Need help? Check out our Support site, then

obama or mccain?

  1. who are you voting for?

  2. still me decide.

  3. how can you be undecided? the differences between mccain and obama are pretty monumental!!

    a lot of people would say that the democrat and republican parties represent 2 sides of the same coin, and sometimes i would agree.

    i think that a lot of their policies are similar, however the fundamental difference between the two candidates will always be their ideologies.

    If you believe in the supremacy of the individual over all else, believe that there is an equal playing field for all, that the free market is best left to its own devices, that trickle down economics works, that negotiating with foreign countries is not an option, and that war always is, that people can afford to pay for their own health care, that race baiting is an acceptable campaign tactic- then Mccain's your man.

    If you believe in the value of the group taking care of the one, in hand ups and not hand outs, in correcting injustices that have tilted the playing field, that community organizing and grassroots deserve equal emphasis to wall street and lobbyists, that discourse with foreign countries is advantageous, that health care is a right, and that campaigns are about the issues & not about the mud- then Obama's your man.

    If you are truly undecided by the 4th, I invite you to share your vote with me and vote Obama. ^_^
    What state do you live in?

  4. He must live in a muddled state.

  5. If you want to vote for a doddering 72-year-old with rage control issues backed up by a narcissist who wants to send women back to the 1950's, vote Republican.

  6. You guys are funny. I live in florida but I was playing devil's advocate when I said I was undecided. It's good to see that people are passionately involved in the future of this country.

  7. My vote goes to Gentledove!

  8. Most of the people posting in this thread, however, don't live in the US.

  9. ?

  10. I don't, baba doesn't, gentledove doesn't, and letters doesn't.

  11. I don't. But worldwide coverage of US elections shows us what McCain is like...

    Conservative, judgemental and everything letters said.

    Also, he's an evangelist. I have a personal problem with evangelists.

  12. Americans are so sweet they are like that dog thingy, you know? dogs think that everyone else is a dog, Americans think everyone else is American. just pat them on the head and say SIT

  13. thetatteredflag

    Hello everybody...

    This seems to be an increasingly common phenomenon in recent elections, neither party running a particularly strong candidate. What we need right now is a Lincoln or an FDR, a man of scope who did what he needed to do keep the nation from total collapse, and consequences be damned! Both men pulled us back from the brink, and in the process both blatantly and irresponsibly stomped on the rights of American citizens. But we made it through, twice. We now seem to be poised at another crossroads of similar magnitude. But McCain is no Lincoln, and Obama is not FDR.

    If you examine the candidates, they both have less than stellar credentials. McCain is too old, and if dies while in office, well, we all know what that means. Obama is the more intelligent of the two, but leans way far left of the average Democrat. If elected, we will face two years of a Democratic majority Congress quickly slamming through every bill that has been collecting dust in their file cabinets (I can picture Nancy Pelosi rubbing her hands with glee at the thought).Being as far left as he is, Obama will never veto anything they put on his desk, as a more moderate Democrat would. In a year, his veto record will undoubtably reflect this. McCain will be better on foreign policy, and Obama on domestic policy. So they pretty much equal out at this point.

    If we examine what they have in common, it starts to get alarming. Both will be lax on border security, which should be the number two issue in this campaign. I am talking primarily about the entry of criminal illegal aliens and non-national agents who would wish to do us harm. But here is the most alarming thing: neither one of them seems to know anything about the financial crisis, or how to lead us out of it. Neither one has mentioned any of the five or six pieces of legislation that has brought us to this Wall street meltdown. Neither has addressed why Frank Raines, the man who embezzled 90 million dollars in executive bonuses from Fannie Mae by overstating their earnings to the tune of 6 to 9 billion dollars, is not behind bars. Neither man has done his homework.

    So back to the original question…in said situation, how do you vote. You must vote for your core values. The most lasting impression any President makes on the American landscape is who he appoints to the Supreme Court. It is the Court that decides law and public policy in this country. Any law put through Congress and signed by any President, be they Republican or Democrat, can be instantly negated by a single stroke of the Court’s pen. A President can be impeached, and a member of Congress dismissed by their peers, but there is no recourse to remove a rogue judge from any appointed bench. So going into this and any election, ask yourself this question…what kind of Justice will this President appoint to the Supreme court, and how will the decisions of that Court affect me and what I believe in.

