Conservatives shouldn't settle for McCain

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]well he's better than obamajaydough

but nontheless, he would still be horrible in my book even if my pastor were his pastor. he has no experience Which is exactly why he was on The Time's top 100 list of most influencial people in the world 2 times. :) and wants to retreat from the war The war of which we do nothing but stand around and die. and negotiate with the leaders of rogue states.Hey, it's better than just barging in an bombing them.

[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]well he's better than obamaDivergeUnify

but nontheless, he would still be horrible in my book even if my pastor were his pastor. he has no experience Which is exactly why he was on The Time's top 100 list of most influencial people in the world 2 times. :) and wants to retreat from the war The war of which we do nothing but stand around and die. and negotiate with the leaders of rogue states.Hey, it's better than just barging in an bombing them.

Obama admitted Wright was a very important person in his life. If he didn't like what the Pastor was truly saying, then it would be his moral duty as a Christian to go else where DivergeUnify

I'm I the only one here that thinks that maybe Obama stuck around for the Churches community? :?

I'm sure Obama has many friends and neighbors that go to that Church, its as if people envision just Wright and Obama sitting in a room while Obama takes notes on what Wright says. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]Obama admitted Wright was a very important person in his life. If he didn't like what the Pastor was truly saying, then it would be his moral duty as a Christian to go else where Sajo7

I'm I the only one here that thinks that maybe Obama stuck around for the Churches community? :?

I'm sure Obama has many friends and neighbors that go to that Church, its as if people envision just Wright and Obama sitting in a room while Obama takes notes on what Wright says. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

I dont know a single christian that would stay in a church that starts telling people "The black community must be destroyed! They pose a threat to the white race!". Trust me, no christian would care who was going to the church, even a best friend. Most likely, they'd criticize anyone who goes to that church.

There's a lot of stuff you could call out McCain for, but Global Warming? The only real debate going on there is if it's just humans causing it. And it's probably not but that certainly doesn't mean the issue should be dropped. It is happenning, and I'm not interested in a grudge match between us and the other carbon-emitting creatures on the planet to see who acts on the issue first. (Though at the rate we're going, I'd say the cows might beat us to it anyway).darkmoney52

The problem is that Global Warming has somehow been turned into a political issue, which is completley idiotic. Assuming it isn't man-made, why can't we fix it anyway?

[QUOTE="darkmoney52"]There's a lot of stuff you could call out McCain for, but Global Warming? The only real debate going on there is if it's just humans causing it. And it's probably not but that certainly doesn't mean the issue should be dropped. It is happenning, and I'm not interested in a grudge match between us and the other carbon-emitting creatures on the planet to see who acts on the issue first. (Though at the rate we're going, I'd say the cows might beat us to it anyway).Sajo7

The problem is that Global Warming has somehow been turned into a political issue, which is completley idiotic. Assuming it isn't man-made, why can't we fix it anyway?

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]What is his views on Iraq. Does he support a full withdraw?jaydough

Misquote of the year...

You definitely got that right! I can't believe how many people think that's what he said. Lamestream media at work again. It meant a possible 100 year PRESENCE in Iraq, not 100 years of COMBAT. It's not anything new, we always maintain a presence in areas we fought. We've got bases in Japan and the war ended 63 years ago for crying out loud. Ditto with Germany.

Sorry about that jay, I was writing the response when the other responses got posted.:P

I wouldn't really mind McCain's stance on Iraq(For much the same reason that I don't mind Oboma's stance on healthcare; reguardless of who's in office it won't make a difference.), but he's already hyping up war with Iran. He wants to tell us that it's too late to go back on Iraq? Fine. But don't start the same damn thing in another country before we're even out.

I'm always asked the same question when I point out the idiocy of Barry in my posts, "Why don't you ever talk about McCain?" I think I'm not alone when I say McCain isn't my choice either. The guy continues to turn his back on Conservatives and Libertarians time and time again. Look at the examples:

He's falling for the hype of global warming. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not but the science isn't 100% in on it at the moment.

He's willing to talk about socialist healthcare. Health insurance is a privilege, not a right. It's not in the Bill of Rights, nor should it ever be. Think about it; our incompetant Government in charge of healthcare? No thanks.

McCain/Feingold. McCain/Kennedy. McCain/Liberman. I can go on and on and on.

**** this. I'm voting for Bob Barr.8)

MarineJcksn

What cracks me up about the whole "Global Warming" hype is that you somehow never hear Dicaprio or Gore telling people how a lot of other planets are experiencing warming right now too. Mars has a lot of melting, heck even Pluto is experiencing it. Many scientists are now saying that the Sun, not Man, is the biggest contributing factor. In my opinion it's all hype, a mechanism created to sell idiots on things like "Carbon Credits" and Carbon taxes. Just another way for someone to get more money from YOUR pocket.

Like I said a million times before, I don't advocate pollution or desecration of the earth when it's so easy to recycle and things like that. But implimenting a carbon tax (which is already being kicked around in the senate) will just increase the price of goods supplied by every company who's forced to pay it. I just think it sounds far fetched, given all the research. The science is still out on this one, and it's irresponsible to claim it's proven to exist, like Mr. Gore continues to do.

And to all who say "Global warming is pretty much a proven fact", you couldn't be further from the truth. Ask one of the 31,000 scientists (to include 9000 PHD's) who signed the petition rejecting it.:lol:

What cracks me up about the whole "Global Warming" hype is that you somehow never hear Dicaprio or Gore telling people how a lot of other planets are experiencing warming right now too. Mars has a lot of melting, heck even Pluto is experiencing it. Many scientists are now saying that the Sun, not Man, is the biggest contributing factor. In my opinion it's all hype, a mechanism created to sell idiots on things like "Carbon Credits" and Carbon taxes. Just another way for someone to get more money from YOUR pocket.

Like I said a million times before, I don't advocate pollution or desecration of the earth when it's so easy to recycle and things like that. But implimenting a carbon tax (which is already being kicked around in the senate) will just increase the price of goods supplied by every company who's forced to pay it. I just think it sounds far fetched, given all the research. The science is still out on this one, and it's irresponsible to claim it's proven to exist, like Mr. Gore continues to do.

And to all who say "Global warming is pretty much a proven fact", you couldn't be further from the truth. Ask one of the 31,000 scientists (to include 9000 PHD's) who signed the petition rejecting it.:lol:

MarineJcksn

Thanks for the link Marinejcksn. Hadnt seen that particular one before. Though i have seen plenty of credible scientists who have been against the man-made global warming hype, i was unaware of an actual petition.

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]whipassmt

I respect you a lot whipassmt, I'm just really not sure what to do on this one. I don't want Barry, that's already known. But at the same time, I'm tired of having to vote for a GOP candidate who doesn't represent real conservatism. I know it'll send a fruitless message, because Barr will probably lose bad. But, at the same time, at least it'd send a message.

Who knows, if Barry takes the White House maybe conservatives will finally grow a pair and we'll get some real leadership. The country had Jimmy before it got the Gipper, so you never know.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]MarineJcksn

I respect you a lot whipassmt, I'm just really not sure what to do on this one. I don't want Barry, that's already known. But at the same time, I'm tired of having to vote for a GOP candidate who doesn't represent real conservatism. I know it'll send a fruitless message, because Barr will probably lose bad. But, at the same time, at least it'd send a message.

Who knows, if Barry takes the White House maybe conservatives will finally grow a pair and we'll get some real leadership. The country had Jimmy before it got the Gipper, so you never know.

I actually think he is the best choice right now.

Hes not ignorant about global warming, he sees it as a problem, hes jsut not radical about it liek Gore.

He goes for what is right, and not what his party sayse.

This cracks me up.. I guess people forget quickly the panel that Bush CHOSE TO DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMINGS came back and told him it is infact happenign and mankind has some afffect on it..

Now ask me this, why would Bush choose "liberal slanted scientist" over "conservative slanted scientists", or objective minded scientists.. Meaning its not a complete fabrication..

Not to mention the ACTUAL SOLUTIONS are for the best of our nation like getting off of oil maybe? I also would like to point out how big the fossil fuels industry is which is against such things.. It took years to pin something on the Tobacco industry on it being harmful.. A much smaller industry, due to their lobbying and propaganda.. How the hell can we not expect the exact same things from a far larger corporation? In the end the solutions on trying to slow down global warming should be taken REGARDLESS if its happening or not..

This cracks me up.. I guess people forget quickly the panel that Bush CHOSE TO DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMINGS came back and told him it is infact happenign and mankind has some afffect on it..

Now ask me this, why would Bush choose "liberal slanted scientist" over "conservative slanted scientists", or objective minded scientists.. Meaning its not a complete fabrication..

Not to mention the ACTUAL SOLUTIONS are for the best of our nation like getting off of oil maybe? I also would like to point out how big the fossil fuels industry is which is against such things.. It took years to pin something on the Tobacco industry on it being harmful.. A much smaller industry, due to their lobbying and propaganda.. How the hell can we not expect the exact same things from a far larger corporation? In the end the solutions on trying to slow down global warming should be taken REGARDLESS if its happening or not..

sSubZerOo

Yes, because destroying third world countries and america's economy in the name of sensationalism is the best way to go. No one will argue with you that we should get off oil, however. Most republicans have been pushing for nuclear energy for a long time, except that's the one thing the liberals say "no" to. Amazing creatures they are, they want us to get off, but only if we do it *their* way.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

This cracks me up.. I guess people forget quickly the panel that Bush CHOSE TO DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMINGS came back and told him it is infact happenign and mankind has some afffect on it..

Now ask me this, why would Bush choose "liberal slanted scientist" over "conservative slanted scientists", or objective minded scientists.. Meaning its not a complete fabrication..

Not to mention the ACTUAL SOLUTIONS are for the best of our nation like getting off of oil maybe? I also would like to point out how big the fossil fuels industry is which is against such things.. It took years to pin something on the Tobacco industry on it being harmful.. A much smaller industry, due to their lobbying and propaganda.. How the hell can we not expect the exact same things from a far larger corporation? In the end the solutions on trying to slow down global warming should be taken REGARDLESS if its happening or not..

Tolwan

Yes, because destroying third world countries and america's economy in the name of sensationalism is the best way to go. No one will argue with you that we should get off oil, however. Most republicans have been pushing for nuclear energy for a long time, except that's the one thing the liberals say "no" to. Amazing creatures they are, they want us to get off, but only if we do it *their* way.

Yes because we want to pull the plug immediately on it, where we just stop oil one day.. Seriously your logic is that of a small child if you think that a gradual change could not be done. Secondly, China and India will need oil no matter what for a long time they are developing nations so oil contributors would by no means be devestated by it..

Lastly what does this have anythign to do with the liberals? I was merely talking about global warming in general, yes that is a problem that needs to be changed no one is argueing with that.. Basically what your doing is crying and saying "buh buh buh the other side" who cares buddy, what does this have anything to do when debating about logical solutions to a possible problem>?

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]whipassmt

I respect you a lot whipassmt, I'm just really not sure what to do on this one. I don't want Barry, that's already known. But at the same time, I'm tired of having to vote for a GOP candidate who doesn't represent real conservatism. I know it'll send a fruitless message, because Barr will probably lose bad. But, at the same time, at least it'd send a message.

Who knows, if Barry takes the White House maybe conservatives will finally grow a pair and we'll get some real leadership. The country had Jimmy before it got the Gipper, so you never know.

That would be true if Oboma were actually capable of going through with policies like his health plan, but obviously that's not going to happen. Even with issues like immigration where almost everyone agrees that there is a problem which needs to be fixed nothing happens because the two parties get caught up on the details. So, something like universal healthcare which is only popular with democrats will not pass. But on the other hand, he may make some progress with alternative fuel sources, which imo will have a MUCH larger impact on fighting terrorism than taking out Iran(Iran is now a threat because we took out Iraq. What's going to happen when we invade them?) In the meantime, someone like Oboma might make some progress diplomatically.

If he turns his back on conservatives then I think we have a win-win situation in November.SunofVich

And he rightly should just like how the democrat candiates should turn their backs on the party as well.. I am sick of this freaking loyalty factor... Common good and the good of the nation is far more important then party loyalty.. Perhaps some one should tell this to Bush before he posted all those loyal incompetent people in improtant positions of the government.

[QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

This cracks me up.. I guess people forget quickly the panel that Bush CHOSE TO DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMINGS came back and told him it is infact happenign and mankind has some afffect on it..

Now ask me this, why would Bush choose "liberal slanted scientist" over "conservative slanted scientists", or objective minded scientists.. Meaning its not a complete fabrication..

Not to mention the ACTUAL SOLUTIONS are for the best of our nation like getting off of oil maybe? I also would like to point out how big the fossil fuels industry is which is against such things.. It took years to pin something on the Tobacco industry on it being harmful.. A much smaller industry, due to their lobbying and propaganda.. How the hell can we not expect the exact same things from a far larger corporation? In the end the solutions on trying to slow down global warming should be taken REGARDLESS if its happening or not..

sSubZerOo

Yes, because destroying third world countries and america's economy in the name of sensationalism is the best way to go. No one will argue with you that we should get off oil, however. Most republicans have been pushing for nuclear energy for a long time, except that's the one thing the liberals say "no" to. Amazing creatures they are, they want us to get off, but only if we do it *their* way.

Yes because we want to pull the plug immediately on it, where we just stop oil one day.. Seriously your logic is that of a small child if you think that a gradual change could not be done. Secondly, China and India will need oil no matter what for a long time they are developing nations so oil contributors would by no means be devestated by it..

Lastly what does this have anythign to do with the liberals? I was merely talking about global warming in general, yes that is a problem that needs to be changed no one is argueing with that.. Basically what your doing is crying and saying "buh buh buh the other side" who cares buddy, what does this have anything to do when debating about logical solutions to a possible problem>?

ah, i see. Character assassination and personal insults to discredit your opponent in order to further your own opinion as the only "valid" opinion here. I see..

There is still no significant scientific (note: Scientific, aka via the scientific method) that indicates that humanity has anything to do with Global Warming. As a matter of fact, MarineJcksn provided a link with many, many scientists who say that we have nothing at all to do with it. So trying to put limits on the worlds Co2 emmissions could easily crush their economies, mostly on developing countries, but it would certainly harm the United States.

Furthermore, everyone agree's we need to get off oil. I do not dispute that, nobody does. Most republicans would prefer to switch to nuclear energy for most things, and we are still waiting for a viable alternative to gas for vehicles(Note: Ethanol is not an economically viable alternative).

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

This cracks me up.. I guess people forget quickly the panel that Bush CHOSE TO DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMINGS came back and told him it is infact happenign and mankind has some afffect on it..

Now ask me this, why would Bush choose "liberal slanted scientist" over "conservative slanted scientists", or objective minded scientists.. Meaning its not a complete fabrication..

Not to mention the ACTUAL SOLUTIONS are for the best of our nation like getting off of oil maybe? I also would like to point out how big the fossil fuels industry is which is against such things.. It took years to pin something on the Tobacco industry on it being harmful.. A much smaller industry, due to their lobbying and propaganda.. How the hell can we not expect the exact same things from a far larger corporation? In the end the solutions on trying to slow down global warming should be taken REGARDLESS if its happening or not..

Tolwan

Yes, because destroying third world countries and america's economy in the name of sensationalism is the best way to go. No one will argue with you that we should get off oil, however. Most republicans have been pushing for nuclear energy for a long time, except that's the one thing the liberals say "no" to. Amazing creatures they are, they want us to get off, but only if we do it *their* way.

Yes because we want to pull the plug immediately on it, where we just stop oil one day.. Seriously your logic is that of a small child if you think that a gradual change could not be done. Secondly, China and India will need oil no matter what for a long time they are developing nations so oil contributors would by no means be devestated by it..

Lastly what does this have anythign to do with the liberals? I was merely talking about global warming in general, yes that is a problem that needs to be changed no one is argueing with that.. Basically what your doing is crying and saying "buh buh buh the other side" who cares buddy, what does this have anything to do when debating about logical solutions to a possible problem>?

ah, i see. Character assassination and personal insults to discredit your opponent in order to further your own opinion as the only "valid" opinion here. I see..

There is still no significant scientific (note: Scientific, aka via the scientific method) that indicates that humanity has anything to do with Global Warming. As a matter of fact, MarineJcksn provided a link with many, many scientists who say that we have nothing at all to do with it. So trying to put limits on the worlds Co2 emmissions could easily crush their economies, mostly on developing countries, but it would certainly harm the United States.

Furthermore, everyone agree's we need to get off oil. I do not dispute that, nobody does. Most republicans would prefer to switch to nuclear energy for most things, and we are still waiting for a viable alternative to gas for vehicles(Note: Ethanol is not an economically viable alternative).

Which is why it'd be nice to see more funding into alternative and renewable energies.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

This cracks me up.. I guess people forget quickly the panel that Bush CHOSE TO DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMINGS came back and told him it is infact happenign and mankind has some afffect on it..

Now ask me this, why would Bush choose "liberal slanted scientist" over "conservative slanted scientists", or objective minded scientists.. Meaning its not a complete fabrication..

Not to mention the ACTUAL SOLUTIONS are for the best of our nation like getting off of oil maybe? I also would like to point out how big the fossil fuels industry is which is against such things.. It took years to pin something on the Tobacco industry on it being harmful.. A much smaller industry, due to their lobbying and propaganda.. How the hell can we not expect the exact same things from a far larger corporation? In the end the solutions on trying to slow down global warming should be taken REGARDLESS if its happening or not..

Tolwan

Yes, because destroying third world countries and america's economy in the name of sensationalism is the best way to go. No one will argue with you that we should get off oil, however. Most republicans have been pushing for nuclear energy for a long time, except that's the one thing the liberals say "no" to. Amazing creatures they are, they want us to get off, but only if we do it *their* way.

Yes because we want to pull the plug immediately on it, where we just stop oil one day.. Seriously your logic is that of a small child if you think that a gradual change could not be done. Secondly, China and India will need oil no matter what for a long time they are developing nations so oil contributors would by no means be devestated by it..

Lastly what does this have anythign to do with the liberals? I was merely talking about global warming in general, yes that is a problem that needs to be changed no one is argueing with that.. Basically what your doing is crying and saying "buh buh buh the other side" who cares buddy, what does this have anything to do when debating about logical solutions to a possible problem>?

ah, i see. Character assassination and personal insults to discredit your opponent in order to further your own opinion as the only "valid" opinion here. I see..

I apologize its just frustrating when we have alot of evidence specially with scientists from BUSHS OWN PANEL HE CHOSE.

There is still no significant scientific (note: Scientific, aka via the scientific method) that indicates that humanity has anything to do with Global Warming.

There is scientists cosntantly argueing on evolution but it is one of the most well known facts we have in science.. The point is the majority is the rule when it comes tot he science community and as stated earlier he did show that but there are far more scienctists across the world that say otherwise.. NOW WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO GAIN FROM saying that global warming is happenign? If anything if its heeded the steps taken will HINDER OUR LIVES and no one willg ain from it in the short run.

As a matter of fact, MarineJcksn provided a link with many, many scientists who say that we have nothing at all to do with it. So trying to put limits on the worlds Co2 emmissions could easily crush their economies, mostly on developing countries, but it would certainly harm the United States.

What are you talking about? We are talking about LIMITIING OUR OWN COUNTRY. Not only is it smart possibly enviromental wise but its smart by getting off a finite resource thats EXPLODING IN PRICES.. to the point that Bush embarrassed the entire UNITED STATES BY GOING OVER TO Saudi Arabia, getting on his knees and begging the leaders there ot up their produciton.

Furthermore, everyone agree's we need to get off oil. I do not dispute that, nobody does. Most republicans would prefer to switch to nuclear energy for most things, and we are still waiting for a viable alternative to gas for vehicles(Note: Ethanol is not an economically viable alternative).

Well there is the ugliness of capitalism and lobbying.. Such things could be curved if we had public transportation, but we don't due to lobbying.

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]If he turns his back on conservatives then I think we have a win-win situation in November.sSubZerOo

And he rightly should just like how the democrat candiates should turn their backs on the party as well.. I am sick of this freaking loyalty factor... Common good and the good of the nation is far more important then party loyalty.. Perhaps some one should tell this to Bush before he posted all those loyal incompetent people in improtant positions of the government.

Indeed. I wish the democratic candidates did turn there back on their party as well. I wish we could get rid of political parties all together so we can choose leaders based on their ideas not their political party affiliation. I can't count how many times I have heard people say they like Obama or McCain but they do not want to vote for them becuase they are a Democrat/Republican.

As for Global Warming yeah I think the sun has something to do with it. Because even the ice caps on Mars are receding, and I am sure that is man-made from our probes and rovers landing on the surface:P. But on the other hand I am pretty sure that Co2 is not just sitting in the air doing nothing. And with more and more trees being cut down in the Amazon rainforests and the forests in other places in the world it getting more difficult for Co2 to be made back into Oxygen again.

I don't understand how you can be so upset with McCain for mentioning global warming. I honestly think that McCain is only mentioning global warming as a PR stunt to gather up more votes.

Anyway, I know how you feel for settling with McCain. It's the same in the Democratic party. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I would much rather have him than Billary or McCain.

How does McCain acknoledging global warming detrimental; even if you don't agree

Honestly, how does that make him a weaker candidate, or weaker potential President?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]darkmoney52

That would be true if Oboma were actually capable of going through with policies like his health plan, but obviously that's not going to happen. Even with issues like immigration where almost everyone agrees that there is a problem which needs to be fixed nothing happens because the two parties get caught up on the details. So, something like universal healthcare which is only popular with democrats will not pass. But on the other hand, he may make some progress with alternative fuel sources, which imo will have a MUCH larger impact on fighting terrorism than taking out Iran(Iran is now a threat because we took out Iraq. What's going to happen when we invade them?) In the meantime, someone like Oboma might make some progress diplomatically.

I dunno about you, but I think Obama wouldn't run into much opposition to getting his heath care plan passed, with a democrat controlled congress he'll probably try to squeeze it out before they're up for re-election again. You gotta understand there are more senate seats that are up for grabs in the next week or so, and projections at the moment have the dems taking them. Once they surpass that magic number of 60, all bets are off and Barry could probably do pretty much whatever he wants.

You also gotta take into account the dismal failures of Nancy Pelousy, Harry Reid, guys like Dick Durbin, Joe Biden and Chuck Shumer....these people all have huge egos and it's no secret that this congress has tied with the worst approval ratings in US history. I'm convinced they're gonna try to do something huge to hopefully turn it all around, possibly universal healthcare which in my opinion is going to blow up in their faces. It's just not practical, and I'm not looking forward to this incompetant government picking MY doctor.

[QUOTE="Tolwan"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]What is his views on Iraq. Does he support a full withdraw?jaydough

Misquote of the year...

I made a topic about this. Search "John McCain's 100-year War Quote" and you should find it, with lots of nice info.;)

[QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]MarineJcksn

That would be true if Oboma were actually capable of going through with policies like his health plan, but obviously that's not going to happen. Even with issues like immigration where almost everyone agrees that there is a problem which needs to be fixed nothing happens because the two parties get caught up on the details. So, something like universal healthcare which is only popular with democrats will not pass. But on the other hand, he may make some progress with alternative fuel sources, which imo will have a MUCH larger impact on fighting terrorism than taking out Iran(Iran is now a threat because we took out Iraq. What's going to happen when we invade them?) In the meantime, someone like Oboma might make some progress diplomatically.

