Sarah Palin completely dropkicks the Obama campaign.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

hehe i'm the opposite. i'm a republican and i don't think we need to have a military budget that is larger than the rest of the world combined. that's just ridiculous to me. put that money into improving out public infrastructure that has seen little done in the last 8 years. Using what we have wisely is also a good idea. like how we ordered billions in new fighter jets for the iraq war and they aren't even going to be used because there is not enemy in the sky.

LJS9502_basic

I'm not crazy about his desire for partial birth abortion either. It's not necessary....the baby can be put up for adoption if it isn't wanted at that stage. No one is ever penalized for giving a baby up for adoption. Plus, any baby that lives during a partial birht abortion is left to die in the room. That's terrible.

agreed...especially in times of war. If you cut back funding, especially if we're still in Iraq that does nothing but impede its progress. The less equipment, and the quality of the equipment deters the soldiers from doing their jobs. It's kind of like building a house and saying "Man, I'm freaking ready to finish this thing", and then deciding to spend less money to buy the tools you need to finish it.

I was against Iraq from the very beginning. Unlike the senators, democrat and republican alike who voted to go to war. Now that we're there though, we need to make sure our military has all the necessary resources to do what they need to. Just because you disagree with Iraq, doesn't mean you should be against funding the effort.

Once Iraq is over though, I'm definitely for reducing military spending. With most of the remaining resources being used for R&D.

You mean the same poor white farmers in the north that rebelled against the government, specifically in Mass, because of their being no economy? :|

hokies1313

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

hehe i'm the opposite. i'm a republican and i don't think we need to have a military budget that is larger than the rest of the world combined. that's just ridiculous to me. put that money into improving out public infrastructure that has seen little done in the last 8 years. Using what we have wisely is also a good idea. like how we ordered billions in new fighter jets for the iraq war and they aren't even going to be used because there is not enemy in the sky.

LJS9502_basic

I'm not crazy about his desire for partial birth abortion either. It's not necessary....the baby can be put up for adoption if it isn't wanted at that stage. No one is ever penalized for giving a baby up for adoption. Plus, any baby that lives during a partial birht abortion is left to die in the room. That's terrible.

We have more than enough nukes to kill the world...what's the point of more? just to say we have more?

also like i said. we spend about as much on military than the world combined.

US - 583 Billion
Russia - 40 Billion

I don't think outspending them or having better stuff is the issue here. they aren't afraid of us because we're in 2 wars already and picking fights with Iran too :P

[QUOTE="hokies1313"]

You mean the same poor white farmers in the north that rebelled against the government, specifically in Mass, because of their being no economy? :|

LJS9502_basic

I never claimed the North was rich. It is an undeniable fact that the Electoral College was created for "natural" aristocrats, meaning those with learned expertise and intelligence, would pick the President, so that the uneducated masses did not screw up. No where, in all my years, have I heard that the Electoral College was a means to oppress the North or South.

I have, through all levels of my education, heard it was to protect against the common folk.

We have more than enough nukes to kill the world...what's the point of more? just to say we have more?

also like i said. we spend about as much on military than the world combined.

US - 583 Billion
Russia - 40 Billion

I don't think outspending them or having better stuff is the issue here. they aren't afraid of us because we're in 2 wars already and picking fights with Iran too :P

Ontain

All her speech did was put me off the Republicans even more. At least McCain is slightly moderate. Palin seems to be an extreme conservative. Not only do I not want to them to win, I'm worried if they do.Bourbons3

Agreed, as a hardcore Democrat I'll even concede that a McCain Presidency didn't scare the hell out of me, but her, God forbid, running the country? I sure hope not.

I never claimed the North was rich. It is an undeniable fact that the Electoral College was created for "natural" aristocrats, meaning those with learned expertise and intelligence, would pick the President, so that the uneducated masses did not screw up. No where, in all my years, have I heard that the Electoral College was a means to oppress the North or South.

I have, through all levels of my education, heard it was to protect against the common folk.

hokies1313

Who mentioned oppression? I said it was to give the same importance to the vote of the white male southern landowners as the votes to the higher population northern white males...and yes economic situation came into voting back then in both the north and the south.

