You're not logged in! That means you're missing out on the best features of
WiiLoaded! Be sure to log in or register if you don't already have an account!
Thank you lm-x. Why argue? It isn't getting us anywhere. We both know each other's arguments, what's the point when you aren't going to convince the otherside?
What sits in a tree, weighs six ounces and is very dangerous? A Sparrow with a Machine Gun!
Mod Edit - This is borderline racist; Leaning more towards racist then not though. Consider this you're first warning. I will not allow this kind of behavior in my boards.
Just so you know, I'm considering your first line a joke. But mixed with the second line you're stepping in dangerous territory.
Okay let's back up. You want to complain about people having their arguments set already? When you are already completely set on the idea that you're right about Obama and yet you're telling me to care about other people's arguments?
And we'll stop using those lines when you stop with the whole 'only written two books on himself' and 'no experience' bull. And when you stop blaming the Democrats for everything.
The difference, of course, is that I pointed out those things and THEN asked anyone here to refute it. For the sake of our country, I'd really like to be wrong. Nobody would challenge my point- that he has no experience. They simply side stepped it or tried to make the case that it wasn't important. In fact, the only person I've seen here try to make a good case for anything was sc7.
I'm certainly not blaming the democrats for everything. I just want them to get their fair share of the blame, as most people are quick to lay everything on the commander in chief. Individuals are also greatly responsible, if not ultimately responsible. And I don't mean for voting... I mean for their everyday actions.
Quote:
And maybe America needs some different things. Clearly 8 years under Republic rule has not done the country a great deal of good. Perhaps all this 'socialistic' stuff is what the country needs to get back on its feet.
This train of though is what will eventually lead to the US's downfall. Socialism leads to stagnation. The unproductive leech off of the productive. Which leads to my next point...
sc7 Wrote:
This constant downfall started when the Repugs controlled both houses. Even the most conservative Repugs are admitting that the crash is related to deregulation, a Republican ideal...
One could also make the argument that it was still related to too much regulation. Could you point out where the GOP has, in recent times, deregulated? Sure, it's a Republican ideal, but not many Republicans lately have done it. That is one of my biggest complaints about the Bush administration (along with growing the federal government and the reduction in civil liberties in the name of safety).
The fall of Enron prompted the creation of Sarbanes-Oxley. Has anyone here heard of it? (I have three books on the SOX act if you'd like to borrow one). One could make the argument that SOX caused a lot of what we are seeing now. SOX was created under the GOP's watch (Sarbanes and Oxley were a democrat and a republican, respectively, but the GOP had control over everything in 2002).
Did you hear that the GOP tried to regulate Fannie/Freddie back in 03? The Democrats pushed that one off.
Really, if you think about it, why not let the businesses learn from their mistakes? Bailing them out will only lead to riskier decisions in the future, as they know they are so large that the government will be forced to bail them out again if it goes wrong. In other words, profits are privatized while losses pushed on the taxpayers.
We've gotten to a point where we are so heavily regulated, that the only way to fix things (it seems) is to regulate further. We should, instead, take a step back and let the market regulate itself. There will be corrections... and the regulations that exist can go towards smoothing these out... but the regulations that exist as they are can be causing the problems we are seeing. You cannot, of course, have no regulations, as that is the framework in which the market has to operate, but you have to set only necessary and good regulations, not overreactions to the most recent correction.
So anyone going to watch the Palin/Biden debate? Any predictions on how that is going to turn out?
Who won't be watching, that bare is EXTREMELY LOW for Pailin because i her recent interviews and failure to answer simple questions.
Gotta be honest... Palin impressed. She was presidential. Biden looked tired. His comment about his child was moving though. Biden showed off his experience, and she showed off her wit and didn't let him get away with anything. If nothing else, you should be able to see why she energizes the conservative base.
I like the VP candidates better than Obama/McCain.
She did impress comforting the republican base that she can be let out in public and not be clueless. On several occasions though she avoided the question with her own/same talking points. After Biden's story she didn't have humane response and went to talking points and how McCain is a Maverick. Biden may have look tired but his body language was way better than McCain's on the first debate and he still well defending Obama and attacking McCain. Don't get me started on that weird winking Pailin kept doing.
Yea she did well by not making a fool out of herself, but she didn't prove that she could be president if the situation presented itself. Hers answers lacked substance or in some cases truth.
Honestly, Joe Biden won the debate. I think everyone's just in shock that Sarah Palin didn't make a complete fool of herself. But no, we don't go easy on her because we expected her to do worse... they're both on equal footing as VP candidates, so the distinction should be made: Joe Biden won the debate, which is reflected in the polls.
I can't stand Sarah Palin. And saying that she's inexperienced isn't equivalent to saying that Obama is inexperienced, because Obama doesn't make a fool of himself... he actually seems to know what he's going on about - I can't say the same for Palin, unfortunately.
I like how Sarah Palin has criticised Joe Biden's age, saying "I've been hearing his speeches since the second grade!" Someone really should tell the poor girl that her running mate is six years older than Joe.
Honestly, Joe Biden won the debate. I think everyone's just in shock that Sarah Palin didn't make a complete fool of herself. But no, we don't go easy on her because we expected her to do worse... they're both on equal footing as VP candidates, so the distinction should be made: Joe Biden won the debate, which is reflected in the polls.
I can't stand Sarah Palin. And saying that she's inexperienced isn't equivalent to saying that Obama is inexperienced, because Obama doesn't make a fool of himself... he actually seems to know what he's going on about - I can't say the same for Palin, unfortunately.
I like how Sarah Palin has criticised Joe Biden's age, saying "I've been hearing his speeches since the second grade!" Someone really should tell the poor girl that her running mate is six years older than Joe.
I agree with my Australian mate. In my eyes Senator Biden won the debate. He really hammered her on deregulation, McCain's health plan and the current love affair with big business.
10-06-2008 08:47 AM
z6joker9
Hotty Toddy
Posts: 4,609
Group: Super Administrator
Joined: May 2006
Status:
Offline Reputation: 216
I think that fact checking thins is BS based on what I've seen on MSNBC, they use a different source than CNN and i seen the site's representative rate Obama/Biden claims barley true, mostly true, or even a flat out lie. Obama voting with the democratic party isn't a bad thing after all the democrats have only been in control of Congress for two years. And how low will McCain go bringing up this terrorist association crap that is old and was address during the democratic primaries.
The Milky Tree Did It ^.^
This post was last modified: 10-06-2008 03:44 PM by Wii_Rulez.
well the second one pretty much counters itself. Obama hasn't been in Congress as long as McCain so of course he's going to vote more with his party. They only count 30 of his votes and 335 of McCain's...
As for the second one, FactCheck.org is one website. One isn't enough to prove anything.
What sits in a tree, weighs six ounces and is very dangerous? A Sparrow with a Machine Gun!
10-06-2008 05:46 PM
z6joker9
Hotty Toddy
Posts: 4,609
Group: Super Administrator
Joined: May 2006
Status:
Offline Reputation: 216
well the second one pretty much counters itself. Obama hasn't been in Congress as long as McCain so of course he's going to vote more with his party. They only count 30 of his votes and 335 of McCain's...
Terrible, sorry Rooster. Obama has a record of reaching across the table and getting bipartisan support... that's what his website says! 30 important issues, 29 of them straight Democratic. The fact that McCain has more doesn't mean that Obama's don't count, sorry. I'm not saying Obama shouldn't vote with his party... I'm saying he can't claim to be balanced when he's more liberal than Hillary and he can't claim that McCain is just another Bush when the numbers show otherwise.
McCain.. 266 out of 335 = 79% with his party
Obama... 29 out of 30 = 97% with his party
I guess McCain really is the maverick that they say he is, huh?
HAHAHA... a staunch Republican hater (Alec Baldwin) attacked the Democrats and Clinton even for causing this financial mess after his interviewer blamed Bush. If he can figure it out, why not the media?
Quote:
As for the second one, FactCheck.org is one website. One isn't enough to prove anything.
It's just funny that people claim that fact checker website are fair because they say "fact" but they are just as skewed.
CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their contributions under fake names that look like they were written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida listed their employer as DASADA/SAFASF.
Before you say "it's only two", there are millions, or hundreds of millions, that have been funneled to Obama under similar names.
In other words, it's an attack when McCain criticizes, but when Obama does it, it's not an attack or Obama going back on his word to stay out of gutter politics... it's just him "fighting back." Get real.
As Mr. Obama campaigns for president as an agent of change who promises to clean up Washington's money game, his role in the Stateway project raises questions about the appearance of a conflict of interest and whether he has been participating in the very system he criticizes, watchdogs say.
Palin made a remark yesterday about our troops helping build schools and improve conditions in our NEIGHBORING country of Afghanistan. And the idiotic people at McCain's rally yesterday calling Obama a "terrorist" and at Palin's the deputy introducing her stating Obama's middle name and someone shouting our "Kill him" during her speech. McCain wants to make these weak claims on Obama's William Ayers connection, trying to pass him off as some mystery, shifty character is ridiculous. The democrats learned form 04 that you take negative attacks lying down, so they had to be prepared and actually their case is stronger because it shows McCain's bad judgment on an economic issue before.
Liberal Spin on this vid but the truth is still there
[br]
Terrible, sorry Rooster. Obama has a record of reaching across the table and getting bipartisan support... that's what his website says! 30 important issues, 29 of them straight Democratic. The fact that McCain has more doesn't mean that Obama's don't count, sorry. I'm not saying Obama shouldn't vote with his party... I'm saying he can't claim to be balanced when he's more liberal than Hillary and he can't claim that McCain is just another Bush when the numbers show otherwise.