Rumsfeldﾒs insistence to Bush to go to war in Iraq in 2003, while both had ties to the first Bush administration and the initial mess with Saddam.

"The World War was what brought the US out of the Great Depression, not the "New Deal" introduced by democratic ideals."

This war certainly isn't helping the economy any. The Republican economic philosophy offers me nothing as a voter. I'd rather have another New Deal-ish package than more tax cuts for the rich and more unnecessary war.

"Why should the wealthiest people have to pay the most taxes?"

Society is obviously structured in a way that benefits them more than the rest of us, so they should pay more to support it.

"If they pay 38% and you only pay 15%, where is the equality in that?"

The guy paying 38% is still taking home significantly more than the guy paying 15%, like me. So if you were really worried about equality, you would be advocating socialism. Letting the rich get richer while the poor pay their way into oblivion to hold up a system that favors the top is anything but equal.

"Obama's tax reform plan will give $1,000 back as a tax refund to _everyone_ who does not even currently pay _any_ taxes. Why the hell should people who are not even paying taxes at all, get free money from the government and the wealthy pay for it?"

Because for the most part, those that aren't paying enough are the ones that need the most help.

"Most people do not even realize the current taxes that businesses have to pay, "

After tax-loopholes, it's not as much as I'd expect you to claim.

"and when you factor in health care costs, unemployment and all the other nice things most businesses provide, they should be given tax cuts."

IF they provide those benefits, IF they adequately compensate their workers, and IF they create jobs here instead of overseas, I agree. If they're exporting jobs, or under compensating their employees, tax the devil out of them.

"Less government, less regulation of the private sector, and less government spending = my view of what needs to change."

Have you been paying attention to what's been happening over the past few weeks? It's become glaringly obvious that this economic philosophy does not work.

"also, why are you voting for a republican to get us out of a mess that you state yourself was created by a republican president working much of his tenure with a republican congress?"

I would also like to know the answer to that.

To state that Bush being a republican and therefore his choices will be mirrored by McCain as a republican is retarded at best.

You speak about the rich being favored as if it is a bad thing to be wealthy. If it is simply because of their wealth, then I cannot agree more. Those that put in the effort and ingenuity should be that further ahead of the game than the rest.

How did you take my statement about inequality regarding taxation to mean I support socialism? I support a flat tax. I should have to pay the same percentage as anyone else, otherwise, I am being discriminated against due to my socioeconomic status.

The largest mistake of the current administration in my mind was the regulation (democratic ideal) of the private mortgage lending sector and the opening of the floodgates for irresponsible borrowing/lending. When people started getting loans who should not have and could not have been approved for mortgage loans prior to the government regulation, the private sector no longer could do what they do best, run their sector.

The government is not qualified to run every industry they poke their noses in.

Do not confuse choices made by the current administration with _all_ republican ideals, that is just foolish.

you are saying that the current financial crisis is caused by some recent increase in regulation as opposed to deregulation?

"To state that Bush being a republican and therefore his choices will be mirrored by McCain as a republican is retarded at best."

Please point out exactly where I said one will equal the other.

But the fact remains, Republicans, in this case specifically Bush and McCain, do agree on some very party line issues that I cannot support. The two I mentioned in my post were the war and the Republican philosophy of economics, where the idea is to shove all the wealth to the top and hope it "trickles down," which is a ridiculous idea. The idea that John McCain with not act, *gasp!*, like a Republican, no matter how broad that term may be, is retarded at best.

"You speak about the rich being favored as if it is a bad thing to be wealthy."

No, I speak of it as if it obligates them to pay more into the society that they, not the poor, are getting the most from. This does not translate into "the rich are bad! Wealth is evil!" Stop misinterpreting my words.

"Those that put in the effort and ingenuity should be that further ahead of the game than the rest."

They're still way, WAY ahead of the game, even when they are responsible for the larger share of the tax burden. Nobody is talking about redistributing wealth so much to the point of erasing class differences here. The rich will still be rich, and the middle class still won't be. But they won't be trampled under the weight of the richest anymore.

"How did you take my statement about inequality regarding taxation to mean I support socialism?"

Read my post. I didn't say you DO support socialism. I said if you're going to advocate equality, you SHOULD be. What you're really advocating is an a method to widen the gap between middle and upper class, and that's not equality.

"I support a flat tax. I should have to pay the same percentage as anyone else, otherwise, I am being discriminated against due to my socioeconomic status."

No you're not. You're getting the better deal out of the way our system works. You get more, you pay more. It's that simple. That's not discrimination, it's called paying your fair share.

"you are saying that the current financial crisis is caused by some recent increase in regulation as opposed to deregulation?"

Partially, yes.

Did you miss the post higher up where I mentioned that government regulation contributed heavily to the creation of the housing bubble? There has to be a bubble in order for one to pop, so blame needs to fall equally on these past actions.

In the late '70s, some federal regulatory legislation was passed that applied to the mortgage lending industry. In 1995, under President Clinton, that legislation was broadened, deepened, and more thoroughly enforced, which caused artificial inflation of home prices due to a sudden increase in demand from newly-qualified borrowers. In 2002, interest rates were artificially lowered in order to stimulate the economy (read: more government intervention), which led many of these same kind of people who wouldn't have qualified for a mortgage to take out artificially-affordable mortgages with no money down. Of course, since property values were soaring, it didn't matter if they didn't put any money down and they defaulted, because then the bank would just get a house whose value already exceeds the principle of the mortgage anyway, right?

So everyone thought housing was a risk-free investment, so more people got involved with speculation in the housing market. Meanwhile, banks and financial institutions, certain that they didn't at all have to worry about all the money being loaned out someday becoming unretrievable, decided to try to keep making as many mortgages as possible. Of course, they could only give out more mortgages if they had cash on hand, but they didn't have any on hand because they'd already loaned it all out as mortgages. So they came up with the clever idea of selling investment opportunities in subprime mortgages in order to re-acquire their capital so that they could make more money bye making more loans that they would then sell to investors so that they would have more money to give out in loans that they would then sell to investors...

The government is to blame for passing legislation that made institutions loan to unqualified buyers at artificially low interest rates that would more than double in just a couple of years' time.

They're by far not the only person to blame, but I hope I've clearly and simply explained the role that government regulation played.

if this all stemmed back from 40 to 15 years ago, what was the current trigger? why did it not occur in the 70's or then in 1995.

while i can agree that historically there are many contributing factors, i think you have left out the all important current events that led us to where we are now. is that the deregulation that allowed the lenders to give out money without qualifying buyers and counting on a government bailout if it came to that?

if the 70's regulatory act you are speaking of is jimmy carter's cra, the text that i read said that it "allows" mortgage companies to do things. this would imply that they weren't allowed before and was therefore deregulation rather than regulation no? so basically the government allowed companies to set their own lending standards? it also states several times in the act that all of the things it requires is to be done in a safe and sound manner to the interests of the financial institutions.

where exactly is the smoking gun in this act:

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-2515.html

i will assume that this is the legislation you are referring to as it is what is shown in a popular youtube video blaming the democrats for our current problems.

How small does the government have to be to fit in my bedroom? How many personal restraints must I suffer, while business goes "unregulated"? Less government spending on what ... the Department of Defense?

Entitlement is a slippery slope. I am not aware of anywhere in the constitution that everyone has a right to reap the benefits (money) of people that worked hard and earned a large amount of wealth.

10% of 50k might only be 5k and 10% of 500k might be 50k, but it is the same (equal) portion of their incomes. What justification can you provide that just because someone has earned more than someone else, they automatically should have to be taxed at a higher rate? What philosophical reasoning lies behind your stance? Where does it end? Should one farmer that has a better harvest over another that works longer/harder/smarter be penalized for his efforts?

Government is there to provide certain freedoms (bill of rights), community infrastructure (roads, public school systems, etc...) and make and enforce laws.

They are not there to force/coerce/regulate what standards banks (or any private business sector) should/must abide by in regards to lending (or whatever applicable industry is in question).

the best flat rate tax structure would be a federal sales tax in lieu of the current income tax. those who consume more, or more expensive items, pay more in taxes. if it is collected by retail outlets as state sales taxes are now, it would also be much more difficult to evade tax collection.

"Entitlement is a slippery slope."

So is a 100% free, unregulated market.

"I am not aware of anywhere in the constitution that everyone has a right to reap the benefits (money) of people that worked hard and earned a large amount of wealth."

I am also not aware of any passage that protects you from taxation, or claims that those who gain the most from society shouldn't contribute a larger portion back to it.

"10% of 50k might only be 5k and 10% of 500k might be 50k, but it is the same (equal) portion of their incomes."

But for those of us that are struggling, it hurts us a lot more than the larger percentage hurts you.

"What justification can you provide that just because someone has earned more than someone else, they automatically should have to be taxed at a higher rate?"

Already gave it to you.

"Government is there to provide certain freedoms (bill of rights), community infrastructure (roads, public school systems, etc...) and make and enforce laws."

I also think it is the job of government to help defend its citizens, especially those who are unable to help themselves due to extreme economic conditions, medical illness, etc. This is why I support things like universal health care and a tax policy that favors the lower and middle classes.

"They are not there to force/coerce/regulate what standards banks (or any private business sector) should/must abide by in regards to lending (or whatever applicable industry is in question)."

Please show me what law makes this fact and not conservative opinion.

"They are not there to force/coerce/regulate what standards banks (or any private business sector) should/must abide by in regards to lending (or whatever applicable industry is in question)."

like abortion doctors? tobacco industry? pornography (including illegal forms)? prostitution? drugs?

free market should mean that anything someone is willing to pay for, someone will be allowed to provide.

Blah blah blah, you guys argue back and forth without any sources or facts to back up anything you say. Let me address a couple things here with facts and credible sources, so you can stop arguing about a couple things.

1. Who or what caused the the current economic crisis? (read this) An excerpt from article is below.
• "So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do."
2. Economic policy in terms of our current situation explained in a 10/1/2008 interview with Warren Buffet.  Place of note 41:16 (obama & taxes) in this video.  (transcript available here) An excerpt from the video is below.
• Charlie Rose:  Senator Obama, who you support, I think, I don't want -- to be clear on this, but made an economic speech today, talks about another stimulus program.  Is that essential at this time?
• Warren Buffett:  I think the biggest thing we need now is to unclog the credit markets, and we may need another stimulus -- if we do, it's -- it should go to the lower and middle-income people.  I mean the truth is, I've never had it so good in terms of taxes.  I am paying the lowest tax rate that I've ever paid in my life.  Now, that's crazy.  And if you look at the Forbes 400, they are paying a lower rate, accounting payroll taxes, than their secretary or -- whomever around their office.  On average.

Thank you, Verifex. I love that factcheck article. I was going to bring it up eventually.

thanks veri, you are right! i was being a lazy debater.

"Is Palin a joke?"

Yes.

It seems I am in the minority here in CB. We can definitely respect each others views, but understand we do not agree.

I cannot support a system of government that rewards and aids mediocrity in the workforce or even rewards those not even in the workforce.

I have been in quite a few tax brackets throughout my career so far, and I can honestly say that a flat tax applied to a _minimum_ yearly wage adjusted for state income averages or a simple use tax that is based on consumption and use of goods and/or services would be a far better approach than what we have now.

With that said, I will bid this thread adieu.

"I cannot support a system of government that rewards and aids mediocrity in the workforce or even rewards those not even in the workforce."

You call it rewarding mediocrity. I call it helping those in need.

I think there's a distinction. Should we help those who only need help because they're mediocre? Or should we only help those in need who are war veterans, the elderly, the insane, etc.?

The problem is that being poor doesn't necessarily make you a mediocre person, worker, etc. You letting someone's economic net worth determine the net worth of one's life.

Judging from yours and the other guy's responses, myself and most of the people I know here in Michigan would be called "mediocre" just because we're struggling financially. I think that's more than unfair. It's downright insulting.

That's not what I meant to imply at all. Sorry that I came across that way.

What I mean is that there are some who are struggling financially because the economy is falling apart, or because their homes have plummetted in value, or because they've been laid off despite their excellent qualifications, or because of this or that. That's legitimate. But what about people who don't seek employment and don't do anything productive all day? Should we support them with tax money?