I like Gulianni's line, "I'm sorry [Palin's] hometown isn't cosmopliton enough, Mr. Obama, maybe they are clinging to their guns." That's not exact, but close.blackngold29

I thought he said they were clinging to their religion...

And you're wrong. The Electoral College has nothing to do with balancing the power between the more populus region and the lesser. If you have more people, you get more delegates. That makes sense.

As someone who thinks both options simply stink,

The Democrats did a HUGE favor for the GOP by dumping all over Palin for the last five days, I was fully expecting a timid out of place soccermom who was going to prove the media and the Democrats right.

Instead I got quite arguebly the most impressive speech I have seen from the DNC and the RNC so far, and I don't expect McCain to top it today. She made Obama seem foolish, and made perhaps one of the least "political" sounding speeches from a political muckity muck I have ever seen.

My thought was originally that Palin was simply a means to disarm the media machine that was Obama, and honestly just based on that she had done her job, lets not forget that less then a week after Obama "made history" no one is talking about it, Us and People are now focusing their front pages and headlines on Palin and is forcing Obama to beat McCain on Policy rather then sizzle.

Can he do that? I have no idea.

Palin NEEDED a speech that had Republicans saying, "Oh, so THAT's why he picked her" and she did just that.

She also proved to me it wasn't about the Clinton voters, its about rural America the same rural America that Al Gore couldn't carry in 2000 and Kerry did not appeal to in 2004.

We have three men, all Senators, all slick politicians and no one who could really set up shop in middle America and sway voters, in Palin McCain has that advantage.

Cool avatar cosmo.

And you're wrong. The Electoral College has nothing to do with balancing the power between the more populus region and the lesser. If you have more people, you get more delegates. That makes sense.

hokies1313

Cool avatar cosmo.

Persecuted_1

Thanks!

[QUOTE="hokies1313"]

And you're wrong. The Electoral College has nothing to do with balancing the power between the more populus region and the lesser. If you have more people, you get more delegates. That makes sense.

LJS9502_basic

No system is perfect and those instances are few and far between. A majority of elections have been won by the candidate with the most votes.

No system is perfect and those instances are few and far between. A majority of elections have been won by the candidate with the most votes.

hokies1313

[QUOTE="hokies1313"]

No system is perfect and those instances are few and far between. A majority of elections have been won by the candidate with the most votes.

LJS9502_basic

Actually, one could argue the point of the electoral college is not to elect the popular candidate every time. Since the Founding Fathers didn't want a wildly popular dictator being installed as president, you can't really call the election of the lesser popular candidate a failure of the system.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

We have more than enough nukes to kill the world...what's the point of more? just to say we have more?

also like i said. we spend about as much on military than the world combined.

US - 583 Billion
Russia - 40 Billion

I don't think outspending them or having better stuff is the issue here. they aren't afraid of us because we're in 2 wars already and picking fights with Iran too :P

LJS9502_basic

He could cut the military budget by 25% (not going to happen) and still we've have the largest military budget by far. Decommissioning a few nukes wouldn't be bad either. We have over 9000 intact nuclear warheads over 5000 of them are active. do we really need that much? if we ever needed even half that, you and I wouldn't be around anyway.

4AM rant from the other thread.

I've followed politics fairly closely for about five years now, read up on all the scandals, believed the hype from both sides at one point or another, all that, and seriously, nothing has disturbed me more than what has happened in the past week. Think about it, John McCain, knowing that Palin has a pregnant daughter, asked her to be his vice president. He put her in the position of having to choose between being able to serve her country as vice president or protecting her daughter from being dragged through the mud on the largest stage on the planet. Putting her in that position, especially when he had several other highly qualified people available, was not a moral thing to do. What is even worse, however, is that Palin made the choice to allow this, to allow her 17 year old daughter's unplanned pregnancy to become the topic of news reports across the world, conversations across the country, jokes on the internet, tabloids, everything. What kind of person would do that to anyone? What kind of person would do that to their own daughter? This has nothing to do with experience, political viewpoints, or the media. This is about character.

Tonight, I saw Sara Palin give a speech that even Karl Rove, who orchestrated both of George W. Bush's campaigns, would have been sickened by. The speech advocated how much she valued her family, even though she handed her daughter over to mass media wolves. It belittled Barack Obama's effort to help the poor early in his career, but the speech was still intended to appeal to an audience that held traditional Christian values. Near the end of the speech, Sara Palin implied that John McCain was a better American than Barack Obama because Obama made the choice not serve in the armed forces, regardless of the fact that she had not served in the armed forces either. Like any well-planned political speech, such as the one recently given at the DNC by Barack Obama, there were issue related omissions, which were highlighted when she tried to sell this ticket to women, using anecdotes about being a "hockey mom," even though some of the same women the speech was meant to attract might like to know that McCain voted against an equal pay for equal work bill because, he said, "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system." These women should also note that while a "private enterprise system" should be free from government regulations, their bodies are a different story, as Palin is strongly agaisnt abortion, which the speech did not mention at all.

I've never been a big fan of Barack Obama, I think he's copped out and changed possitions on a ton of important issues. I don't think his economic plans stand a great chance of working. I don't think that the democrats did anything worthwhile during their recent control of congress, and I don't think George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had, but the direction that the republican party is trying to take this election is very disturbing. I understand how political attack speeches work, or at least I thought I did. I know the democrats are far from innocent in the attack game, but I do think that John McCain and Sara Palin have gone completely morally bankrupt, even for politics, not only because of the attacks their opponent's public service and questioning of his patriotism, but because they demonstrate a willingness to do almost anything to win, even if it means implying ficticious wrong doing, even if it means distorting the values of Christianity, and even if that means destroying the dignity of a 17 year old girl. I don't want any part of it.

Country First. And family? Well, maybe their problems will help in the polls.

NearTheEnd

He could cut the military budget by 25% (not going to happen) and still we've have the largest military budget by far. Decommissioning a few nukes wouldn't be bad either. We have over 9000 intact nuclear warheads over 5000 of them are active. do we really need that much? if we ever needed even half that, you and I wouldn't be around anyway.

Ontain

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

I thought it was interesting seeing the crowd

DNC: all races, all ages

RNC: white people, usually older

Anyway, I changed the channel also the cheering was way out of proportion. Even for a National Convention.

FragStains

Conventions always make me sick.

And the McCain campaign can continue using the executive experience attack at Obama because Palin has executive experience. The point of a VP is to choose someone who complements you, not imitates you. Why do you think Clinton chose Gore? For his wonderful speaking voice, or his foreign policy experience?

Looking at the tickets on the whole, only one has executive experience.

lol...a year and a couple of months as Governor is certainly not the experience needed to run the entire country, and if you're counting her experience as a small town(literally) mayor than you're nothing but a spin doctor. lol. If McCain drops over, she's the president, pretty ballsy you must even admit. If Obama were to fall, Biden would make for a much better president, especially since he's far more representative of the nation. That's the real question, not because someone was in the executive branch of government over the legislature branch. Look at our current President, not a good poster boy for someone with Governor Experience of the executive branch. Palin reminds me of Bush, just better at speaking, both religious nuts who have oil oil on the brain.

I doubt anything she said has much affect on the Democrats. All she did was make the whole thing seem like a playground fight... Especially considering that most don't look up to her as a credible politician to begin with.SaugaGames

she's a gimick candidate..

[QUOTE="SaugaGames"]I doubt anything she said has much affect on the Democrats. All she did was make the whole thing seem like a playground fight... Especially considering that most don't look up to her as a credible politician to begin with.comp_atkins

she's a gimick candidate..

Ha, that's laughable. She's policy candidate. She has more experience than the entire Democratic Ticket, and has experience in Energy matters, and social matters.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

He could cut the military budget by 25% (not going to happen) and still we've have the largest military budget by far. Decommissioning a few nukes wouldn't be bad either. We have over 9000 intact nuclear warheads over 5000 of them are active. do we really need that much? if we ever needed even half that, you and I wouldn't be around anyway.

LJS9502_basic

Honestly i don't care about the decommissioning of warheads. i don't hear anyone talking about it either Rep or Dem. I would like to reduce our military spending though. as for what cuts will happen to save money. well the ones that are really causing our hurt (besides the wars) are SS and medicare. Neither of them is touch those that much since old ppl vote. not renewing the Bush tax cuts for the rich would be a good idea too. Remember in WW2 when they sold warbonds to raise money for the war? why didn't that do that this time? it would have been a great idea since it would actually meant ppl saving money too.

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="blackngold29"]I like Gulianni's line, "I'm sorry [Palin's] hometown isn't cosmopliton enough, Mr. Obama, maybe they are clinging to their guns." That's not exact, but close.LJS9502_basic

as someone from the Philly area, I can tell you, outside the major cities in PA, they don't call PA "Alabama" for no reason, it's loaded with right wing religous nuts that thankfully don't outnumber everyone else, hence why it's mostly Blue over the years. That remark was absolutey correct, it's just that honesty STINGS! haha

How old are ya? I'm asking that because since the 90's, when looking at the election coverage and looking at the counties voting, PA basically votes Red outside the major cities, Philly and Pittsburgh and through in Allentown and Scranton too, but it's known as "Alabama between Philly and Pittsburgh". The State is almost always Blue though since the majority usually vote Left. I'm in the Philly 'burbs, Bucks country, which they talked about on CNN last night actually, and when the general starts you'll see the media refer to it from time to time. It's basically a description of how the State Votes. My county is traditionally a Wealthy Moderate Republican County that doesn't vote on Religion, Guns, and Abortion, but rather Taxes and other concerns. Montco and Delco, the other suburbs tend to vote in a very similar fashion although those counties tend to go Blue far more often then mine, depending on the Candidate. Right now, Most polls in the Philly/South NJ area have Obama up in the polls over McCain, but between here and Pittsburgh, it's all red. Those counties that go red vote Republican for different reasons, mostly religon, guns, and abortion, which are the hot topics out in Rural PA, hence the "Alabama" reference. As someone who works all over the State and the Tri State area, it's feels like a whole different State depending on where you're at in PA. It's strange.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="SaugaGames"]I doubt anything she said has much affect on the Democrats. All she did was make the whole thing seem like a playground fight... Especially considering that most don't look up to her as a credible politician to begin with.hokies1313

she's a gimick candidate..

Ha, that's laughable. She's policy candidate. She has more experience than the entire Democratic Ticket, and has experience in Energy matters, and social matters.

then by that argument, she has more experiance than mccain who is actually running for president.. she's a gimmick.. accept it. the rep's needed something to draw attention away from obama so they picked her. she fit the profile. she's young, she has a military son which will play well with the rubes, she has a special needs child which will play well with the pro-lifers. its a stratic choice by mccain and his clan..

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

LJS, I've heard for years that between Philly and Pittsburgh the state is full of very conservative small towns that are much like the south. Now you live there, I don't, but "you have Alabama between Philly and Pittsburgh" is a phrase I've heard for at least 10+ years.

btaylor2404

I've stayed in some moderate cities and didn't get a southern conservative vibe. Rural areas tend to vote Republican due to hunting (guns) and land (paid to not farm). I've been to the south (not Alabama) and it's not the same.

Well, you know I didn't mean to stump you there. Guess I've been listening to Chris Matthews too much, he says it all the time.

Chris is one of them, especially because he's a Philly guy, born and raised.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]Day and age? You mean there was once a time when voters were informed and critical thinkers?LJS9502_basic

Those same people came up with the electoral college because they didn't trust the average voter. Besides the Founding Fathers were extremely well-educated, hardly typical citizens.

No originally the Electorial college was made to help out smaller states and to make it a little bit more equal with the bigger states. Has nothing to do with the intelligence of the voter.

agreed

Once the presidential nominees were selected I thought everything was good. I liked both Obama and McCain as people.

Obama's policies were aimed at helping the lower classes, reforming healthcare and setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. McCain is a moderate conservative and considered a maverick and has a good energy policy going and he isn't a religious nut. At that time I still prefered Obama to win but thought that America couldn't go far wrong with McCain either.

However now that McCain has chosen his VP I hope he never gets into office (although his comments about Russia and Georgia also had an effect). His choice comes off an attempt to grab disgruntled Hilary voters and she's an ultra conservative who is 100% against abortion, wants creationism taught in schools and is against sex education as well.

If he had picked Lieberman or Romney my support for him would have grown but this choice is just plain bad in my eyes. My support is now completely for Obama.

4AM rant from the other thread.NearTheEnd

I am hearing you. I usually dodge political issues since they just make me upset and I think the whole system is broken beyond repair, but this is a rare issue I've felt the need to speak up on. I'm not much of an Obama fan either, but I think the whole Palin thing is disgraceful. This column written the other day by an individual that appears to be part of the base that Palin is meant to rally hits the nail square on the head. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/08/sarah_polin.html John McCain made a selfish, condescending, and irresponsible decision in choosing this woman as his running mate, one that was not in the best interests of America. You'll never convince me that he thought this woman was more qualified than the other men and women who were candidates for the position. This is almost like something out of high school student council elections where the hot chicks with the nicest boobs or the football players with six-pack abs won over the intelligent kids. Unfortunately, with Obama and now Palin, this election is proof positive that all you need to do to get a lot of Americans eating out of your hand is to tell them what they want to hear. Apparently these days all you need to erase a crappy resume and sell people snake oil is a nice speech.

How old are ya?

mismajor99

[QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="SaugaGames"]I doubt anything she said has much affect on the Democrats. All she did was make the whole thing seem like a playground fight... Especially considering that most don't look up to her as a credible politician to begin with.comp_atkins

she's a gimick candidate..

Ha, that's laughable. She's policy candidate. She has more experience than the entire Democratic Ticket, and has experience in Energy matters, and social matters.

then by that argument, she has more experiance than mccain who is actually running for president.. she's a gimmick.. accept it. the rep's needed something to draw attention away from obama so they picked her. she fit the profile. she's young, she has a military son which will play well with the rubes, she has a special needs child which will play well with the pro-lifers. its a stratic choice by mccain and his clan..

McCain experience in other matters that make him qualified for president. He's strong on Foreign Policy, he's led men in battle. He's a maverick, he knows how to work with both parties.

Palin is young, a women, and has a son in the military, and has a child with special needs. It was a strategic choice. But it also brings along with it executive experience, an anit-corruption, and reforming choice. She signals REAL change. Unlike Obama who picked Joe Biden, a poster boy for Old Washington. She isn't a gimmick, she knows how to get things done, how to fight corruption, how to reform. She knows the issues and she knows about energy issues.

You seriously think if this was a gimmick pick McCain would have picked someone who had all those skeletons in the closet? It's the genius of the pick, it shows he's committed to actual change and moving forward and he values Palin for her views and experience. Not because she is a woman and a mom.

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

How old are ya?

LJS9502_basic

I'll back this up again. I've lived in Pennsylvania for basically my whole life. Never once have I heard any part of the state referred to as "Alabama."

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

How old are ya?

LJS9502_basic

Hmm sounds familiar.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="SaugaGames"]I doubt anything she said has much affect on the Democrats. All she did was make the whole thing seem like a playground fight... Especially considering that most don't look up to her as a credible politician to begin with.hokies1313

she's a gimick candidate..

Ha, that's laughable. She's policy candidate. She has more experience than the entire Democratic Ticket, and has experience in Energy matters, and social matters.

then by that argument, she has more experiance than mccain who is actually running for president.. she's a gimmick.. accept it. the rep's needed something to draw attention away from obama so they picked her. she fit the profile. she's young, she has a military son which will play well with the rubes, she has a special needs child which will play well with the pro-lifers. its a stratic choice by mccain and his clan..

McCain experience in other matters that make him qualified for president. He's strong on Foreign Policy, he's led men in battle. He's a maverick, he knows how to work with both parties.

Palin is young, a women, and has a son in the military, and has a child with special needs. It was a strategic choice. But it also brings along with it executive experience, an anit-corruption, and reforming choice. She signals REAL change. Unlike Obama who picked Joe Biden, a poster boy for Old Washington. She isn't a gimmick, she knows how to get things done, how to fight corruption, how to reform. She knows the issues and she knows about energy issues.

You seriously think if this was a gimmick pick McCain would have picked someone who had all those skeletons in the closet? It's the genius of the pick, it shows he's committed to actual change and moving forward and he values Palin for her views and experience. Not because she is a woman and a mom.

:lol: someone's been reading the mccain - palin website a little too much

[QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="SaugaGames"]I doubt anything she said has much affect on the Democrats. All she did was make the whole thing seem like a playground fight... Especially considering that most don't look up to her as a credible politician to begin with.comp_atkins

she's a gimick candidate..

Ha, that's laughable. She's policy candidate. She has more experience than the entire Democratic Ticket, and has experience in Energy matters, and social matters.

then by that argument, she has more experiance than mccain who is actually running for president.. she's a gimmick.. accept it. the rep's needed something to draw attention away from obama so they picked her. she fit the profile. she's young, she has a military son which will play well with the rubes, she has a special needs child which will play well with the pro-lifers. its a stratic choice by mccain and his clan..

McCain experience in other matters that make him qualified for president. He's strong on Foreign Policy, he's led men in battle. He's a maverick, he knows how to work with both parties.

Palin is young, a women, and has a son in the military, and has a child with special needs. It was a strategic choice. But it also brings along with it executive experience, an anit-corruption, and reforming choice. She signals REAL change. Unlike Obama who picked Joe Biden, a poster boy for Old Washington. She isn't a gimmick, she knows how to get things done, how to fight corruption, how to reform. She knows the issues and she knows about energy issues.

You seriously think if this was a gimmick pick McCain would have picked someone who had all those skeletons in the closet? It's the genius of the pick, it shows he's committed to actual change and moving forward and he values Palin for her views and experience. Not because she is a woman and a mom.

:lol: someone's been reading the mccain - palin website a little too much

Actually, these are my own observations. I have yet to visit the McCain-Palin website at all.

But thanks for just trying to laugh it off instead of actually trying to defend your viewpoint. Shows me that you really have no facts to back up your own position.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="SaugaGames"]I doubt anything she said has much affect on the Democrats. All she did was make the whole thing seem like a playground fight... Especially considering that most don't look up to her as a credible politician to begin with.hokies1313

she's a gimick candidate..

Ha, that's laughable. She's policy candidate. She has more experience than the entire Democratic Ticket, and has experience in Energy matters, and social matters.

then by that argument, she has more experiance than mccain who is actually running for president.. she's a gimmick.. accept it. the rep's needed something to draw attention away from obama so they picked her. she fit the profile. she's young, she has a military son which will play well with the rubes, she has a special needs child which will play well with the pro-lifers. its a stratic choice by mccain and his clan..

McCain experience in other matters that make him qualified for president. He's strong on Foreign Policy, he's led men in battle. He's a maverick, he knows how to work with both parties.

Palin is young, a women, and has a son in the military, and has a child with special needs. It was a strategic choice. But it also brings along with it executive experience, an anit-corruption, and reforming choice. She signals REAL change. Unlike Obama who picked Joe Biden, a poster boy for Old Washington. She isn't a gimmick, she knows how to get things done, how to fight corruption, how to reform. She knows the issues and she knows about energy issues.

You seriously think if this was a gimmick pick McCain would have picked someone who had all those skeletons in the closet? It's the genius of the pick, it shows he's committed to actual change and moving forward and he values Palin for her views and experience. Not because she is a woman and a mom.

:lol: someone's been reading the mccain - palin website a little too much

Actually, these are my own observations. I have yet to visit the McCain-Palin website at all.

But thanks for just trying to laugh it off instead of actually trying to defend your viewpoint. Shows me that you really have no facts to back up your own position.

what changes?

creationism in schools?

no sex ed?

no abortion rights?

which one of her family members flew over to alaska during labor because she didnt want the kid born in texas?

and why wasn't DCFS anywhere to be seen?

this lady seems like a catholic nun who is stubborn in her beliefs. HER own beliefs and won't consider anyone else's opinions.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ya I guess I agree with you because in my opinion I thought the people were supposed to elect the president.

hokies1313

The electoral college was not for southern whites, the founding fathers geniunely were afraid of what the people might do, and thought that having a group of "natural" aristocrats would do better to pick the president.