    My prediction is that if McCain is elected, there will be no voluntary abdications of the Bench. If Obama is elected, within the next year Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down and retire.

    Obviously non-Americans are as easily duped by press bias as Americans are...Woof!

  14. tattered, I agree that neither candidate will be a panacea for America, but a panacea is not realistic. The fundamental choice is truly whether America wants a president that seeks unity, dialogue, and cooperative relations with our neighbors, or whether American wants a president that used division/fear as campaign tactics, and sings "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" in public.

    Obama is not a hero, but he is the best thing for our country right now.

    Second- it is a curious notion that our society has about "the left" and "liberals". In the past thirty years or so we've had two democratic presidents. Our nation has been guided into the ditch it is in by conservative politics. Conservatives meanwhile, have convinced large portions of the population that ideas from the "left" are somehow inherently evil and will spell the end of our nation.

    I think a look at history will indicate that democrats have done the most for our nation.
    I submit the following as examples: Clinton, JFK, FDR, Lincoln...

    (You might mention that Lincoln was a republican- but this does not translate into today's republican.. Lincoln's anti-slavery stance, and policies were indicative of a more liberal breed of thinking).

    Further, consider the progress that has been made by liberals in this nation: women's suffrage, abolition of slavery, civil rights movement.....I have yet to have observed a dramatic increase in civil liberties/rights/ or protections by the "right".

    Therefore, I suggest that a democratic congress & president will be good for this nation. Criticisms of liberal policies truly are unwarranted. Especially considering the right's record for the last 8 years, which has far outpaced that of any liberal administration in history. Fear of rampant spending is not what the right truly fears. Their fear is that the left would work to eliminate discrimination, abject poverty, and institutional disenfranchisement of the masses.

    As far as press bias: you are absolutely right. I have found none of the mainstream American news organizations to be objective, save CSPAN (which I highly recommend ^_^)


  15. You should never have rebelled.

  16. ?

  17. thetatteredflag

    Douglas, I would never try to diminish the accomplishments of our great civil rights leaders. Men like Lincoln, FDR, MLK, and JFK all deserve mass recognition for their sacrifices and victories in this area. But in admiring them, we should also admit when they have done wrong. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt violated habeus corpus, the only right the founders felt important enough to include in the actual Articles of the Constitution. Lincoln imprisoned and held men during and after the civil war without trial because he thought they were Southern sympathizers. FDR used the military to forcibly evict American citizens from their homes and place them into camps. The government then confiscated their businesses and sold them. JFK ordered the CIA to try and assassinate the leaders of foreign countries. Clinton approved an ill-devised plan to use military tanks and CS nerve gas, a flammable chemical agent, to assault a compound in Waco Texas that contained 24 American children.

    We obviously view the world from different places, but we should both be able to agree that what FDR did with programs like the TVA and the SSA does not excuse his imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WWII, nor does Lincoln's abolition of slavery excuse his suspension of habeus. You have to ask the kids who died at Waco: "How's that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness we promised treating you?"

    "Criticisms of liberal policies truly are unwarranted"

    I have to disagree with this statement. Criticism of ALL policies is not only warranted, but neccesary. As an example, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1973 instructed banks to give sub-prime loans as a way to help lower-income families become homeowners. This is not in and of itself a bad thing, and for a long time the program worked. But a lack of criticsm over subsequent bills that amended and expanded the scope and power of the CRA led to the creation of institutions like Fannie Mae and Fredde Mack. The implosion of these two companies was the final impetus that pushed our economy over the brink. That doesn't mean that President Carter was a bad man with ill intentions, only that he never understood the full implications of where his innocent program might lead. The same can be said of Social Security, a great program with the noblest of intentions, but now it is broke and broken and nobody knows how to fix it. What will be the results fifty years down the road of a flurry of new, untried programs now?

    "Their fear is that the left would work to eliminate discrimination, abject poverty, and institutional disenfranchisement of the masses."

    I can't speak for anybody else, but personally I am all for eliminating discrimintion and poverty. But we must do it responsibly. We must consider the future implications of present actions.

