2008 Presidential Race

[RickWalia007]

how do u feel about Mccain wanting to reinstate draft im a bit scared to go to army

[13genof]

If Ob-mama(sp?) is the Dem. candidate, I  would rather vote for my dog, I may even concider voting for McCain, which would be hard to do as I am a die hard Democrat.     

[merle]

If Ob-mama(sp?) is the Dem. candidate, I  would rather vote for my dog, I may even concider voting for McCain, which would be hard to do as I am a die hard Democrat.     

Okay I will bite, why are you so anti Obama?

[headheldhigh01]

that's just a little too bizarre.  i know an ultraliberal woman who said the same just because, though she'll never admit it, she's subconsciously pissed off because the woman's not getting her way.  hilary's a bigger egotistical spoilsport than ralph nader.  and mccain dumped his first wife to marry an heiress, he was a songbird in the pow camp, and he sold out to the bush boys early on on torture, no matter how much he pretended to turn around later.   much as i prefer ron paul, i might still vote for obama, he's smart as hell and his philadelphia speech was nothing short of brilliant, i think he's got what it takes to be an outstanding president. 

so my comment to my sulking friend, put more politely at the time, was basically don't let the door hit you on the way out, ya juvenile loser 

[merle]

I found his comment bizarre. Obama seems to evoke a lot of deep feelings in people pro and con. Personally I am voting for the Supreme Court. So voting for McCain is out of the question. I would hold my nose and vote for Hilliary had she of got the nomination. I have been appalled that a Democrat would race bait, both Clintons are guilty. They have proved it is not about the party and all about them.

I like Obama. He certainly has more experience that Bush had going into office and has a much better understanding of the different classes in this county than Bush.

I think that he is idealistic and has a lot to learn, but he is clearly very bright and from here appears to be the best hope for the country.

[slyblackdragon]

Can't support Obama because of his inability to condemn or at least acknowledge the atrocity that is "Reverend" Wright. You stayed in this church for 20 some odd years and "never heard" his blasphemy?

[merle]

You have obviously never been to a black church. He has rejected and condemned Wrights statements. Do you need to have him shot so you are convinced that he does not agree. Also the UCC is very different and people are not required to agree or believe everything that the pastor says. It is not a close minded fundamentalist church. Very different place.

It seems to me a lot of people are looking really hard and grasping on small stuff to justify not voting for Obama. He is certainly a better choice than McCain that is just as rigid as Bush in his beliefs and will take us down the same road as Bush. Been there done that.

[moobius]

looks like another election where our choices are a shit-burrito vs a turd-sandwich...

i'll probably write in Ron Paul. i'm tired of voting 'against' the worst of the two choices handed to us

[merle]

While I like and agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, there are plenty that I don't like and can not support.

[moobius]

While I like and agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, there are plenty that I don't like and can not support.

like what? i've heard  plenty of people rip on Paul using that same argument... but are the issues you disagree with him on any more significant than the ones you disagree with for McBama?

people rip on Paul for his stance on the war and foreign engagments, he's NOT an isolationist. any true patriot would see that his foreign policy is more in tune not only with the consitution, but the well being of this country and it's citizens.

[merle]

I don't like his social issues stances, abortion, gays, etc.

I can't say I have a real significant issue with any of Obama's stances.

I tend to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

[moobius]

I don't like his social issues stances, abortion, gays, etc.

I can't say I have a real significant issue with any of Obama's stances.

I tend to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

so what specifically are the details you have against him on social issues?  if your a social liberal/fiscal conservative i don't see the problem...

[merle]

As I recall, he is against abortion, he is against gay rights, including marriage for all.  On social issues he is pretty conservative. I think he is largely right on the war and as I recall illegal drugs. His stance on religion and the government completely misses the point, as he is all for the doing away with minority rights. His fantasy of returning to the Gold standard and his position on taxes is completely out of touch with reality. His environmental policy is a joke. He takes about property rights. Again he is clueless in many ways in my opinion.

There is a lot I don't like about him and the one or two places I agree are not even close enough for me to consider supporting him.

[moobius]

he personally is against abortion, but his position on the issue is that the Fed gov has no right to determine that for the people... it would be left up to the states to decide how to handle it. just like gay rights/marriage.

which is correct. the federal gov has no business making those types of decisions.

how does his position on religion/gov miss the point? please explain

his position on taxes is spot on. it is only out of touch with reality if we continue to invest trillions of dollars in overseas wars, and continue to give handouts to those here in the states. our government has created dependency on itself and roughly 40% of the population is getting SOME type of government assistance. getingt rid of those wasteful programs, focusing on our interests here at home and not meddling in foreign affairs would dramatically lighten the tax need. getting rid of the personal income tax doesn't mean that there would be NO taxes... corporations would still pay taxes on their profits (which accounts for the largets % of tax revenue), there's still gas tax, sales tax, all kinds of licensing fees/registrations, etc...  to think it unrealistic that the tax burden could be SUBSTANTIALLY reduced by utilizing a more intelligent overall approach is absurd. if the gov were a business it'd have been bankrupt LONG LONG ago. instead of working towards a model of efficiency, there is so much bloat and beuracracy that we end up paying $1000 for a hammer...

[merle]

he personally is against abortion, but his position on the issue is that the Fed gov has no right to determine that for the people... it would be left up to the states to decide how to handle it. just like gay rights/marriage.

yes the tyranny of the majority. Why would I vote for someone that is against to key issues I believe in. It is an attempt to step around the issues and he would still be the one appointing supreme court justices. A nice side step but as far as I am concerned he is fundamentally wrong on the issue.

which is correct. the federal gov has no business making those types of decisions.

So it is okay for states to abridge rights but not the federal government.

how does his position on religion/gov miss the point? please explain

Again the tyranny of the majority. The issue is imposing religion or more specifically a certain religion on those that don't share it. Just because the majority are Christian should not matter. We are not a theocracy. Religion should be outside of government, all of it.

his position on taxes is spot on. it is only out of touch with reality if we continue to invest trillions of dollars in overseas wars, and continue to give handouts to those here in the states. our government has created dependency on itself and roughly 40% of the population is getting SOME type of government assistance. getingt rid of those wasteful programs, focusing on our interests here at home and not meddling in foreign affairs would dramatically lighten the tax need. getting rid of the personal income tax doesn't mean that there would be NO taxes... corporations would still pay taxes on their profits (which accounts for the largets % of tax revenue), there's still gas tax, sales tax, all kinds of licensing fees/registrations, etc...  to think it unrealistic that the tax burden could be SUBSTANTIALLY reduced by utilizing a more intelligent overall approach is absurd. if the gov were a business it'd have been bankrupt LONG LONG ago. instead of working towards a model of efficiency, there is so much bloat and beuracracy that we end up paying $1000 for a hammer...

Of course I think our spending priorities could and should be much better and I think taxes should be much fairer. I simply have no trust in Paul to do that.

Merle