They did this to avoid having a wildly popular tyrant installed as President.

it's old and outdated and should be removed from contemporary politics. It was ABSOLUTELY there to give the wealthy land owners (which is what people had for wealth, not bank accounts and companies and stock) more power per state. In a true Democracy, it should be removed. We're much closer to a Representative Republic more then a Democracy, but you know that.

We essentially have a stacked system, where one can get a majority of votes and not be elected President (Gore vs. Bush). More Americans voted for Gore then Bush, but because of this outdated system, the people vote for Representatives, not the actual President, to go a cast a vote in the electoral college. It's a total and outright sham for another reason. The representatives that we actually vote for are NOT obligated to cast an electoral vote for the Candidate they were told to vote for by the people. This in itself shows just how corrupt the system is at the very core when it was conceived. The founding fathers' ideas need a 21st century rethinking on certain things, and I would say this issue should be right at the top.

There's just no justification for it anymore, especially since we don't need carriers that takes days and weeks to get the electoral representatives back to Philly/DC like in the old days.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

I don't know. I'm a democrat and I can't vote in good faith for Obama. His interest in cutting military spending scares me. I also know a few other democrats that are going McCain. Guess we'll see in November.

I do watch them.

Ontain

hehe i'm the opposite. i'm a republican and i don't think we need to have a military budget that is larger than the rest of the world combined. that's just ridiculous to me. put that money into improving out public infrastructure that has seen little done in the last 8 years. Using what we have wisely is also a good idea. like how we ordered billions in new fighter jets for the iraq war and they aren't even going to be used because there is not enemy in the sky.

Agreed. As someone who traditionally voted Republican over the years, I will not be pulling the R lever this year. As someone with a business in the heavy construction contracting industry, I've seen my State's infrastructure completely if not all but de-funded in favor of Defense, which is WAY out of control, and that not only includes the Wars we're involved with but Homeland Security.

We spend more on Defense then all other countries combined, and this is a major reason why our infrastructure is so massively underfunded and neglected, not to mention the current condition of the majority of our schools in this country. The Pentagon needs to get off the "nipple" of the taxpayers, this could give all of us a tax break too. I don't think Americans realize just how much money we spend on Defense, including beyond the War , but private defense contracts with Boeing and Lockheed are FAR out of hand. We can still have a healthy Pentagon/Military and have a ton more cash to go around to improve this country and get it into the 21st century.

Civil American Contractors, not defense contractors, are going out of business everyday, as the **industry is now catching up with the rest of the economy. A lot of residential contractors are either done or on the way out and our industry(commercial/industrial) traditionally trails since a lot of our contracts come from State's that have allocated money for highways/other projects years in advance, but the State's have failed to re-up due to the Federal Government running an horrendous debt where the cash is going elsewhere, further hurting the economy. We also rely on Businesses to expand and put out contracts that we can bid, but those are few and far between.

Tax cuts? They haven't helped at all from a "trickle down" perspective that is used in defense of giving everyone a tax break. There are far less private contracts out there over the past few years. Most people are just moving their personal income into more safe instruments, not creating more jobs or letting more contracts. I have absolutely no faith in the Republican party, especially after these last eight years of lunacy.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="SaugaGames"]I doubt anything she said has much affect on the Democrats. All she did was make the whole thing seem like a playground fight... Especially considering that most don't look up to her as a credible politician to begin with.hokies1313

she's a gimick candidate..

Ha, that's laughable. She's policy candidate. She has more experience than the entire Democratic Ticket, and has experience in Energy matters, and social matters.

then by that argument, she has more experiance than mccain who is actually running for president.. she's a gimmick.. accept it. the rep's needed something to draw attention away from obama so they picked her. she fit the profile. she's young, she has a military son which will play well with the rubes, she has a special needs child which will play well with the pro-lifers. its a stratic choice by mccain and his clan..

McCain experience in other matters that make him qualified for president. He's strong on Foreign Policy, he's led men in battle. He's a maverick, he knows how to work with both parties.