I dunno about you, but I think Obama wouldn't run into much opposition to getting his heath care plan passed, with a democrat controlled congress he'll probably try to squeeze it out before they're up for re-election again. You gotta understand there are more senate seats that are up for grabs in the next week or so, and projections at the moment have the dems taking them. Once they surpass that magic number of 60, all bets are off and Barry could probably do pretty much whatever he wants.

You also gotta take into account the dismal failures of Nancy Pelousy, Harry Reid, guys like Dick Durbin, Joe Biden and Chuck Shumer....these people all have huge egos and it's no secret that this congress has tied with the worst approval ratings in US history. I'm convinced they're gonna try to do something huge to hopefully turn it all around, possibly universal healthcare which in my opinion is going to blow up in their faces. It's just not practical, and I'm not looking forward to this incompetant government picking MY doctor.

Health insurance is a privilege, not a right.

MarineJcksn

It saddens me greatly that so many Americans think like this.

*shakes head and walks away*

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]

Health insurance is a privilege, not a right.

deshields538

It saddens me greatly that so many Americans think like this.

*shakes head and walks away*

the american government does almost nothing right. were better off with a free market solution. We need a real market in healthcare rather than having it tied to your job and not really letting YOU select your plan/company giving it

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]

Health insurance is a privilege, not a right.

deshields538

It saddens me greatly that so many Americans think like this.

*shakes head and walks away*

It's a deeply emotional issue, and of course I feel for those without healthcare. But show me one place ANYWHERE in the bill of rights where the word "healthcare" is mentioned. The bottom line is there are millions of Americans without health insurance that CAN afford it but don't purchase it. Should my (and Your) tax dollars go to subsidize more welfare handout programs? I work an average of 90 hours a week, pay all my bills on time and struggle to live comfortably while doing all the right things. Why should I be further penalized by higher taxes to offset the cost of someone who isn't willing to work their *** off like I do? I'm so sick of people in this country wanting something for nothing.

t[QUOTE="deshields538"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]

Health insurance is a privilege, not a right.

MarineJcksn

It saddens me greatly that so many Americans think like this.

*shakes head and walks away*

It's a deeply emotional issue, and of course I feel for those without healthcare. But show me one place ANYWHERE in the bill of rights where the word "healthcare" is mentioned. The bottom line is there are millions of Americans without health insurance that CAN afford it but don't purchase it. Should my (and Your) tax dollars go to subsidize more welfare handout programs? I work an average of 90 hours a week, pay all my bills on time and struggle to live comfortably while doing all the right things. Why should I be further penalized by higher taxes to offset the cost of someone who isn't willing to work their *** off like I do? I'm so sick of people in this country wanting something for nothing.

Over here in the UK it is considered a basic human right. Just because it doesn't say so on a piece of paper doesn't mean it should be disregarded. I'm perfectly happy for it to come out of my taxes since I am also benefitting and I don't think an insurance company has MY best interests at heart. They're going to try everything possible to avoid paying up.

What cracks me up about the whole "Global Warming" hype is that you somehow never hear Dicaprio or Gore telling people how a lot of other planets are experiencing warming right now too. Mars has a lot of melting, heck even Pluto is experiencing it. Many scientists are now saying that the Sun, not Man, is the biggest contributing factor. In my opinion it's all hype, a mechanism created to sell idiots on things like "Carbon Credits" and Carbon taxes. Just another way for someone to get more money from YOUR pocket.

Like I said a million times before, I don't advocate pollution or desecration of the earth when it's so easy to recycle and things like that. But implimenting a carbon tax (which is already being kicked around in the senate) will just increase the price of goods supplied by every company who's forced to pay it. I just think it sounds far fetched, given all the research. The science is still out on this one, and it's irresponsible to claim it's proven to exist, like Mr. Gore continues to do.

And to all who say "Global warming is pretty much a proven fact", you couldn't be further from the truth. Ask one of the 31,000 scientists (to include 9000 PHD's) who signed the petition rejecting it.:lol:

MarineJcksn

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]t[QUOTE="deshields538"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]deshields538

Over here in the UK it is considered a basic human right. Just because it doesn't say so on a piece of paper doesn't mean it should be disregarded. I'm perfectly happy for it to come out of my taxes since I am also benefitting and I don't think an insurance company has MY best interests at heart. They're going to try everything possible to avoid paying up.

I respect your feelings on this. It's just something I'll never get behind. To me it smacks of taxation without representation. I also have dealt with government healthcare for the last 6 years since I'm serving in the Marines, and while it's pretty decent care I highly doubt most American people who are used to a more personal, higher level of service with their doctor would be happy about the change.

[QUOTE="deshields538"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]t[QUOTE="deshields538"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]MarineJcksn

Over here in the UK it is considered a basic human right. Just because it doesn't say so on a piece of paper doesn't mean it should be disregarded. I'm perfectly happy for it to come out of my taxes since I am also benefitting and I don't think an insurance company has MY best interests at heart. They're going to try everything possible to avoid paying up.

I respect your feelings on this. It's just something I'll never get behind. To me it smacks of taxation without representation. I also have dealt with government healthcare for the last 6 years since I'm serving in the Marines, and while it's pretty decent care I highly doubt most American people who are used to a more personal, higher level of service with their doctor would be happy about the change.

Well I don't know how both countries compare in quality (I always though they were roughly the same) but that doesn't mean that it's any less personal. Many people get to know their GPs very well but it really depends on how often you visit them.

Also there are private medical companies over here as well who would have a higher standard of healthcare than the NHS if you have the money.

He is still the best candidate... sadly enough.

Because Hilary is just a joke, she is obviously not going to beat Obama.

And Obama.. Not the best choice. I don't even want to get into that.

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]Mr_sprinkles

Darn you, Sprinkles! Stop pointing out the flaws I've accidently overlooked!:cry::lol:

I'm always asked the same question when I point out the idiocy of Barry in my posts, "Why don't you ever talk about McCain?" I think I'm not alone when I say McCain isn't my choice either. The guy continues to turn his back on Conservatives and Libertarians time and time again. Look at the examples:

He's falling for the hype of global warming. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not but the science isn't 100% in on it at the moment.

He's willing to talk about socialist healthcare. Health insurance is a privilege, not a right. It's not in the Bill of Rights, nor should it ever be. Think about it; our incompetant Government in charge of healthcare? No thanks.

McCain/Feingold. McCain/Kennedy. McCain/Liberman. I can go on and on and on.

**** this. I'm voting for Bob Barr.8)

MarineJcksn

yeah hes lame

god if only Colbert was able to run

VendettaRed07

Umm...Colbert's liberal.

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]Master_Jdog

I generally don't have an issue with Mormons, it's just a slightly different sect of Christianity, they're not all like "Big Love" or anything.:lol: Glenn Beck's a mormon and that dude is the man.

I wouldn't have minded Romney either, financially he's a wizard so the guy probably would've been real good on the economy.

t[QUOTE="deshields538"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]

Health insurance is a privilege, not a right.

MarineJcksn

It saddens me greatly that so many Americans think like this.

*shakes head and walks away*

It's a deeply emotional issue, and of course I feel for those without healthcare. But show me one place ANYWHERE in the bill of rights where the word "healthcare" is mentioned. The bottom line is there are millions of Americans without health insurance that CAN afford it but don't purchase it. Should my (and Your) tax dollars go to subsidize more welfare handout programs? I work an average of 90 hours a week, pay all my bills on time and struggle to live comfortably while doing all the right things. Why should I be further penalized by higher taxes to offset the cost of someone who isn't willing to work their *** off like I do? I'm so sick of people in this country wanting something for nothing.

This man speaks the truth. Some people just depend on the Gov't way too much, then complain that they dont have any money when they work 20 hours a week and have 3 kids.