"But what about people who don't seek employment and don't do anything productive all day? Should we support them with tax money?"

But we're not talking about THOSE people. We're talking about the people who work 50 hours per week at two jobs and still can't afford to keep a roof over their head and feed themselves at the same time due to underemployment and a complete inability, both due to money and time, to return to education and enhance their job skills. THESE are the people that need - not just deserve, NEED - health care and a bigger tax cut than the guy who's buying his fifth yacht, and who just might go for a sixth if John McCain gets elected!

About those other people you mentioned, screw 'em.

Relic is a "if any would not work, neither should he eat" kinda guy.

I respect that on a lot of levels. It's both natural, and easy for those of us who have something to spare to get behind since we're the ones our fellow humans tend to look to when they get hungry. I can remember my Grandmother telling me in quiet tones about how my Father once dared to say to her that people who have more than they need should share. She was shocked he could say such a silly thing.

More and more I see two mindsets as the foundation of belief and morality. It really comes down to feast or famine. I've very clearly
identified myself as being someone who lives as if the world is a peaceful feast where all are welcome and worthy of whatever there is to be had. If the whole world were like me it would be a wonde......
At least that's what I'd like to think, in reality if the whole world thought like me we wouldn't be here. Conversely if the whole world took the attitude that you shouldn't ever share because you might have unforeseen needs around the next bend we'd have stayed in caves warring with any hungry passerby regardless of our own state.

It's the variation in humans as a species that have made us so successful, without it we just wouldn't be.

That being said, I think that it would be smart of us to attempt to innovate, and try new ideas in order to grow and evolve as a species.
We have more power now than ever before, we could feasibly feed the world in a sustainable manner if we chose to make that our goal. It seems to me that not doing so is a bit short sighted. If right now the next great mind is starving to death, or being poisoned by tainted food in China, or simply being fed non-nutritious crap here in the US that reduces the chance that she or he will be able to make the breakthroughs that will be needed to take us to the next level on our evolutionary journey. Population control by starvation and malnutrition need to end, it's cruel and foolish to try and excuse it as the natural way of things when we are willing to manipulate every other part of nature to suit out own wants and needs.

It is our responsibility personally, as humans to do this. The government is sadly a mediocre means to achieve these goals. The current foreign aid system being a great example. Giving money with strings attached forcing the funds to spend with specific corporations has left countries in what amounts to indentured servitude. You owe us so you have to buy from us and since you're buying from us you've got nothing to use to improve your situation.

Coming from the odd section of the political compass known as the libertarian left I'm always torn. I believe it's our right and responsibility to have concern and act in the best interest of all life, at the same time I think that legislating that responsibility is absolutely the wrong way to do it. We've lost the common morality that held that working for your food made you a better person than the man who had it because he was astronomically wealthy. Instead we all want to be that spoiled soulless billionaire leaving half eaten jars of caviar strewn about our palace...

We are the poor, and they are us. The hopeless men and women of this world are our brothers and sisters. Nothing but a random flip of a gene, or a chance encounter with a chemical, or violence at the hand of another stands between us and them. If you look down at the man we've failed who is laying drunkenly across your path, you're just saying you hate the weakest part of yourself. You hate the thought that but for chance, he is you.

I gotta say, vote Bast 2008!

First and foremost, I'm opposed to the two-party system. I have a hard time figuring out which big business, big government party to support. Furthermore, to paraphrase a comedian I saw on TV the other day but whose name escapes me: I can't vote Democrat because I like to keep my money. I can't vote Republican because I like to spend it on [candy] and [women of questionable morals and unquestionable business sense] (hope that's PG enough).

My politics have come down to voting for the candidates I despise less. When it became clear that Ron Paul wasn't getting the Republican nod, I grew despondent, but still wasn't sold on voting Democratic. It wasn't until Palin was chosen for VP candidate that I decided to back the Obama camp. After all, if there's one thing this country wasn't founded as, it's Christian, and I'd just as soon the highest elected officials of the nation not send citizens to kill and die because their god told them to.

As Iﾒve learned more and more about politics in and out of school, I have also learned how big of pansies the Democrats really are. The past off-year elections, Democrats promised they would:

* get us out of Iraq
* raise education funds
* hold the president accountable for his actions. Of course, they havenﾒt accomplished any of the above.


One of my biggest issues with the Democrats is that they canﾒt get things done, and frankly, Iﾒm not sure they even want to. With such a huge majority in the House and then holding even in the Senate (not counting Lieberman as a Dem) and the presidency going to where it is the Dems are able to bluff on every issue. Just think about it: the Dems know that something drastic like pulling the troops immediately out of Iraq wonﾒt happen, so what do they do? They pass it in the House, then make it fail in the Senate (by ever a slight minority). Hell, even if it did slightly pass the Senate, they know it would get a veto and be sent back to the Senate where a 2/3s vote would never happen.

What do the Democrats stand for?

1. Civil liberties? Nope, they canﾒt even agree on Gay Marriage.
2. Education? Nope, they donﾒt want any ﾓnewﾔ taxes to take care of the problem.
3. Anti-War? Nope, they showed exactly what they think about that. Invade Iraq? Yep, fine by them. Fund the war? Yep, canﾒt stop that. Force the president to withdraw? Of course not! Donﾒt be silly.
4. What about health care for everyone? Wow, why even suggest that? There goes a decent amount of funding, that would never happen.
5. How about the environment, do they stand for that? Nope. Although a majority of the money donated by large oil companies still go to Republicans, Democrats still receive 27% of all oil and gas money.
6. Holding the president accountable, maybe they are for thatﾅ right? Nah, that would take ﾓtoo much timeﾔ, or so they want us to believe. They claim that impeachment proceedings will take away from ﾑimportant matterﾒ, likeﾅ renaming libraries.

So, IND, who are you supporting then?

"I can't vote Republican because I like to spend it on [candy] and [women of questionable morals and unquestionable business sense] (hope that's PG enough)."

And that's exactly what I hate most about Republicans, and reason #1 why I don't vote for them. They want to enforce their twisted sense of morality on all of us, and legislate their religion into law.

Nov: I don't think I can find anything to disagree with in your last post. Nice one. It is a personal responsibility.

Joker: "After all, if there's one thing this country wasn't founded as, it's Christian, and I'd just as soon the highest elected officials of the nation not send citizens to kill and die because their god told them to."
There are two implied assertions here, and I don't think either of them is correct. First of all, every single country in Europe was at least nominally Christian during the Age of Exploration. While you could argue that the central message of Christianity was removed very early on in the process, the Judeo-Christian moral code (which I presume is what you are referring to?) has always been a central part of our moral fiber as a nation, as well as having a considerable bearing on the political thought of the 1700s. Many of the founding fathers were also, at least nominally, adherents to a Christian faith. Now, I'm not going to say we're a "Christian nation," but there has always been a more-than-negligible Christian influence since the foundation of this country. Simply by virtue of the fact that that has always been the most generally accepted moral code, I don't see how that's wrong.

Secondly, the part that you'd "rather not happen" is an entirely different issue whose relevance to the situation is entirely fabricated based on your own fears.

LB: I doubt Obama has many plans to legalize [candy]. Maybe you can get a free Waaahmbulance ride under his healthcare plan.

No, sorry, I just thought that was a funny thing to say.

Really, though, is anyone going to legalize the above?
While we're on the subject, are either of the above really beneficial to you, anyway? I mean, I see the point that it's not the government's responsibility to tell you what's good or bad for you in your leisure time, but I've personally given it some thought and found that it's pretty obvious what's not good for me in my leisure time.

Meh, nothing creates agreement like stating meaningless feel good fluff

Haha I was mostly agreeing with you that personal charity is a lot more effective than government redistribution of wealth.

Actually, while I follow where you're going in stating that we need both ends of the spectrum, in a sense, in order to create a balance, I would caution anyone from consciously taking up that side of the spectrum "in order to provide balance." Charity is not to be done just for its own sake, but it is a responsibility we all have. The extent varies from person to person, but I do think it is ridiculous to not share what you have with someone who really doesn't have anything.

"Really, though, is anyone going to legalize the above?"

The Democrats on average tend to support personal freedom more than the religious right and their favored party. We may not see these two particular things legalized nationwide during Obama's presidency, but I feel we will have a step in the right direction.

"While we're on the subject, are either of the above really beneficial to you, anyway? I mean, I see the point that it's not the government's responsibility to tell you what's good or bad for you in your leisure time, but I've personally given it some thought and found that it's pretty obvious what's not good for me in my leisure time."

Let's say it is good for me, just for purpose of conversation. It's not yours nor the government's responsibility to tell me otherwise. And if you think [x] is not good for you, don't do it. But don't vote away my right to do the opposite.

Wait, candy is illegal?


But.... but I love candy!

"Let's say it is good for me, just for purpose of conversation. It's not yours nor the government's responsibility to tell me otherwise. And if you think [x] is not good for you, don't do it. But don't vote away my right to do the opposite."

I could make a very similar argument for helping those in need. I can donate my time and money to a charity as I see fit, but it's not for the government to redistribute what I've earned.

I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, here, trying to turn your own words around on you or anything. I happen to agree, and I just saw a parallel.

At the same time, I don't think that a regressive tax (not having tax brackets) is a good thing. In that sense, I'm not in the same policy camp as Relic, though it seems like we might be fairly close ideologically on some things.

I think implementing a federal sales tax not applied to necessities would be the best policy as far as flat taxing goes, so that people pay based on what they consume. That way, you don't get penalized more for producing more, but you pay according to what you consume.

Just to clarify that, since I think that's what started the whole issue with helping those in need.

Heh, so then the Reps and Dems can argue about what "necessities" are? No thanks. For example, where do you think Republicans would stand on, say, condoms? I'd bet I'd get taxed on that, even though I see that type of item as being one of the most necessary things on the planet. What would be my recourse when things I find necessary start getting taxed?

And food types... Is coffee essential? Is Tang? Ultra-sweetened, nutrition-deficit cereal? Bottled water?

Again, I say "no thanks". You'd be putting the government more directly into my cupboard, my bathroom, my bedroom, and my body. I currently dole out something like 25-30% of my income in income tax, so that's a large chunk of change for letting the gov't decide what is "necessary" or not. State sales tax already has plenty of grey areas, but luckily that is only 6-7% on what I buy. I'm not seeing a sales tax working for funding the entire United States...

By "necessities," I was thinking unprepared food. I.e. what you get in a grocery store, but not what you get in restaurants. As well as maybe certain hygiene products, toilet paper, etc. I don't see how condoms are at all necessary to sustain someone's existence (I see the easily-defeatable argument for such a claim, though), so I don't think that should count.

Speaking of state sales tax, though, aren't "necessities" already tax-exempt? Maybe that's just where I live. However, I put out the suggestion under the assumption that it could follow a similar template to that of state sales tax. Which "gray areas" are you referring to that would apply in this situation?

There are a lot of grey areas, in my opinion, such that if the amount of money generated from such a tax suddenly had to increase, I would take far more notice of.

For example, people buying horribly non-nutritious food or empty calories like high fructose sodas or processed food-stuffs that are barely a step above pure sugar. Or things like bottled water that are pure convenience (I am not sure if water is exempt from sales tax here in Missouri or not, actually...) But concepts like "necessary" and "convenient" are every bit as complicated as tax brackets and disposable income, wouldn't you agree?

You are right, the states all decide now (including mine) what the rules are for sales tax. I assume every state is different, too. With a Federal program, ALL states would have to do things exactly the same, except the money involved, instead of being a smaller percentage on what we buy, would have to be an amount large enough to fund the Federal gov't (wars don't pay for themselves).

Let's crunch some numbers: According to Wikipedia, tax revenues for all state-level taxes (that includes income, sales, excise) was 528,549,000,000 in 2004 -- we'll just call that a round 530 billion.

Also from Wikipedia, Federal Tax reveues, across all states and all tax types amounted to 2,674,007,818,000 in 2007. In staying with our "billions" units, that would be 2674 billion, or around 5 times as much as the combined state revenues from the state level. Keep in mind, that includes corporate taxes and such (not sure where that would fit in your federal sales tax idea).

Even if we got lean and mean on spending, we would still need to generate at least 2-3 times as much as state level taxes at the federal level if we used something like the current state-level tax system. If you do that with a sales tax, that means a HUGE amount of money will be under the guidance of this new tax system. So yeah, I'm going to start getting a little snippy if things _I_ find to be essential are taxed while other people are buying crap food and drink for their family and seeing exemptions. You can bet things as simple as loaves of bread and gallons of milk would be become the focus of HUGE political boondoggles under such a plan.

On the other hand, I am fine with the income tax bracket I am currently in under the current taxation system. Now, is some of that just being familiar with it? Certainly. I'm not saying there aren't problems, both with the revenue generating and revenue spending sides. But having the governtment tell me what products are essential when taking almost a third of my income with the scheme would not be acceptable to me.

If you really want to think in terms of something that is "level" and keeps decisions in the hands of the people, Google "guaranteed adequate income" and read some documents. Ideas range from some sort-of crack-pot ideas to things that almost make sense. It's at least a portion of the spectrum that raises a lot of new ideas and plans, so you might find it of interest.

Taxation is a complicated issue. Progressive taxes really do seem like the way to go though Relic. Working in a higher income bracket can really create disincentive to work more though, but theres no question that at least a mildly progressive tax is necessary, quite simply because other people can get much more utility out of the money. Someone on the edge of their bills can use the money much more than someone who would like that extra bit of cash. Charities are great and all, but I think it being part of the tax system is very helpful. One of the problems with the system as it is nation wide it doesn't take into account different costs of living in places. The same income can mean that you are struggling versus moderately well off depending on where you live.

However, I could see a consumption tax working just as well, but there's not a huge enough reason to change IMO. Flat Consumption tax does keep the benefit of keeping incentives to work more and it is somewhat progressive in the sense that people who spend less pay less, but I really don't think there is enough reason to change. On the huge plus side though it would really simplify the tax system.

"So, IND, who are you supporting then?"

I'm voting for McCain. The lesser of two evils. By far.

To answer the subject: Yes.

1. Civil liberties?

Democrats are more supportive of civil liberties hands down, even if they don't get it done (the republicans had both legislatures and the presidency, what did you expect?).

2. Education? Nope, they donﾒt want any ﾓnewﾔ taxes to take care of the problem.

Correct.

3. Anti-War?

Most people who voted for Iraq didn't expect them to actually go to war, but they did. Once we got there it honestly didn't make sense to leave, it would just make even more of a mess than we already had.

4. What about health care for everyone? Wow, why even suggest that? There goes a decent amount of funding, that would never happen.

You're right.

5. How about the environment, do they stand for that?

Donations don't always mean influence.

6. Holding the president accountable, maybe they are for thatﾅ right?

Accountable for what? Going to war with bad info? I'm sorry intentional lying by the president was never proven; you need a crime to be impeached.

IND, looking at your own 6-point list, can you explain your opinion on how McCain is the lesser of two evils? I think your checklist is a good one, and since you have used it to explain your stance against the Democrats, I assume you can use it equally as well to explain your support for the Republicans, yes?

In other words, it would seem to be the case that you think the Republicans/McCain will be more helpful with that list to consider McCain the lesser of the two evils, correct? Can you explain what McCain will do better in those things, and support your answers? I'd enjoy seeing that in the discussion -- maybe I have been missing something this whole time, so it would be good to get educated before election day!

Colonel Custard: 1) Many Americans are and have always been christian, that's fine. However, public policy should not be made on the basis of christian doctrine and dogma.
2) I don't really expect the government to legalize the afore-mentioned things simply because Obama is elected president. However, were such a thing to happen, it would most likely be the result of democratic legislation.
3) Such things may not be "good" for me, but they're no worse than the state-approved vices of cigarettes, booze, and high-fructose corn syrup.

1) I agree with you on an emotional level (and let's be real: a lot of people's political views are at least heavily influenced if not determined by emotion), but I fail to see the reason behind such an argument. I mean, try to look at it this way, for a second:
Democracy, in theory, is good because it represents the will of the majority, rather than some small ruling class, correct?
Now, if "many Americans" are Christian, or even just hold on to a fair number of Christian ideals, to the point that that is the majority view... what else would be expected to be the foundation of our policies, if Democracy is functioning anywhere near how it's supposed to?
Theoretically, if majority popular opinion = the Judeo-Christian law, then that should be the basis for our legislation, etc. Right?

2) Either that or Ron Paul. I think a significant difference, though, is that Ron Paul would remove federal legislation banning certain things even though he does not wish to condone such actions. His plans for legalization of certain substances make a certain amount of practical sense, but his real biggest reasons lie mostly in letting states legislate on the grounds they are given by the Constitution, and not letting the Federal Government overstep its Constitutional bounds. By contrast, I feel that legalization under the Democratic philosophy would inevitably be accompanied by a message that certain things are "legitimate alternatives" that aren't detrimental to one's health (or anything else) in any way, and it was just ignorance and foolishness and outdated social stigmas that kept such things banned for so long. Let me say this: promiscuity is not a healthy, nor safe, lifestyle choice, in either a physical, emotional, or mental sense. So these "women with good business sense" have little else going for them, and people who cavort with them comparably so.

3) I see that. I do think, though, that it depends which type of candy you are referring to, as well as your own particular body chemistry.
Personally, I don't smoke, I don't drink, and I try to avoid high-fructose corn syrup as much as possible. I just think it makes sense to not do things like that, and instead to put healthy things into my body.
However, assuming the government has any business telling you what's good to put in your body, I suppose we could at least call for consistency, huh? So let's ban cigarettes, lower the legal limit for alcohol, and import Brazilian cane sugar? I'm for it, I guess. I mean, whose life would be made worse by it?
To clear up this point before it comes up: I'm not an ignorant tee-totaler. In general, I don't avoid such things because I never considered they might be good or fun or "not as bad as you think, Mom," but because I've found from personal experience that they really aren't beneficial to my life.

I vote drudge.
Er. Yeah.

"Democracy, in theory, is good because it represents the will of the majority,"

You're forgetting minority rights. That and the whole "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part of the First Amendment.

1) This country was founded on principles that were far from Christianity, as well as far from simply bending to the majority.

However, currently if you're a politician and announce that you aren't very religious you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

Read those Jefferson quotes you posted, he's not talking about how he's a Christian in today's sense. There is a difference between religious, and learning from religion. They were far from fundamentalist.

Er, could an admin delete my old post, to save space?
Clickey
Link to the Founding Fathers post.

I think he is clearly stating that he is a Christian.

Webster is talking about how Christian principles do help society, not that they are necessary. This is the principles not the religion. I agree I have nothing wrong with Christian teachings, but I see nothing close to "Christian Nation" here.

Why don't you read your quotes rather than just copy pasting and telling me I'm wrong?

Daniel Webster said: "[Christian religion] must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society."

Thomas Jefferson wrote his own bible. Now read the quotes again.
"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible


"I am a real Christian ﾖ that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.67 "

Now read this again paying attention to the word tend.

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.64"

Now pay attention to the word only.

"I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.66"

Now pay attention to the phrase that is to say

"I am a real Christian ﾖ that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.67 "


Basically, Christian Fundamentalism is NOT what he's saying in the slightest sense.

Yeah, I will agree with you there.
And I hate myself for posting that crazily long post.

<Verifex> Everyone has their own political opinion, and everyone thinks they are right and have some fundamental urge to convince other people that their opinion is more important then the other persons.
<Verifex> Or that their own opinion is obviously the correct one, so if it's only a matter of shoving more words and facts down someone elses throat it will change their mind on some issue.
<Marlfox> is that your political opinion, Fexy ? ;)
<Verifex> I've never seen someone talking politics where one person actually changes someone elses mind .. about anything.. especially if they have already made up their mind about something.
<Hakai> Verifex is banned from speaking of politics ;p

"However, currently if you're a politician and announce that you aren't very religious you're just shooting yourself in the foot."

That's certainly what I consider a Bad Thing. Definitely a major problem in this country. Look at it this way: I can never, ever, ever seriously run for office because I will be immediately voted out simply because I am not religious. That's pure discrimination. If we were talking about refusing to vote for someone solely on the basis of race or gender, I doubt we would have anyone here defending that. But discrimination against atheists is alive, well, and smiled upon in this country.

Veri: personally, I find this interesting. It lets me think about things from multiple perspectives, if nothing else.

Cubicle: Christian Fundamentalism is unrelated to the conversation, I think, unless something Marl said in his long post that was deleted alluded to it. I was referring to Christian principles, and not the Christian religion.

I don't think this country was founded on the Christian religion, but I do think it was on the Christian principles. And you can read the long post in the link I gave.
But like Fexy said, I won't change any minds. And that's the beauty of America, your free to disagree.

I can agree with Christian principles being part of the founding, but many people use that argument to justify fundamentalism.

"If we were talking about refusing to vote for someone solely on the basis of race or gender, I doubt we would have anyone here defending that. But discrimination against atheists is alive, well, and smiled upon in this country."

Neither race nor gender is an ideology, though. If someone's life and morals are centered around Christian teaching, it makes sense that they not vote for an atheist in the same way as it would make sense for a member of the Republican party to not vote for a Democrat. If I think Christian principles are the best thing in the world, I'd much sooner vote for someone who supports and lives by them than someone who doesn't. Right?

Hey I know, lets hijack this political discussion with religious discussion.

For the record, in less than than three years I have moved a gun-loving, Reagan-era, ex-Marine from Bush voter and registered wingnut to Obama supporter. Winning arguments work.

Yeah, fex if there's anything harder than changing someone's political views it's changing their religious views.

CC, I just have to say that morals can exist easily without Christianity.

Well Bast, what is your winning strategy then?

Sorry Fexy.
I know, I can't keep my mouth shut. And I never can remember to never talk about religion and politics. ;)

"If I think Christian principles are the best thing in the world, I'd much sooner vote for someone who supports and lives by them than someone who doesn't. Right?"

it is the living by them that is the hard part, especially with the built-in scapegoat flawed creation clause.

so you think george w. bush was a moral and righteous leader? likewise, are republicans more moral and religious because they attend church and proclaim it loudly?

as i said earlier in the debate (at least i think it was this one) expecting religious men to also be good at economics, foreign affairs and civil matters is probably about as wise as taking my car to my pastor for an oil change.

let the good moral men lead in church, that is likely the safest place for them.

And exactly what winning arguments would those be, Bast?

"That's certainly what I consider a Bad Thing. Definitely a major problem in this country. Look at it this way: I can never, ever, ever seriously run for office because I will be immediately voted out simply because I am not religious. That's pure discrimination. If we were talking about refusing to vote for someone solely on the basis of race or gender, I doubt we would have anyone here defending that. But discrimination against atheists is alive, well, and smiled upon in this country."

The Bradley effect has been documented (and raised against Obama now) - simply put people will tell pollsters that they vote for the black and at the real elections swing the other way. Estimated size of effect ~6% (very roughly, but far beyond polling error). Not enough people nowadays loudly defend racial discrimination, but well, one in twenty act that way on polls. Oh yeah, wasn't there a gallup poll that said more than half the populace would not vote for a president because they're atheist? Even more than if the president was gay. Or black. Or even Muslim.

Found it: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist

"That's certainly what I consider a Bad Thing. Definitely a major problem in this country. Look at it this way: I can never, ever, ever seriously run for office because I will be immediately voted out simply because I am not religious. That's pure discrimination. If we were talking about refusing to vote for someone solely on the basis of race or gender, I doubt we would have anyone here defending that. But discrimination against atheists is alive, well, and smiled upon in this country."

Voting for someone who has the same religious beliefs as you is not only fair, but it is important. I simply dislike both of the presidential candidates based on their moral views alone, let alone their terrible economic policies.

Titan, you can't please all the people all the time, you happen to be in one of the groups who is never going to be pleased. Sorry.

Titan, I suggest you clone yourself and then run the clone for president. Clone twice and now you have your veep candidate!

I got this error message just now - thanks for BarzooMonkey for making it possible:

"Sorry -- Sarah Palin was retired after your opponents list was loaded. You're not allowed to fight retired Characters; CB has refreshed your opponents list accordingly. Please select another opponent."

"CC, I just have to say that morals can exist easily without Christianity."

I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't. However, is it not more likely that a Christian-principled candidate's beliefs and policies would line up better with Christian-principled constituents' beliefs than one who gets their principles elsewhere?

Another interesting question is where this "elsewhere" is. Technically, the root word from which we get the word "moral" actually implies some sort of objective absolute of right and wrong (the more subjective, culturally-linked alternative being "ethos"). I don't see how a code of conduct can be absolute in any sense without the assumption of the existence of a "god" of some sort, though ethical systems can exist comfortably in a purely socially-dictated context. In this sense, morality can't exist without (absolute belief) as a basis.

"so you think george w. bush was a moral and righteous leader? likewise, are republicans more moral and religious because they attend church and proclaim it loudly?"
No. However, I'd like to point out that it's not for us to decide on another person's intentions, and I therefore don't agree that Bush is necessarily a liar rather than misinformed, or necessarily evil rather than incompetent, or necessarily power-hungry rather than really just wanting to crack down on terrorists hard. I don't know his motivations, and any guess one can make about them is worth nothing more than a guess.

"as i said earlier in the debate (at least i think it was this one) expecting religious men to also be good at economics, foreign affairs and civil matters is probably about as wise as taking my car to my pastor for an oil change."
Your argument implies that taking your car to a pastor for an oil change is inherently foolish (because no pastor could possibly know anything about cars). While the Bible is not a truck parts manual, very few people, no matter how religious, have never read anything other than the Bible. Maybe he worked at the Jiffy Lube down the street while he was in high school, or maybe he was a mechanic to pay his way through seminary. It's not as if no one who is a pastor can possibly have qualifications in any other area.

That said, the Bible does contain a surprising amount of wisdom concerning dealing with finances and how to treat friends, enemies, and foreign leaders. I don't think running a Presidency on the Book of Proverbs would have an effect nearly as fatal as you seem to think.

"let the good moral men lead in church, that is likely the safest place for them."
We don't want good, moral men leading every establishment? I doubt that's what you meant to imply; you probably were just saying that good, moral, Christian men belong only in the church because they would be dangerous and unreasonable in leadership positions in any other establishment, right?

Say you own a company, and you've got 10 qualified, moral areligious men and 10 qualified, moral, firmly-believing Christian men, and 14 leadership positions to fill. Do you hire 4 of the Christian men because they're moral, or are they so "radical" that you would rather promote 4 unqualified janitors with questionable convictions and business ethics to fill those positions instead? A moral Christian man may not be your first choice or the one you agree with most, but even then I doubt you would put them lower than "third-best choice" or so. A moral leader of any type is better than one who has no scruples, right?

I also apologize if I misconstrued that last part and put words in your mouth for any of it.

I agree with AG_Titan.

"Titan, you can't please all the people all the time, you happen to be in one of the groups who is never going to be pleased. Sorry."
"Titan, I suggest you clone yourself and then run the clone for president. Clone twice and now you have your veep candidate!"
What? Where does this come from? Are Obama and McCain the epitome of a Presidential candidate for each side of the political spectrum, and if you can't get behind one of them, there will never, ever be anyone you would actually want to support?

"simply put people will tell pollsters that they vote for the black and at the real elections swing the other way. Estimated size of effect ~6%"
Hmmmﾅ I don't really get why one would feel so compelled to tell a pollster that theyﾒre going to vote the opposite of what they will, but I suppose when you are racist in today's society, you probably feel like you've got to go the extra step to hide it. "Yeah, man, Iﾒm totally voting for Obama 3 times! I love black people!"
However, this does give me hope that Obama will get fewer votes than he is projected to. Which, while I still am not sure I can make myself cast a vote for McCain, I think is good news.

woot number 157

""-There are plenty of rational reasons to vote for McCain, you probably just don't see them or agree with them."

I'm still waiting to hear one."

Since we're effectively given two choices (though I'm still rather disinclined to vote for either), all of the reasons to not want Obama in office are reasons to vote for McCain (because someone has to take office, and it's not going to be a third-party candidate or independent coming from behind).

Big reason not to vote for Obama:
Personally, I believe he will destroy the economy and American industry if he actually he implements what he promises to, as far as taxation, and especially carbon credits (no one will be able to manufacture anything affordably in this country).

Secondly, though, here's a big thing: Obama goes way beyond pro-choice. He's for killing babies after they come out of the womb (really no one else sees a problem with that? If it's not a human being once it's breathing delivery room air, when does it become not OK to kill it?). He's also promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as his "first thing I'd do as President." The problem with the freedom of choice act, mostly, is that it doesn't leave doctors a choice. Currently, if a health-care professional is medically qualified to perform an abortion but has a "conscience issue" (i.e. is pro-life), they personally don't have to perform an abortion (the woman can presumably go to another doctor in the same clinic). The Freedom of Choice Act essentially guarantees abortion as a fundamental right, meaning that any doctor with a "conscience issue" could lose their job over it. That's not right.
Obama has also, thus far, refused to lend support to the Pregnant Women Support Act, whose basic idea is to make more information and support available to women if they are not sure they want to have an abortion- NOT to ban abortion in any instance. Really, you oppose giving women information about what effects it will have on their body to stop the pregnancy halfway through the gestational period? You oppose easing the financial stress on a new mother by providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program? Why?

Also, what kind of Democrat is he, really, if he doesn't want to give away money through S-CHIP?

I can agree on the economy in terms of taxation. Carbon credits could work very well if they are implemented correctly, but i doubt they would be.

---

On abortion at least according to wikipedia, he opposed the Induced Infant Liability Act because of a technicality in the law that would cause a problem in some certain circumstance, and Illinois already had similar legislation.

His vote against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, he said it was because he thought the legislation should be left to the states.

Politicians vote against laws for many reasons.. and leaving more power to the states is perfect valid and a good reason to not have a federal law. It can not in the slightest be reduced to "Obama kills babies".

Some technicality...

Medically there is no issue with abortion (it does not have an undue risk of harm to the mother). Therefore if you're a "doctor" who randomly refuses to perform significant operations on caprice, you should get straight out of the profession. This is not the "preacher" profession you're talking about.

Next up: president signs law allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense antibiotics on morality issues; microbe-rights activists hail decision as "guaranteeing the legality of resisting genocide".

No, it is not far off. You anthrocentric discriminator.

An appendectomy doesn't have an "undue risk" to the patient, either, but no one goes home the same day as the operation.

Your argument comes down to a question of what "undue risk" is.

The difference, though, is that the growth of a fetus within your body does cause hormonal changes in your system. A female's body is meant to monitor these hormone levels for about 9 months with the assumption that it will one day produce a live child that it will have to feed. A mid-term abortion (in the same manner as a miscarriage) throws this all off right in the middle. I guess we can just allow delivery-room executions of unwanted babies, though, to bypass this issue, huh? Then there will just be an increase in the supply of unneeded breast milk.

What's your deal with anthrocentrism, Obs? Have you really never killed any microbes? Because you may want to talk to your white blood cells about that; they may have been operating "unofficially".

As weak as it is, though, that's the best response I can muster to your accusation of anthro(po)centrism. I guess you've got me on that one; I've never really thought about how much better it would be if turtles and fungus were in charge of scientific advancement.

So you're anthro-decentric philosophy implies what? That all life is equally valuable, or that all is equally worthless? Well, if all is equally valuable, then that includes a fetus/baby, whenever it starts being alive. And if all is equally worthless, let's kill everyone. Eh?

As for doctors being forced to carry out procedures they have a moral objection to... you really see nothing wrong with that? Abortion is a medically necessary procedure in very, very few cases, and it should therefore not be compulsory. If you want an abortion, go to a doctor who specializes in abortions, just like you go to a plastic surgeon if you want a new nose. I'm sure half the regular surgeons in the world wouldn't fare too badly if they were to cross over into strictly superficial surgery, but does that mean that we should force them to carry out such insignificant procedures when they could be doing much more important things?

As for everyone else you implicitly mentioned (biologists working with microbes, for example), why are they in that field? If you work for a biology degree in any school that I know of, you probably get a healthy dose of dissection experience under your belt, as well as countless experiments with growing bacterial colonies in petre dishes with penicillin covering one third of it. I don't understand how someone with such an objection would even enter such a career. By contrast, I doubt medical students are required to perform a minimum of 3 abortions in order to complete their internships.

I was satirizing your insistence that abortion be an optional procedure to be specialized in per taste. To your "forcing doctors to perform abortions", why do you force pharmacists to prescribe antibiotics? [Paste your answer here]

Undue risk is a balance between the benefits to the patient and possible complications. For example 0.3 mortality is not "undue risk" when said patient has terminal cancer with 0.5 survival chance untreated. Now, untreated, pregnancy has a 0.00011 (US) mortality rate. Abortion has a 0.00004 mortality rate - as far back as 1995.

Stop telling women what their bodies are supposed to do, if a woman wants the abortion obviously err... they want it? Being arbitrarily (choice of doctor) denied and possibly being *forced* to bring something to term - while the parasite grows, is not harmful? If you object to the term, a parasite is an organism that grows at the direct expense of another. For example look at "parasitic twins".

And hell no, if a procedure *can* be medically necessary, it is on that alone compulsory. Appendectomies are only required in 0.011 of the US population per year, so when someone clutches their sides in pain and rolls around, do you allow the attending doctor to state "MORAL OBJECTION" and turn him away to almost-certain death? Or worse, the doctor puts him on the two-month waiting list because it's an "insignificant, rare" procedure?

Until you pass a constitutional amendment to proclaim fetuses as viably "human", anthropocentrism (per your argument against say "murder") is useless. Those hippies up north (read: Canada) see no legal document saying those are "human" enough to be protected.

And at the end, why is abortion killing the fetus anyways? That's solely because the fetus is UNABLE to survive outside the uterus. We have (as a species) some use out of protecting the autonomous survival of our members, but never have we protected some at the expense of another. Until slavery became popular.

Next up: president bans all contraceptives, says "sperm are as undeniably human as we are, spermicide is genocide!"

They've got unquestionably human DNA, why is it that two non-human cells meet (at conception) and automagically become human? Viability? Read the above, viability is in the utter absence of outside help.

Plus, if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

My own view is pro-choice, mostly because I firmly believe a person has a right to do with their own body as they see fit, not under restrictions of law or religion. I've known several people who have had abortions and almost to a woman they are firmly aware of what it involves, the consequences and yes the guilt and sadness and loss. Anyone who thinks it's done lightly for the most part is extremely wrong. So you can say that I'm against the pro-life ideas.

CC, I'll presume you're not pro-abortion from your argument, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there. I do love that how well that argument sits alongside:

"[RP08]ColonelCustard October 10 5:52 PM EDT Obs: I agree. Try to work them out of their insanity while there's time. But if an evil leader is hostile to America (in a real, military or terroristic sense), there shouldn't be any hesitancy to take him out. "

I also love the view - and it's not limited to the US obviously - that if somebody is against us they're automatically evil.

To some countries the US is the evil empire. How would a pro-life country justify carpet bombing innocents in enemy cities? Even enemy troops? I've never heard a decent argument justifying war and pro-life alongside each other.

But Johnny, it's a "just" war because they ARE evil.

Is war OK?
Yes, but only if it is just.
Why is a just war?
Fighting someone who is evil.
How do you know someone is evil?
Well, we don't. But we better go in and check, and we have other reasons anyway.
So to find out if we can war against someone, we have to find out they are evil, and to confirm that they are evil, we might have to invade...war against them?
Now you've got it.
Isn't that a circular definition..."begging the question"?
I don't know what that means. But since I have your attention, can you speak more clearly when you talk on the phone -- our monitoring systems can't tell exactly whether or not you are a terrorist.
WHAT?!
Hm? Oh, nothing. Here's your bag back -- we had to confiscate the toothpaste.

Yet as for the link you sent, okay so Obama's playing the political game like every politician. He's trying to appeal to both people then. It doesn't make a difference too me.

I'd still support the votes against both said bills, that doesn't make me a baby killer. For one a fetus is not a baby. Medicine that can save people should not be restricted/except for patents etc. I don't think abortion is something that should be legislated beyond regulating it for safety. It's clearly necessary in some plenty of cases, and an option so we don't flood our planet in unwanted children. (I read a book that actually correlates Roe v Wade with a drop in crime 18 years later.) Clearly, the abortion debate is a matter of opinion/feelings though, I've met very few people who aren't die hard on either side of the debate. I think doctors should be able to decide what procedures are right/most beneficial based on the facts, and if a doctor refuses to do a procedure at the expense of the patient, then they should be held accountable.

I completely agree with Obscurans by the way. Rereading what I wrote it's a little confusingly worded.

I'm curious why the abortion debate is always so high on people's list for president. I realize it's an emotional issue, but it's not something that someone being president is likely to change. Roe v Wade is still going to be upheld whether you like it or not. Though they might change how many weeks, it's not likely to swing fully one way or the other.

"It is the duty of the government to keep its people morally safe, and all steps should be taken to prevent others from sinning" - a CB user who I'll leave nameless unless they was to claim this statement

I believe that it's this type of thinking that will destroy us. The world will suffer and mankind will decline in power, intelligence, and capability if we are so blind. Whatever your stance regarding "morality" please don't be so foolish as to think that someone else should be the one in control of it.

Johnny, I really have to comment on that word evil too. I hate it whenever someone tries to use the words good and evil in a serious setting. The only time anything is that black and white is in a comic book, and life isn't a comic book. When I hear the word evil in a debate it seems well... comical. Everyone thinks they're the good guys.

Case in point: Pro-life & Pro-choice.

i always have a hard time swallowing the republican line that they are for a smaller, less-powerful federal government, yet they would love to legislate away the right to choice. i would hazard a guess that at least some in the republican party would love to have a federal religion as well...at least until they all tried to decide on what the specifics of that religion would be.

in reality it seems that they really do not want smaller government with less contol, they want their government with the control they think is necessary.

i tell my teen daughter that you cannot control others behavior, only your own or your reaction to others behavior or how it impacts you. if as human beings everyone would accept this and get the hell over it, the world would be a much happier place. when the republican party aligned themselves with people whose main goal is to control others, they doomed themselves in many of our eyes.

i guess we will have to wait and see how it all turns out though. just remember that any time you allow some personal liberties and freedoms to be taken away out of fear or strong emotions, or for whatever reason, you make it that much easier for other liberties to be taken away as well.

There's a lot of debate going on here, but also a lot of snide cuts at each other. Is that facet of politics _really_ necessary on a forum board?


Just to introduce a new arguing point...what about the balance of government as an issue? I don't particularly want to see the Democratic Party controlling Congress in a supermajority under a Democratic President - and I would feel the same way if the parties were reversed, as well.

it worked out so well recently when the republicans had it!

just look at our global image, economy and budget. ; )

perhaps we just need a better marketing slant. we have pro choice and no choice, but that has been masqueraded as pro life.

we have creationism labeled as intelligent design to make it easier to take.

i suggest that we rename the pro choice to preemptive capital punishment!

"dudemus 1:08 PM EDT
it worked out so well recently when the republicans had it!

just look at our global image, economy and budget. ; ) "

Exactly! So why in the WORLD would we do that again with the other party?

not really a good way to make executive branch voting choices as who knows who will be in power in the legislative branches with their next big election. with that logic, we could say that there will likely be a swing back to the republicans as that is what usually happens, therefore no one should vote for the republican candidate this time.

There's a difference in saying "republicans currently have a slight majority in congress, so vote democratic!" and saying "republicans have a supermajority in congress, vote democratic!"

and you are right, that's a poor basis for one's decision entirely, but to fail to take it into consideration is simply foolish

OB, a democracy is a democracy. Why further over-think the balance (or imbalance, in your opinion) that was put there by the voting public?

You make it sound like the gov't magically appears... As my 5-8 grade Social Studies teacher always said, "Don't blame the government...YOU are the government." Now, I am not naive enough to think this is a perfect democracy (simple run-off voting would do WORLDS to make true representation easier), but if the people want Democrats running everything, then the people have spoken. What's wrong with that?

As for preventing others from sinning, that is the most asinine thing I have ever heard, and flies in the face of a lot of reasons this (and other) democracy(ies) were founded.

I'll sin if I want to, and no one can tell me to do otherwise unless I am breaking an actual man-made law. Furthermore, any so-called religious person who thinks they have the right to prevent other from sinning has their face next to the definition of "hypocrisy" in the dictionary. May the good Lord help any children ever born into such a mindset. :\

"consideration is simply foolish"

some might say that rewarding the party who last had such power and misused and abused it by giving them the presidency again would also be quite foolish.

if we are going to get into fear-mongering though, do you know what the odds are of an american male at age 72 living to be 76 or 80 for that matter? do you know what the odds are of them developing alzheimer's, dementia, prostate cancer or any other debilitating disorder that would take him out of power?

were you around for the second term of ronald reagan or the iran-contra hearings? if your answer is...i do not recall then you win a cookie!

i really don't think though that it is necessary to resort to these tactics of fear and insecurity to make a decision. as stated earlier in this thread, the supreme court justices are where much of the power for change lies. choose the party that you think will nominate justices that will be in line with your constitutional goals as well as foreign and domestic policy.

look at recent decisions, decide how you would've voted and then check to see if you are being more served by either parties nominees. you might just be surprised with what you find.

Picking apart my statement for a three word phrase isn't really debate, dudemus.


I said, "failing to take it into consideration is simply foolish." And it _IS_ foolish to fail to take into consideration the system of checks and balances for our government.


Like I said originally, I want more debate, less picking apart posts for tiny, out-of-context details that can be used against the poster.





"OB, a democracy is a democracy. Why further over-think the balance (or imbalance, in your opinion) that was put there by the voting public?

You make it sound like the gov't magically appears... As my 5-8 grade Social Studies teacher always said, "Don't blame the government...YOU are the government." Now, I am not naive enough to think this is a perfect democracy (simple run-off voting would do WORLDS to make true representation easier), but if the people want Democrats running everything, then the people have spoken. What's wrong with that?"

Because if the voting public places the imbalance, doesn't the responsibility lie with the voting public to vote to correct the imbalance? I'm not trying to make it look like ANYTHING magically appears, I'm simply pointing out the situation and the two options to it - which are to vote in two branches of the same party, supermajority - or to vote in a branch of either party, which leaves the party (that coincidentally you'd like to see controlled) controlled by a congressional check.

And yes, if the people want democrats running everything, then the people have spoken. But I don't think everyone realizes or intends to have the government controlled by a single party, instead of having power kept in check. Keep in mind, not everyone is an informed voter, and sometimes even informed voters don't think through the consequences of their vote completely.

I'm not trying to run a campaign for McCain here - I'd much rather have another candidate I could toss a valid vote for - but I _AM_ trying to introduce another point to this debate that really ought to be considered.

...fear-mongering?

"the supreme court justices are where much of the power for change lies. choose the party that you think will nominate justices that will be in line with your constitutional goals as well as foreign and domestic policy."


Out of that post, I certainly agree with this line.

A couple paraphrased points:

• "The voting public has spoken."
• "The voting public is both informed and uninformed."
• "Because the public places the imbalance."

If the voting public has collectively spoken, then it would seem that the choices they have made ARE balanced within how our system currently works.

Bush was put in power for the past 8 years by the voting public (possibly debatable point hehe). Republicans had a slight majority for a good majority of his presidency. And then Democrats took control. Neither party was particularly effective for most of Bush's presidency, because Bush and his fellow Republicans do not want to work with Democrats, and likewise Democrats don't want to work with Republicans. If Obama wins, then it's a debatable point that possibly the American public actually wants some fairly significant change in legislation and policies to happen within a short period of time.

Honestly, I could come up with a big long list of legislation and policies that are terrible and need to be reformed under the next President as a result of Bush's simplistic world-view or simple ignorant malfeasance, but I won't bore you with the details. Nobody would deny that we need some 'fixing up' or 'change' (whatever the hell you want to call it) to fix some of the failed legislation and policies enacted in the past administration. I mean for god sakes, even McCain is calling for 'change' in policies and legislation that his own damn party enacted.

I agree with OB, moderation tends to be the best option; it weeds out any radical legislation quite nicely. It's not a matter of rewarding one or another party; it's about creating a balance of power. I'd rather only have laws that both parties can agree on.

Then again my political ideas tend to come from both sides, so maybe I'm bias.

OB, if having good decision-making were something based on who you think is smart enough to handle it, then wouldn't that change a LOT of things? I wouldn't allow stupid people to have kids. I wouldn't allow stupid people to vote. I wouldn't allow stupid people to drive, I...

...wait, since when do I get to decide what is "stupid"? And what is controlled by that?

Since never.

Voting is voting. If you want voting to be more meaningful, push for vote reform. If you want people to be smarter, push for better education and tolerance.

But voting OPPOSITE of what you would vote for as an individual in the attempt at some sort of balance -- that's the most illogical and inconsistent path you could possibly take.

Sutekh - I feel like you are reading my post as much more radical than what it is.

I called nobody stupid, and never suggested anything of the sort.


My post CLEARLY is saying that I'd like voters to be

1) better informed
2) aware of the consequences of their vote, beyond simply "X will get elected."

and that #2 includes informed voters just as much as uninformed.



I can quite honestly say I have absolutely no idea where you pulled the "stupid voters/vote reform" rant from.

the system of checks and balances exist whether the same party has control over the executive and legislative branches or not. if it was truly such a slam dunk when the same party controls both, then i think we would have a different system in place entirely.

if we are debating whether that is a change that is worth pursuit, i would say that it is not necessary with the checks and balances that already exist.

here's a link for how checks and balances can work even when both branches are under one party:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Supreme_Court_candidates

notice in the "nuclear option" section which party was trying to remove some of the checks and balances as well.

OB, I agree with your two points. I just don't see how it leads to anything other than voting the way you want to vote anyway (in fact, _mandating_ that). It actually has nothing to do with voting, but does have everything to do with better voting systems and vote education.

Also, your two points are pretty much the same. If people were better informed, number 2 is pretty much a corollary, no?

As for my "rant"... My rant would help achieve exactly what you want (that's why I said it). For example, simple run-off voting would allow people to really vote how they feel AND maintain some balance in the long run. Voting for a fringe candidate because that is what your conscience is telling you to do would no longer be throwing your vote away. The educational and "smart voting" ideals are built in (at least to some degree more) other voting systems.

Finally, I still think it is a bad idea to try to balance a government via a vote when checks and balances are ALREADY built in. Let's say we were in the opposite situation: A Democrat was already president, but Congress was controlled by Republicans, and this wasn't a presidential election year. And let's say polls showed the Democrats were going to beat out Reps in several key states to change the tide, except in your home state. Would you be on this forum telling people from _other states_ to vote Republican (or at least think about it) in order to maintain legislative/executive "balance"?

We saw the backlash against the Republicans a few years back as Congress changed hands. In effect, we already DO have balance. No, balance may not be perfect at any one moment (or election). But over the long haul things stay centric, at least as far as the fickle voting public goes.

That's why the things that scare me FAR more are the longer term ideals. A bad/low-priority/striated education system and a knee-jerk religious Right is FAR more damning than any given election, even a "winds of change" presidential election like this one.

/queue Scorpions whistling...

Well OB, isn't it simply that for anyone outside the central minority that would actually countenance the other party's candidates, their vote's pretty much decided?

Duverger's law already guarantees that two major parties are all there is. If you're closer to the "left" side, there is no point in "checking" your (more friendly) party with antagonistic president and congressman. Similarly for the "right" side. I doubt there is much material difference concerning the alignments of the executive and legislature. Easier to pass bills, sure; 58, 59, 60 and BANG torrent of bill-signing? I don't think so.

Seriously, even if either party held a 60-seat margin in congress, some may well defect since each individual senator is still accountable to their own electorate by the next poll. If the bill is too far off center, even nominal party-goers will balk at backlash - and have done so. Conversely since obviously some bills do pass even without a filibuster-proof house, it's a pretty bad assumption that either party cannot convince a single seat across the aisle at all.

Well sut, those "long-term" issues are simply the battle for the next generation's minds :) and they are still on proportion more liberal than their predecessors. I don't know if "Jesus camp" will change that, though. And is it just me, or Republicans put the educated vote VERY low down on their priority list?

"To your "forcing doctors to perform abortions", why do you force pharmacists to prescribe antibiotics? [Paste your answer here]"

A pharmacist doesn't prescribe medications of any sort; a pharmacist fills an order prescribed by a doctor. If a doctor, a medical professional, is prescribing medication, it can be assumed that this medication is medically necessary in some way. In this way, it is a lot more like refusing to perform an appendectomy or refusing to perform CPR on a dying victim when you are qualified to do so- it is withholding potentially life-saving (or at least externally deemed "necessary") medical care. As you yourself pointed out, pregnancy is rarely life-threatening, and therefore the cross-section of abortions that would fall under the "necessary life-saving" umbrella would be tiny.

An elective procedure is an elective procedure, and a necessary procedure is a necessary procedure. Elective procedures are elective, and not necessary. Should I continue on some more with further redundancy by repeating the same concepts over and over again in sequence one after another in the same sentence continually?

I would be very surprised if there weren't a legal distinction made between elective procedures and necessary ones. If there is a legal distinction, then why would refusing to perform certain elective procedures carry the same penalties of potential compulsory unemployment as refusing to perform a life-saving procedure?

"Stop telling women what their bodies are supposed to do"
I didn't. Unless you mean my talk about producing hormones during the gestational period, in which case I will shut up, because I'm confident they'll be doing that regardless.

"Being arbitrarily (choice of doctor) denied and possibly being *forced* to bring something to term"
Dude, I hardly think anyone will have trouble finding an abortion doctor, given that itﾒs legal and everything. I didn't suggest making all abortion procedures illegal; therefore, no one would be *forced* to carry a baby full term. Maybe like 10 more minutes if they went to the wrong doctor first, but if they go into labor in those 10 minutes, that's their fault for not being on top of stuff like getting an abortion. However, forcing every doctor to be an abortion doctor in every circumstance is neither necessary nor, in my view, right. I mean, if banning people from performing abortions goes against women's right to choose what they do with their body, doesn't forcing unwilling people to perform abortions equally go against doctors' right to choose what they do with their bodies/medical knowledge?

I am aware that I started the appendectomy thing, but again, that comes down to whether it is an elective or a necessary procedure. If my appendix is inflamed, a doctor should totally take it out as quickly as possible. By contrast, if there's nothing wrong with me and I just go to the hospital and ask to have my appendix removed because I don't want it anymore and it's my choice what I do with my body, thoughﾅ I mean, this is a ridiculous scenario, and is really of little consequence. Why would I do that? But, if I were to do that, would a doctor be in the wrong to say "Ummmﾅ Ok, well, I don't do that, but there's a guy down the hallway who can handle that sort of thing."?

"Until you pass a constitutional amendment to proclaim fetuses as viably "human", anthropocentrism (per your argument against say "murder") is useless."
Of course fetuses aren't human!
For the record, they are, but that's really irrelevant to the subject of live birth abortion, which is what I was referring to as "killing babies" (because, at that point, it is no longer a fetus but a baby, and it is alive, in legal terms or otherwise).

"And at the end, why is abortion killing the fetus anyways? That's solely because the fetus is UNABLE to survive outside the uterus."
ﾅ Or because it's unable to survive the abortion procedure. Most abortions in which the term "fetus" is the correct application involves killing the fetus before it comes out of the uterus. In most cases, they are incapable of surviving outside the uterus, but they're even more incapable of surviving the action taken before they are extracted from such.

"but never have we protected some at the expense of another."
Really? The insane and otherwise mentally handicapped aren't cared for by anyone? We don't have Welfare? Charities? Each of these is care for some at the expense of another, in some form. Though I don't mean for "expense" to carry a negative connotation in this context, as much as just a factual one.

"They've got unquestionably human DNA, why is it that two non-human cells meet (at conception) and automagically become human?"
Gametes only contain half the genetic information required to make a human being. A zygote contains all the genetic information required. A sperm sitting in on a uterine wall will never grow into a fetus or baby or person, while a zygote, left to natural processes, in all likelihood will.

""[RP08]ColonelCustard October 10 5:52 PM EDT Obs: I agree. Try to work them out of their insanity while there's time. But if an evil leader is hostile to America (in a real, military or terroristic sense), there shouldn't be any hesitancy to take him out. "

I also love the view - and it's not limited to the US obviously - that if somebody is against us they're automatically evil."
Evil isn't the same thing as threatening. My previous statement was in reference to self-preservation- removing a threat. I don't like killing people in any instance, but there are cases where someone is going to die regardless. I can't say I oppose an abortion of a fetus that threatens the life of the mother, and I can't say I oppose the destruction of a person that threatens the life of me.

"I'd still support the votes against both said bills, that doesn't make me a baby killer. For one a fetus is not a baby."
Look at what I linked, look at what the bills are about- Live Birth Abortion. Completely ignoring the argument of where life begins, I think it is unanimously agreed upon that once it is born alive, it is, in fact, a baby. In that sense, support for "Live Birth Abortion" is EXACTLY support for killing babies, because there is a living being with strictly human DNA outside the uterus of its mother, and everyone in the delivery room fully intends that it will never leave the hospital outside of a garbage bag.

"and if a doctor refuses to do a procedure at the expense of the patient, then they should be held accountable."
I agree. Key words are "at the expense of the patient."

""It is the duty of the government to keep its people morally safe, and all steps should be taken to prevent others from sinning" - a CB user who I'll leave nameless unless they was to claim this statement

I believe that it's this type of thinking that will destroy us."
I don't know if this will surprise you or not, but I agree with this. Not with the quote, but with novice's commentary on it.

Cubicle, Obs, and JW: I feel that you guys were missing my point.
While I do consider myself "pro-life," my intention was not to start a debate about abortion in a grand sense. My key point, as I said in the post that revived this thread, was that this is way beyond "pro-choice."

Maybe I'm deluded, but I've always been under the impression that most pro-choice adherents don't hold the view that aborting a fetus is killing a human being. I see where the disagreement is there, and don't see it being resolved very easily, which is why I didn't want to approach it. However, here I've presented information on legislation applying to a situation that actually involves really killing a live human being (in the form of a baby outside the mother's body). I thought that maybe I might find some common ground with someone there, who might say "Whoa! I actually see how that is very exactly murder, or at the very least criminal negligence resulting in the death of a child." I'm a right-leaning moderate, and I realize a lot of participants in this thread are on the left side of the spectrum, but I figured live birth abortion might be an extension further than some might want to go, possibly. Maybe not, though?

"Obama goes way beyond pro-choice. He's for killing babies after they come out of the womb (really no one else sees a problem with that?"

what facts do you have to back this one up cc?

What Obama opposed was a bill that would have let live birth abortions take place, but with the one crucial element: the fetus would have to be kept alive, even at the point where it is non viable and would die out of the womb anyway.

It was a bill that would allow women to go for an abortion, but then the hospital/abortion clinic would have to care for the fetus, changing an abortion to a voluntary premature birth.

i would assume that this bill would have other riders and add-ons as well? i would also assume that since cc chose such a strong opinion of obama that he at some point stated he opposed the bill because he was in favor of killing babies...i missed that in his bio!

His reason for opposing was that there was no exception included where an abortion may be necessary for the welfare of the woman. I'm not entirely sure that equates to being supportive of the partial birth abortion.

"I'm not entirely sure that equates to being supportive of the partial birth abortion."

nor do i, but perhaps i am a closeted baby-killer.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/10/barack-obama-and-live-birth-abortion.html

Look at that. Read the first two paragraphs, and answer the question he asks: "Is this not infanticide?"

I'm not sure in what order to address these points...

1. Live Birth Abortion is specifically what I'm referring to. Not Partial-Birth Abortion, which is already banned in the United States.
2. If you'll look at the link I posted higher up, you'll see that the reason Barack Obama gave for opposing the bill banning Live Birth Abortion is that it allegedly contained some sort of ambiguity that could make it apply to a broader range of abortion procedures, effectively banning much more than simply Live Birth Abortion. The thing is, this ambiguity was resolved by an amendment made to the proposition- an amendment made by a committee headed by Barack Obama himself, before he voted it down. So his reason for opposing the bill still led him to vote against it even after said reason was removed?
3. I guess the fact that he didn't vote for a bill banning Live Birth Abortion is not in itself the same as him supporting said procedure, but given the above evidence, it doesn't seem that he actually supports a ban.

your statement #3 is much more reasonable than the previous statement:

"Obama goes way beyond pro-choice. He's for killing babies after they come out of the womb (really no one else sees a problem with that?"

i would love to see the text of said bill and the amendment as well. perhaps we could then decide for ourselves rather than listening to a conservative blogger?

If you follow several links within that link you've presented us CC it will take you to the fact that Obama's opposition was to partial birth abortion bills, passed before the 2003 ban on partial birth abortions; the twist to make it an opposition to live birth abortions is fairly apparent for all to see.

here we go, a link describing the whole infanticide slant.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

the last paragraph summed it all up nicely i thought. as well as the part about the legislation "abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion."

does it prove that obama is a baby killer, i don't think so...it does prove he's a politician though.

CC, the problem with it was that you're judging him off of one vote there. There could have been a multitude of reasons besides he enjoys watching babies die, and you clearly assume the worst.

The link you provided proved that Obama was trying to twist the reason he approved it sure. Does it prove he likes killing babies, no, and that accusation is rather absurd.

Well,the issues of abortion in any form is just like prohibition and prostitution.It all comes down to someone else making the decision for the party involved and until we rid ourselves of that mentality this will never be a "free" country.If you care so much about partial birth or live birth abortion in this country then you should probably be in some third world country helping to save lives there since life is oh so sacred.I think we have more than enough "illegitimate parents" to be adding more into the fray.Laws that are based on morality are just another repression and if we stuck to the simple common law guidelines in the constitution then all other arguments are moot.Our survival as a species is not dependent on life being sacred as it is not.It depends totally on objective logical solutions to the worlds problems.

Concerning our energy problems if we build about 50 nuclear plants immediately we might have a chance to overcome the eventual energy problems coming in the near future.Problem is nobody wants one in their "backyard".I myself don't mind.And as far as waste storage they built a huge facility in the NM/AZ desert which could hold the waste fuel of 50 nuclear plants for 100 years worth of operation.It is underground and the size of about 20 square miles.One set of fuel rods in a typical plant last 2 years powering millions of homes.Yet we still have gasoline/diesel and COAL power plants in operation.

In 40 years we haven't had a president with enough vision and leadership ability to do squat but help special interests.The biggest debate going on right now is the economy.Both parties talk of ways to fix it but both are horribly wrong.So we are going to have 4 more years of crap with either choice and people will complain about the government while making a big stink about abortion or drugs,crime,and prostitution without understanding the real problems we face in the near future.

The economy is on a downward spiral and will continue as long as people don't have the extra money needed for a strong economic base in a free market society.For close to 30 years businesses have been downsizing to increase profits.Moving overseas to get cheaper labor without needing to offer medical insurance,with less taxation and environmental laws.And although their pay goes a lot further in those countries they still don't have enough income to support the economy.
In order to have an economy you must have consumers.

So my answer to "Is Palin a joke?".Yes she is.And so is Barack.And so is any other politician that swears to the constitution while passing laws that violate that very same document.The Federal Reserve is illegal.Only congress has the power to produce money that must according to our constitution be based on silver or gold.And Income Tax as we know it and pay it is "taxation without representation" since it is unapportioned.We should have had a civil war long ago but people have been dumbed down and entertained into placidity to the point of no return.

Zaekyr the 16th AMENDMENT created income tax here. Meaning it overrode the constitution.

As for the Federal Reserve, why should Congress not be able to turn that power over to economists.. Congress gave Bush the power to declare war, like it or not they gave up that power to the President. Okay, they may have been misled into doing so, but they can vote to give away their power.

As for nuclear energy, yes great solution, and everyone's afraid. However, BOTH McCain and Obama are actually very supportive of nuclear energy.

Lastly, whether you like it or not downsizing/ moving overseas creates cheaper products that means consumers can afford more. Yes, it employs less Americans, but American society as a whole benefits. There will always be jobs to do here, but they might not be manufacturing.

Yes, a lot of politics is crappy bickering, but thats not what it all is by any extent.

So CC is this "compromise" (verily slanted across to my side) acceptable to you and how is it not?

1. if the fetus in medical opinion is unable to survive outside the uterus, abortion is absolutely legal
2. if the fetus is probably able to survive outside the uterus, abortion methods that do not prima facie kill the fetus are legal
3. if the fetus is probably viable and is, by abortion or otherwise prematurely born, per medical practice the hospital cares for it
4. if perchance a probably unviable fetus is prematurely born, the hospital can triage it and thus let it die

On the issue of your (probably) straw man of killing a viable born baby, I don't support that. And I think I can presume most of us don't either. Since that baby was presumed viable, it is henceforth protected by actual infanticide laws. Which also means no further laws are needed to protect them.

Sorry if you could get away with calling a pharmacist as someone who follows doctor's orders. Repeat the statement with "doctors" now. Why do you force doctors to prescribe antibiotics? Why slap their faces with malpractice suits if they don't prescribe them? Most diseases will eventually just go away with time alone; our immune system isn't that crappy. [paste new answer here]

"I mean, if banning people from performing abortions goes against women's right to choose what they do with their body, doesn't forcing unwilling people to perform abortions equally go against doctors' right to choose what they do with their bodies/medical knowledge?"
- Doctors have what's called a "license" to practice. If they don't want to conform to say the medical associations' code of "ethics", then they can give up their license and work elsewhere. It's the same as how a lawyer is not supposed to "take bribes" for instance. If you really want to, don't BE a lawyer. If the medical association deems an (elective) abortion as necessary, you do it.

"The insane and otherwise mentally handicapped aren't cared for by anyone? We don't have Welfare? Charities?"
- but not government funded welfare. If some philanthrope wants to give up their money, do it. Not with MY money gleaned from taxes. Here's the difference.

"A sperm sitting in on a uterine wall will never grow into a fetus or baby or person, while a zygote, left to natural processes, in all likelihood will."
- A sperm AND an ovum both sitting close by on a uterine wall will grow into a fetus, while a zygote, left to natural processes OUTSIDE a uterine wall, will grow pretty cold and dead. My argument is that the uterine wall is *not* a given. The woman has the right to exclude the zygote from her endometrium. And accepting your argument, the woman is not allowed to actually kill it while taking it off her walls.

Don't you love the gentle lick of almost flames?

If anyone is willing do some research (reading) you will find perhaps as I have that the 16th amendment argument doesn't count since proponents simply insist that it has been ratified while several individuals and groups have found no evidence of its legality.Realistically the supreme court should have overruled it long ago since it is ambiguous at best and on the face of it allows congress to levy taxes on nearly anything whether it is "fair" to the public or not.And that doesn't even include the fact that the supreme court on several cases ruled "Income" by definition to be unearned and not to be confused with wages to which an employee is offering his time and effort to earn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

http://www.newswithviews.com/money/money4.htm

More importantly,I am really sick of hearing about "our" ability to amend the constitution to the point of contradiction because our founding fathers wrote it that way.Yes our founding fathers made us able to ADD needed guidelines in the constitution.To believe that they meant the capability to CHANGE what was written is a common misconception that will eventually lead to ruin.They wrote the perfect document regardless of opinion otherwise.And if you truly understand what is written it is obvious this is the case.Many like to argue the semantics of every word in it but if you just READ it it makes perfect sense.The constitution gave all the branches of government different powers and limitations for a reason.Anything from "congress giving away its power" to formation of organizations to relieve the burdens of congress is against the very basis of the document itself.To which all government officials must SWEAR TO upon taking office.The 13 amendment was as unnecessary due to the foundation of the constitution as the 16 amendment is contradictory to it.

"your statement #3 is much more reasonable than the previous statement"
Good. I was trying to amend my previous statement.

"Does it prove he likes killing babies, no, and that accusation is rather absurd."
It is irrelevant whether or not he "likes killing babies" in so many words if he refuses to ban something that amounts to killing babies. Whether he likes/wants to doesn't really affect the end result.

"Well,the issues of abortion in any form is just like prohibition and prostitution.It all comes down to someone else making the decision for the party involved and until we rid ourselves of that mentality this will never be a "free" country."
The only way to take this view is with one of the following assumptions:
1. The destruction of a fetus is not equivalent to taking a human life.
2. The taking of human life also "comes down to someone else making the decision for the party involved" and all legislation limiting this should be removed as well.
Personally, I don't subscribe to either. I don't think anyone here takes point #2 to be reasonable, but many do take point #1. The point of contention, I think, is that in western political philosophy, all people have certain inalienable rights, and one individual's rights end where they infringe upon another's. As my high school history teacher put it, "My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose." Now, if the fetus is human, and therefore has human rights, then abortion would not be a right of the mother because it is trumped by the fetus's right to life. But if the fetus isn't officially "human" (or for some other reason doesn't have this right to life), then the mother does have the right to an abortion. By contrast, drug use and prostitution apply primarily to the person/people involved, and therefore don't affect another individual's rights. That's the possible issue with applying the same logic to all situations. But like I said, it really depends on whether or not the situations are comparable in that sense, which won't be resolved here.

"I think we have more than enough "illegitimate parents" to be adding more into the fray."
The creation of a child requires action. The government could hardly be to blame, no matter what legislative changes take place.

"Laws that are based on morality are just another repression and if we stuck to the simple common law guidelines in the constitution then all other arguments are moot."
Mhmm. Again, it comes down to point #1 above, which is whether or not killing a fetus is killing a person.

"Our survival as a species is not dependent on life being sacred as it is not."
Is this point #2, then? Life isn't sacred... so what does that entail?

I agree with the rest of your post, though, Zaekyr.

Obs: I'm not sure what you're getting at with those 4 points.
1. I don't support this idea, but it is irrelevant.
2. What, like inducing early labor? I don't support simply messing up a fetus without killing it, either.
3. Again, I don't think inducing premature labor (barring health reasons for the mother) is ethical. But yes, I would agree that proper care should be given to the baby.
4. Proper care should be given to the baby. If it's really unviable, I will die anyway.

"Since that baby was presumed viable, it is henceforth protected by actual infanticide laws. Which also means no further laws are needed to protect them."
It seems someone thinks they do, if it was an actual bill proposed in the Illinois legislature. I guess I don't know exactly where they got that idea though, unless the practice was actually being carried out.

"Why do you force doctors to prescribe antibiotics? Why slap their faces with malpractice suits if they don't prescribe them?"
Who forces doctors to prescribe antibiotics? It's a judgment call.

"Doctors have what's called a "license" to practice. If they don't want to conform to say the medical associations' code of "ethics", then they can give up their license and work elsewhere."
"Just get a new job" is a very weak argument, particularly when dealing with fields that require 10+ years of schooling to enter. If your best, most specialized qualifications are all in medical fields, and these medical fields suddenly start requiring you to do things that are morally objectionable, what do you do? You can't just like go into aeronautics or mechanical engineering. Career changes are a big deal, and shouldn't be forced on someone unless they actually do something wrong.

"If the medical association deems an (elective) abortion as necessary, you do it."
Yes, but there's a difference between it being deemed medically necessary by doctors and it being treated as a fundamental right guaranteed by the government. If it's not deemed medically necessary, then the government has no business forcing you to do it. Again, necessary and elective aren't the same thing, even if they could overlap in some cases. Again, take the example of any other non-life-threatening mass of tissue in your body- firing a doctor because he personally doesn't feel comfortable carrying out such a procedure doesn't make sense, unless he did something else wrong in the process (like taking the money without performing the surgery).

"but not government funded welfare."
In America it is.
Regardless, though, if one consensually participates in the action that leads to pregnancy, then the pregnancy itself is consensual, is it not? Regardless of whether it was "planned" or "wanted," I mean... people know what can happen, right? If I'm on the road, I can get in a car crash, even though I don't intend to, and even actively try to prevent it. Know what I'm saying?

"A sperm AND an ovum both sitting close by on a uterine wall will grow into a fetus"
Not if they don't unite to form a zygote.

"My argument is that the uterine wall is *not* a given."
I guess, theoretically. Where are most zygotes formed, though?

From Factcheck:
"But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."... That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, itﾒs false."
Since he's never said he supports infanticide (who, running for political office, would say that?), yes, I'll admit that the accusations are conjecture. However, if his stated reason for opposing the bill is no longer an issue, we are left with him not having a stated reason to oppose the bill (until they came up with "other reasons we forgot to mention," which I'm disinclined to believe since they weren't initially cited). He said he would support the federal bill, but then when he was given the opportunity to support almost exactly the same thing, he didn't. A promise of "would support" means nothing if he proves by his actions that he would not.

As I stated above, even if he doesn't "support infanticide," it still concerns me that he doesn't not-support it in any apparent way.

JW: I still don't know what you're on about with it referring to partial-birth, and not live birth, abortion. Look at the fact check article.

Why are all my posts so long?

How about this ? Is the whole election system a joke ?
This type of thing has been blatantly going on for at least the last 3 elections. I know about it and I'm not even in the country !

Diebold even promised votes to the Republicans back in 2003 if they'd use their machines.

Early voting? Can't people just vote on Election Day? It kinda ruins the suspense.

Elections in the US are at possibly the most inopprotune times. I mean come on, Tuesday. I work nights wich means I gotta stay awake until the polls open so I can wait in line for an hour to not make a change in politics. at least my polling place is 5 blocks away.

And every day I get 8 calls from Mccain telling me Obama plans on giving money to people who dont pay taxes, and sadly people believe it.

Keep the faith, Flatcap... Easy for me to say, my polling place is barely a block away. *wink*

sutekh and I have the right idea. My polling place is half a block away.

Zaekyr

You don't think laws should be able to change with the times?
It's really hard to get an amendment through. 3/4ths of the states have to approve it, along with 2/3rds of the legislature.

If that many people can get together and agree on something it should be allowed in the constitution. You do realize that the amendment process was put IN THE CONSTITUTION.

I suppose it was perfect as it was originally written and you don't even like the bill of rights? You'd rather we got all our money from tariffs and be the only backwards nation doing that? It's pretty clear to me that it allows a tax based on income. You prefer stone age economics?

The 13th amendment was clearly not unnecessary if slavery had been allowed in certain states up til that point. Thats how it had been interpreted; thus the amendment was necessary.

The balance of powers is to stop one set of people from getting too much power, if they want to divide it up that's perfectly fine. What should congress do if they can't make organizations? Your whole argument is ridiculous, Congress has made many many organizations they are perfectly allowed to do this. Anything they have power over they can designate to people who are actually experts in the field, or at least competent in the field. Congress should run NASA, the Fed, and the FDA? Etcetera.

Like it or not the constitution needs updates, I don't know how you can be against that. Name one amendment and tell me why you could possibly think it was awful?

I don't know what to say if you can't put your trust in 3/4ths of the state legislatures as well as 2/3rds of congress to get things right when they make an amendment?? The constitution was a good document, but it was far from infallible, how could you expect the writers to preconceive the problems of today. Like it or not the world has changed a lot since then, and yes for the better. If that many people can agree, I'm pretty sure they got them all right.

You act as if the constitution is divine word, and that amending it is as easy as getting out your pen.

"It is irrelevant whether or not he "likes killing babies" in so many words if he refuses to ban something that amounts to killing babies. Whether he likes/wants to doesn't really affect the end result."

I was trying to get at what you amended it to in #3 as well.

"The creation of a child requires action. The government could hardly be to blame, no matter what legislative changes take place. "

Well if you look at it another way, making abortion illegal is the creation of children. Children that are unwanted are definitely more likely to be unsuccessful, this is also life changing for the mother, someone has to take care of the kids. At least from my point of view it's condemning every teenage girl that makes a stupid mistake.

Obscurans points 1/2/3/4 is the ruling in Roe v Wade, and no matter who your voting for no one is even trying to over turn it so why does that make a difference in who you vote for?

"Who forces doctors to prescribe antibiotics? It's a judgment call. "

No, if the doctor does not prescribe antibiotics when they are necessary it's called malpractice. If a woman is raped, and ends up at a hospital and she wants an morning after/abortion (has happened) should she not be able to get them/it if the doctor doesn't feel like it? What if she was say injured during the ordeal (also entirely possible) she should be able to get a necessary medical procedure even if she's too weak to go to another hospital.