Palin is young, a women, and has a son in the military, and has a child with special needs. It was a strategic choice. But it also brings along with it executive experience, an anit-corruption, and reforming choice. She signals REAL change. Unlike Obama who picked Joe Biden, a poster boy for Old Washington. She isn't a gimmick, she knows how to get things done, how to fight corruption, how to reform. She knows the issues and she knows about energy issues.

You seriously think if this was a gimmick pick McCain would have picked someone who had all those skeletons in the closet? It's the genius of the pick, it shows he's committed to actual change and moving forward and he values Palin for her views and experience. Not because she is a woman and a mom.

:lol: someone's been reading the mccain - palin website a little too much

Actually, these are my own observations. I have yet to visit the McCain-Palin website at all.

But thanks for just trying to laugh it off instead of actually trying to defend your viewpoint. Shows me that you really have no facts to back up your own position.

you're right.. silly me. mcain is awesome. so awesome in fact that the repubican party ---- on him in 2000 to ensure he did not get the presidential nomination. led men in battle. that great. no one is going to discount his military leadership.. but oh. wait. as we learned in 2004, military leadership doesn't mean squat to the republicans..

palin's great too. a real fighter for anti-corruption. this from a woman under investigation for taking away someones lively-hood because he divorced her sister, :roll:

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

How old are ya?

LJS9502_basic

that wasn't an insult! lol...I was asking because it's been used for over 15 years...chill buddy

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mismajor99"]

How old are ya?

hokies1313

I'll back this up again. I've lived in Pennsylvania for basically my whole life. Never once have I heard any part of the state referred to as "Alabama."

haha, you guys are taking this personal. It's been used in the media countless times. Whether you agree with it or not is a seperate issue that I'm not arguing.

Here, James Carville has been given credit for calling PA "Alabama between Philly and Pittsburgh", just to show that the phrase exists. As someone who travels the State often, I can attest to this, but if you disagree, that's an argument not worth having as it's humorous if anything.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Pennsylvania#Introduction

"James Carville famously describes Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between."

you're right.. silly me. mcain is awesome. so awesome in fact that the repubican party ---- on him in 2000 to ensure he did not get the presidential nomination. led men in battle. that great. no one is going to discount his military leadership.. but oh. wait. as we learned in 2004, military leadership doesn't mean squat to the republicans..

palin's great too. a real fighter for anti-corruption. this from a woman under investigation for taking away someones lively-hood because he divorced her sister, :roll:

comp_atkins

What do you mean Military leadership doesn't mean anything to the Republicans, if you are referencing John Kerry, there are a whole number of other reasons why they attacked Kerry, and all he could go back to is "I have 3 Purple Hearts!"

Secondly, Palin has not been convicted of any wrong doing in that case. It is still under investigation.

what changes?

creationism in schools?

no sex ed?

no abortion rights?

which one of her family members flew over to alaska during labor because she didnt want the kid born in texas?

and why wasn't DCFS anywhere to be seen?

this lady seems like a catholic nun who is stubborn in her beliefs. HER own beliefs and won't consider anyone else's opinions.

Decko5

What change does Obama want? Or better yet what does he want to change today and then keep the same tomorrow?

What does having a baby born in Alaska have anything to do with politics?

She favors reform, she wants to get away from politics as usual, same as McCain. You seem to forget that McCain isn't anti-abortion, Palin is and she doesn't make policy.

So what change does Obama want? A weaker armed forces? Bigger government? More taxes and welfare?

i only see her taking speeches and not McCain why is that ? does McCain need her to do all the speaking for him ? gameroz

He is speaking tonight, thank you very much.

[QUOTE="gameroz"]i only see her taking speeches and not McCain why is that ? does McCain need her to do all the speaking for him ? hokies1313

He is speaking tonight, thank you very much.

[QUOTE="hokies1313"]

[QUOTE="gameroz"]i only see her taking speeches and not McCain why is that ? does McCain need her to do all the speaking for him ? gameroz

He is speaking tonight, thank you very much.

As will I and I'm sure a lot of people.

Yeah, how's that Democratic Congress doing?

And raise taxes for the rich? Punish small businesses for making more than $250,000? What the hell kind of tax plan is that? Our economy is going to dip even further if Obama gets elected.