    As each of us is a different person, we cannot truly interpret the world as seen through somebody else's eyes. Therefore our values and priorites will differ. My fight for Constitutionalism is no more or less valid than your fight against oppression and corporatism. Both are commendable. That is why everyone needs to examine their own values and ask themselves "What kind of country do I want to live in 10 years from now? How about 15, or 20?" We must develop objectivity and apply it to both sides. We must examine and criticize both sides, and determine for ourselves which is the lesser evil.

  18. tattered- i would happily address you by name if i knew it :) , also douglas is my last- my first is kevin :)

    i truly appreciate the thought that went into your post.

    i did not mean to infer that you were belittling the above stated leaders, rather offering them up as examples of presidents who have done great good for this country, and in my humble opinion brought more to this nation that many executives on the right.

    that being said however, i must commend you for doing your homework on these leaders, and i must admit in most instances you are correct in your assessment. i would especially join you in condemning the Japanese internment camps- one of the most unspoken of modern day evils perpetrated by our government. i am not terribly familiar with what went on behind closed doors re: waco so i cannot comment on that.

    re: my comment "Criticisms of liberal policies truly are unwarranted", it should be taken in the context of my original statement to mean that the amount of criticism that liberal politics receive is unwarranted given their limited employment in the political landscape, that has by in large been dominated by conservative administrations in this last half century. so much time is spent by the right conjuring up fear of "tax and spend" liberals, that they divert attention from their own "tax and spend" policies- on the military industrial complex, and corporate tax breaks

    however, re: the Community Reinvestment Act- it has been attracting all sorts of criticism from the right as the cause of the current economic predicament which is entirely untrue.

    The CRA was designed to eliminate discriminatory lending practices- such as redlining. CRA did not REQUIRE anyone to make loans to low income people. Rather, the law required that these lenders make the same opportunities available to all people of similar incomes.

    most of the institutions that made "subprime loans" "exotic loans" "liar loans" "adjustable rate laons" were not in fact under the mandate of the cra. they were independent banks and mortgage companies looking to cash in on the lucrative housing market such as the failed "countrywide" agency.

    if greedy individuals had not engaged in the slicing and dicing of consumer debt, repackaging bad with good, the eventual holders of those tranches would have never failed. the essential cause of failure was that no one could assess the value of debts on the balance sheets. it only takes a fraction of bad loans mixed up in larger securities to cast doubt on the value of the whole package

    to blame the economic crisis on fannie mae and freddie mac is an overly simplistic analysis that discounts the central role of nefarious banking practices of investment bankers and mortgage companies.

    i am glad to hear you are for the eradication of poverty, but when legislators hide behind the curtain of change, claiming they fear for the future implications, it just means they are accepting the status quo, and not working towards change. i am not advocating a full out battery of untried programs, but rather a thoughtful change in the way we conduct economic policy.

    in our nation today 1% of the population controls 47% of the wealth. this is not accidental. if we do not engage in vigorous programs to redistribute wealth and bring equity to all, we are simply endorsing the subhumanizing of millions of americans, in the name of "considering future implications"

    finally- you are absolutely right re: world views. i can never see the world through your eyes, nor you through mine. that is what healthy discourse is about ^_^
    while i believe that values and priorities differ, facts do not lie.

    and the facts of our nation are this: 47 million are without health care insurance, the top 1% owns 47% of the wealth, millions are homeless or on the verge of loosing their homes.

    i do consider the kind of country i want to live in 10, 20 years from now. i don't want to look back and say "maybe we should have made real concerted efforts to bring social reform to our nation"
    i want to be able to say "we saw a epic and systematic failure of our nation to provide for the equal right to the pursuit of life liberty and happiness, and so we did something about it"

    i believe that is what liberal philosophy is about. it is about breaking down barriers, tearing apart discrimination, bringing progressive change and hope to the masses. conservative politics puts dollars before people, and that is never something i can agree with.

    we can however, agree to disagree :)

  19. I'm still voting for Master Chief no matter what.

  20. thetatteredflag

    @ Kevin

    Sorry about the name mix-up!

    I would like to revive this thread one last time, in reference to the CRA.

    My original paragraph was over-simplified for the sake of brevity, and after re-reading it I would amend it by saying that the CRA enabled F&F rather than creating them. And while it is true that the original 1977 act did not require banks to loan money to anyone in particular, that changed through subsequent legislation. I applaude the original program and its intentions and feel that it is a shame that it took 16 years for it to reach the books after the original Civil Rights Commision report that unveiled the discriminatory lending practices executed against black Americans.