"Regardless, though, if one consensually participates in the action that leads to pregnancy, then the pregnancy itself is consensual, is it not? Regardless of whether it was "planned" or "wanted," I mean... people know what can happen, right? If I'm on the road, I can get in a car crash, even though I don't intend to, and even actively try to prevent it. Know what I'm saying? "

We still treat car crash victims.

""A sperm AND an ovum both sitting close by on a uterine wall will grow into a fetus"
Not if they don't unite to form a zygote.

"My argument is that the uterine wall is *not* a given."
I guess, theoretically. Where are most zygotes formed, though? "

The point he's making is that they too have the potential for life, the only clear way to define life is when the fetus can live on it's own unassisted.

"Since he's never said he supports infanticide (who, running for political office, would say that?), yes, I'll admit that the accusations are conjecture. However, if his stated reason for opposing the bill is no longer an issue, we are left with him not having a stated reason to oppose the bill (until they came up with "other reasons we forgot to mention," which I'm disinclined to believe since they weren't initially cited). He said he would support the federal bill, but then when he was given the opportunity to support almost exactly the same thing, he didn't. A promise of "would support" means nothing if he proves by his actions that he would not. "

I agree he's probably against it, but he's a politician playing the political game like everyone else.

"It seems someone thinks they do, if it was an actual bill proposed in the Illinois legislature. I guess I don't know exactly where they got that idea though, unless the practice was actually being carried out."

from that same factcheck page that you quoted, it states that many thought this legislation was a subtle attack on women's right to choose. many bills are created just as a way to trap people into voting against it so that they can say he's for infanticide, who after all wouldn't vote to protect babies! they are also created with seemingly good intentions but worded in ways that set a precedent for greater changes later on.

it is for this reason that it is very hard to judge candidates on one vote, one bill or one decision.

it is sad that politics aren't more straightforward and that political reform is not higher on our priorities. i would love to get rid of lobbyists as well as riders and such, or even add a line-item veto ability for the legislature. i won't hold my breath though.

"Well if you look at it another way, making abortion illegal is the creation of children."
I suppose what I meant was creating a zygote, I guess, to be most accurate. While we're being accurate, though, I guess I would have to point to your statement and amend that it's actually a way of not-destroying children (or zygotes, or potential children). Regardless, the process is started by the actions taken by the people whose genetic material is contained in the developing fetus. Abortion is a method of cessation after the process has already been started; taking this away does not start or create anything. It simply doesn't un-create it.

"At least from my point of view it's condemning every teenage girl that makes a stupid mistake."
I can see that view. I don't mean to be insensitive, though, but actions do have consequences, and stupid mistakes sometimes hit you harder. I certainly don't want the life of every teenage girl who makes a stupid mistake to be ruined. That said, if the consequences no longer apply, who or what is going to caution them against making that mistake?

"Obscurans points 1/2/3/4 is the ruling in Roe v Wade, and no matter who your voting for no one is even trying to over turn it so why does that make a difference in who you vote for?"
Well, there is the issue that the new President will get to appoint 3 justices to the Supreme Court. If anyone is going to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would be the Supreme Court, wouldn't it? And Obama wouldn't appoint judges who would rule in that direction.
And, as I may have stated before (I can't seem to find it in all my long posts), it worries me that Obama consistently voted against bills that would ban a particular procedure that I see a lot wrong with. If a similar bill passes in the Senate, will he veto it? If an opposite bill goes through, would he sign it into law right away? The only evidence he has given me suggests a yes.

"No, if the doctor does not prescribe antibiotics when they are necessary it's called malpractice."
"When they are necessary"- which is a judgment call, isn't it? I mean, if a medical specialist's opinion on whether or not it is necessary doesn't count, whose opinion does?

"If a woman is raped, and ends up at a hospital and she wants an morning after/abortion (has happened) should she not be able to get them/it if the doctor doesn't feel like it? What if she was say injured during the ordeal (also entirely possible) she should be able to get a necessary medical procedure even if she's too weak to go to another hospital."
Is she even pregnant at that point? I mean, I dunno, how do determine that?
I don't think I've said anything relating to the morning after pill/contraception at all in this discussion. I'm unsure of my overall views on that, but I wouldn't object to helping a rape victim out in that capacity. Though I guess that is a thing that a particular doctor may find objectionable... hmmm. Interesting.
Assuming that by "injured" you mean anything other than "pregnant," then I don't think I've suggested anything that would hurt her chances of receiving treatment for that. Again, that would fall under necessary treatment, if it's necessary.

"We still treat car crash victims."
True. But only if what results from the crash is detrimental to their health.
I'll acknowledge that that doesn't really save the analogy, though. I guess I'll just leave those up to sutekh from now on.
What I was trying to get across is that there is a certain amount of risk (or potential for a particular outcome) involved in every activity one partakes in. The most obvious way to avoid a particular outcome is to not engage in said activity.

"The point he's making is that they too have the potential for life, the only clear way to define life is when the fetus can live on it's own unassisted."
They don't have the potential for life without uniting to become a zygote.
And defining life by dependency is tricky.

Viability is a pretty simple concept. Something is viable if it stays alive pretty much indefinitely when left unmolested... and unmolesting.

Interestingly, which non of the anti Obama people mention, the times he opposed the bills he opposed he was joined in his opposition by Republican Senator Christine Radogno. Radogno is Roman Catholic, opposed to abortion, but pro-womens rights. They were apparently united in their reasons for opposition.

"What exactly is it that a VP does every day?"

-Sarah Palin 7/31/08

"A Vice President actually has a really great job, because not only are they there to support the president's agenda, they're like the team member, a team mate to that President. But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to, they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom and it's a great job and I look forward to having that job"

-Sarah Palin 10/22/08


I don't know about you guys/gals... But if I was interviewing for a job myself... And the interview process took several months... And I was aware that my chances were getting slimmer and slimmer... I think I would at the very least take that extra step and find out more about the position I was actually applying for...

You forgot "I can see Russia from my house!" I love that one. She might just win the election for Mccain to keep the one liners going

Oh and:

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

1. The destruction of a fetus is not equivalent to taking a human life.

I don't believe anything can be considered life without it being able to breath and maintain a heartbeat without assistance.So,up to the point of a fetus doing that outside the womb it is not alive yet.

2. The taking of human life also "comes down to someone else making the decision for the party involved" and all legislation limiting this should be removed as well.

Not a serious argument is it?

"Our survival as a species is not dependent on life being sacred as it is not."
Is this point #2, then? Life isn't sacred... so what does that entail?

I should have phrased that better,but I tend to ramble when I start typing....my mistake,it should have read:

Our survival as a species is not dependent on life being sacred after conception as it is not capable of life autonomously.

But more to the point my statement there was not merely to detract from my main issue to point out that too many people spend too much time on those small world view issues and don't spend enough time looking at the "big picture".



As I said:Yes our founding fathers made us able to ADD needed guidelines in the constitution.

But if you read the main body of the document it clearly states what powers,limitations and responsibilities the different branches of government have and they had reasons for making it so.It is an elegant document that does need to change with time but only if that change is legally done.For example:Would you allow the government to install an RFID chip under your skin if they made an amendment that said you must to be a citizen?If an amendment violates the base document how could it possibly come into being since the base document forbids it?

Apparently according to many sources who have investigated the ratification of the 16 amendment it was never legally ratified.Documents have been retrieved from the national archives proving it never was and no documents have been produced by our government in rebuttal to prove it has been.Ongoing court cases have in many cases dismissed the national archive evidence.Though the battle continues.

Do you actually think it would get ratified now?

On top of that consider the fact that almost all IRS forms stated up until the 21st century that "payment of income taxes is voluntary".I am not sure if it says the same now.

According to the base document:from constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, with about 30 years experience in federal court rooms.http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/UNCERTAIN.html

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes, direct and indirect. Via Art. 1, ﾧ8, cl. 1, of the Constitution, indirect taxes (excises, duties and imposts) must be uniformly imposed throughout the country. Direct taxes are required via Art. 1, ﾧ2, cl. 3, and Art. 1, ﾧ9, cl. 4, to be imposed pursuant to the regulation of apportionment. These tax categories are mutually exclusive and any given tax must squarely fit within one category or the other.

And,the 16th amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I like getting into debates like these but wonder why people don't look at the other side of the argument.I try to study as much about both sides so I can make an informed decision.But it seems many argue their point of view and take anything else as irrelevant.

Maybe if you had been more clear I could understand what you were talking about.

I have in the past and do find lack of apportionment a little concerning. Thought I had not read enough to realize that's what the sixteenth amendment did.

Lack of apportionment clearly has lead to much more federal power, for good or for worse it made the nation what we are today. I completely agree that apportionment by itself takes away many many states rights. In the sense that power follows the money. (Federal govt threatens highway funds basically). Of course I could just be bias coming from the most populous state.

Anyhow, if that's what created apportionment, there probably was a reason it followed the civil war no? Like it or not the amendment probably made the US a much more cohesive nation rather than an association of states. Like it or not the founding fathers had a thing for weak federal governments, that's why their articles of confederation didn't work.

As much as I fantasize about states having more power, the country wouldn't be the same without the amendment.

As for whether it was actually ratified, the man was bickering over commas and semi colons, while they can make a big difference in how it's interpreted, we've been using said amendment for over 100 years and like it or not, that's not likely to change.

So no I'm not really sure where I stand on this, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the amendment's invalid and should be struck down.

[5] At least one court has declared that the term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code; see United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 1976).

[6] The Court in Ludlow, 205 S.W. at 198, declared that income is not property: "It is apparent therefore, that when the Constitution of 1875 was adopted, the word 'property' as the basis for taxation, proportioned to value, had acquired a fixed and definite meaning preclusive of personal incomes, occupations, privileges and similar sources of revenue."

[7] See 153 S.E. at 65: "Hence a man's income is not 'property' within the meaning of a constitutional requirement that taxes shall be laid equally and uniformly upon all property within the State."

If you read these and then looked into supreme court rulings on the definition of "income" you will find that the supreme court defined it as "unearned income" and that "compensation" of a worker for his time and skills shall not be considered "income" in regards to the constitution.

People pay income taxes because they don't know that it is an illegal process for all intents and purposes.

Yes our government needs to collect taxes.But they need to collect them legally and fairly.That is why I am a huge proponent of all other forms of taxation(excise and property)increasing and eliminating "wage taxes".

Taxation of a persons ability to earn an income is a tax on the working,middle class.This is why the middle class is suffering.they are not,as you presume,paying a fair share.They are paying more than they should.

sorry about double post but:

I thought I should clear up the ratification contention.It should not be construed as a bickering over semantics.Since amendments when presented to the states must be either passed or rejected.They do not have any rights to edit or make changes.

Many of the states edited the 16th amendment documentation which is a power they do not have.But since they sent it in signed as accepted with edits it cannot by legal means be accepted and it must be assumed that the original composition was not accepted.Kentucky at that time voted 9 for and 22 against but it was counted as accepted.And Minnesota did not even return the document but yet was counted as accepted.

All of our other amendments have documentation verifying their acceptance.But the 16th amendment documents are not verifiable and the required number(of unedited forms)for ratification cannot be produced.

Bottom line is that it is just a smoke and mirrors gag by the fed.Which in my opinion has far too much power right now.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/crooks.pdf

Like it or not there's 100 years of precedence of people paying taxes on income don't expect it to change now. So no I would not argue that income tax is illegal simply because it's been around long enough. How it came to be doesn't really matter, if people have been fine with it for 100 years, that's pretty much legal in my book.

As much as I agree that converting it to consumption/excise/property tax might be nice, realistically it's not going to happen any time soon. Nor is a tax on income dramatically different than a consumption tax. (Yes, it's a bit different but remember all income was taxed at one point, whether it's at the employer or at the store it's not that different.) It has far larger ramifications such as promoting savings over spending (may sound good, but it's not).

Remember the average American is debt meaning they're spending more than they're earning, so one could argue that this would actually hit the middle class harder. Remember "those big millionaire CEO" (whoever you want to blame for the problems in the world) have the luxury of saving some of their money.

The part that concerns me as I said is the lack of apportionment. That is the part that has to do with Federal power over state power.