    Beginning in 1989 things began to change. When FIRREA was enacted, it instituted a 4 level CRA rating system, again not a bad thing in and of itself. In 1994, legislation (the name of which momentarily escapes me)loosened restrictions on interstate banking, and suddenly banks were being held accountable for their CRA ratings before they were allowed to open branches in other states. This began the intensifying trend of the government using CRA ratings as a means to influence the amount of money banks devoted to areas of lending that would never meet their original credit criteria, i.e. sub-prime loans. Since any expansion in the banking industry requires tacit Federal approval, this is the method in which banks began to be "required" to make loans that bore the possibility of being less profitable than what the bank would normally allow.

    The real damage came in 1995, however, with Bill Clinton's regulatory revision and expansion of the CRA. This deregulation streamlined regulatory CRA examination techniques and, more importantly, allowed banks for the first time to securitize CRA mortages and repackage them as AAA bonds through institutions like Fannie Mae. This proved fateful to the public, who were fooled by the bond ratings and probably did not realize that they were buying bundled, risky mortgage paper.

    In 1999 GLB passed, which repealed the depression era Glass-Steagel regulations which had prohibited institutions from mixing investment, commercial, and insurance interests. We next had huge companies like Citi-group etc. popping up. Suddenly the sub-prime mortgage market became very profitable, and the banks themselves, with the approval of CRA auditors and community groups, began lowering their underwtriting standards, which led to extremely risky no downpayment and no income verification loans.

    By 2004 it became apparent that fraud had become rampant within companies that had securitized billions upon billions of dollars in CRA loans, the most noteworthy being Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I find it disturbing, to say the least, that Frank Raines, the man primarily responsible for fraud at Fannie Mae, served as Clinton's budget director for 2 years. Even more disturbing are 2004 Congressional hearing tapes that show Democrats like Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks, Arthur Davis, and Barney Frank refuting a Republican call for more regulation at F&F. Waters even went as far as to cite the "outstanding leadership" of Raines, who pocketed 90 million dollars in executive bonuses at Fannie Mae by grossly overstating their earnings. Waters and Meeks both recieved $14,000+ in campaign contributions from F&F. Frank, who now chairs the House Financial Services Committee, recieved over $42,000 in contributions.

    So how should I feel in 2008 when I see Nancy Pelosi (who sponsored the Feb. 08 Economic Stimulus Package that increased the principal limit retrictions for CRA loans) accusing Republicans of following "a right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" agenda.
    Everything my research points to seems to indicate the opposite. The securitization of sub-primes mortgages happened under Clinton's watch. In '04, Republicans called for more regulation and scrutiny of sub-prime practices and were blocked by Democrats who assured us that no problems existed at f&f, and in fact, they were managed by outstanding leaders. (Raines resigned as CEO of Fannie Mae scant months afer the investigation. He paid back less than $3 million of the $90 million he stole in a settlement. Fannie Mae itself paid a whopping $400 million dollar settlement to the SEC.)

    Pelosi goes on to ask "how did it sneak up on us, so silently, almost on little cat feet?" Has she so swiftly forgotten the investigation that was stonewalled by her and her party, i.e. is she truly an idiot, or , more likely, is she simply lying to the public in attempt to misdirect them from what actually happened?

    So my question is light of this information, why should I believe that the Democrats are the ones to lead us out of this financial mess when they seemingly had a lot do do with getting us into it?

  21. obama enough said :)

  22. thanks teck i dont know if i another diatribe in me ^_^

  23. Not Obama
    Enough said ?

  24. I secretly hope Palin gets in so Jon Stewart will have a rich source of material just like he's had with Bush.

  25. That's only because you don't live here. If Palin is elected, I fully expect to be rounded up and placed in a re-education camp.

    She's scary.

  26. Lettershometoyou, So you think Palin will say most dumb stuff than Biden? Seems he is doing pretty good right now. Lets face it no matter who gets in Jon Stewart will find something for material.

  27. poor tina fey, her career will be reduced to caricatures if palin wins...although as membracid predicts, that will be the least of our worries

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic