Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin

OK...I know all of us have our comments about who should win and why. I think both pairs are strong but I question McCain's choice of Palin - while I think it is a strong statement (and risky) to bring in an somewhat inexperienced younger mom image into the mix (extremely controversial but what an impact!), I personally think it was the wrong move for him to make just due to her inexperience, and if something should happen to McCain while in office during the next 4 years, she would become President. I find that a scary situation and one that may turn away voters from the Republican ticket.

Thoughts?

I'm not making any decisions for a few weeks at least. Just want to see how she handles it all first. Being from Philly originally, I know enough about Biden to feel confident he would be ok in the White house if something should happpen to Obama but Palin is still unknown. Once the fuss and suprise over her wears off it will be easier to get a better take on her.

But from just taking to people around town in the past few weeks who where still undecided, Palin's name came up many times as someone they would like to see McCain choose. I don't think his choice of Palin will cost him the election, but I also don't think it will help him as much as he thinks it will. Biggest thing is I don't think she will pull as many of the Hillary supporters over as he thinks she will.

I've got to say, this just made the election a whole lot more interesting.

TS

McCain needed someone from outside of Washington. He needed someone that was not afraid to buck the system now and then. Who could vote or perform according to their conscious. Now I was surprised by the pick of Palin, however she does fit that bill.

I posted in the Political Discussion thread before he announced his choice on why I felt the ones the media were throwing around were bad choices. I had suggested Alveda King.

Palin has done well as governor of Alaska in confronting corruption charges. Yes there is a family dispute were someone claims she wrongly got her ex brother in law fired but from what's been seen so far the evidence is flimsy she did so. (Gosh Mike Huckabee was accused of a dozen ethical violations, and found guilty of at least 5......)

What it ensures is that either ticket is Historic. The same is true if the Green party ticket were to somehow win. After all they have a woman for president and vice president. I believe McCain needed a minority or woman on his ticket to help make a transition and to show he himself was still the maverick.

Huckabee through his forces had stirred up such an Anti Mormon fervor that neither Huckabee could be on the ticket (for fear of losing the Western states) nor Romney could be on the ticket (for fear of the close Southern races).

I think Obama's choice was bad. He has run on the mantra of change, yet he picked a running mate who has been in the senate for 35 years. He himself in 3 years in the senate has shown up for work less than 200 days so far. He did not evoke change in Illinois and to date he has not shown any ability to work across party lines or to get anything done. Biden has run for President twice in primaries, he was not popular either time. He does have the foreign policy experience Obama needs but if the initial reactions to Russia's invasion of Georgia are any indication of the advice Biden gives he'd be better with someone else. The choice for Obama to pick Biden goes against everything Obama has told the people. Remember it is the VP who sits as president of Congress and it is he that will control to a certain extent what is accomplished. Biden's been there 35 years already and has accomplished nothing memorable.

McCain on the other hand chose someone who is a maverick herself. Who has confronted corruption, fought against bloated budgets, is for energy independence, and has been a strong critic of Washington DC even with AK delegation. She's ruffled a lot of feathers in Alaska and that's the real reason someone posted a bogus ethics violation investigation. If there was someone I'd rather have to break tie votes in the senate it would be her over Biden.

I will not vote for McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden though. I plan to vote for Barr-Root since Baldwin-Castle has failed to get write in status in North Carolina.

Interesting thoughts from everyone. I wont make my final decisions until I watch some debates. However, Obama is appealing to me to me because of his struggles and what he's been able to accomplish. Yes, everyone has struggles and many over come setbacks. However, what makes obama appealing to me is his lack of time in congress. Meaning... he has not been their long enough to build "debt" based on comprimises to other senators or special interest groups to get his legislation or bills pushed through congress. Biden has years of debts and comprimises.. However, he may be able to provide Obama with a "beware" approach when obama trys to push though legislation if he gets elected.

John is not the maverick he used to be.. I would have preffered he picked Leiberman.

OK...I know all of us have our comments about who should win and why. I think both pairs are strong but I question McCain's choice of Palin - while I think it is a strong statement (and risky) to bring in an somewhat inexperienced younger mom image into the mix (extremely controversial but what an impact!), I personally think it was the wrong move for him to make just due to her inexperience, and if something should happen to McCain while in office during the next 4 years, she would become President. I find that a scary situation and one that may turn away voters from the Republican ticket.

Thoughts?

Ultimately, people do not vote based on the VP. They pick the President. Plus in this case, the experience argument is quite thin. Let's face it, Obama has only spent 4 years in the Senate, half which he spent running for President. I would rather have someone with executive experience as president than someone only with legislative experience. I agree with JR, McCain's pick was far better than Obama's.

This pick accomplished what it was supposed to, it extinguished the post convention fire of Obama. Instead of talking about his speech etc, we are talking about McCain's VP pick. Very Shrewed.

Interesting thoughts from everyone. I wont make my final decisions until I watch some debates. However, Obama is appealing to me to me because of his struggles and what he's been able to accomplish. Yes, everyone has struggles and many over come setbacks. However, what makes obama appealing to me is his lack of time in congress. Meaning... he has not been their long enough to build "debt" based on comprimises to other senators or special interest groups to get his legislation or bills pushed through congress. Biden has years of debts and comprimises.. However, he may be able to provide Obama with a "beware" approach when obama trys to push though legislation if he gets elected.

John is not the maverick he used to be.. I would have preffered he picked Leiberman.

Obama is beholden to many special interest groups from his days in Illinois Senate (10 years...didn't do anything there either at least nothing noteworthy unless you count not voting a third of the time....).

John couldn't have picked Joe Lieberman. If he had done that then he would have lost what little base support he has for the R and ultimately lost the election. I would not be surprised though to see Lieberman get a cabinet post, I also wouldn't be surprised if McCain nominated Hillary Clinton to the Supreme court.

OK...I know all of us have our comments about who should win and why. I think both pairs are strong but I question McCain's choice of Palin - while I think it is a strong statement (and risky) to bring in an somewhat inexperienced younger mom image into the mix (extremely controversial but what an impact!), I personally think it was the wrong move for him to make just due to her inexperience, and if something should happen to McCain while in office during the next 4 years, she would become President. I find that a scary situation and one that may turn away voters from the Republican ticket.

Thoughts?

You are right. This "younger mom", governor, leading expert on oil and gas problems, corruption fighter has NO experience at sitting in the senate for over 30 years, building up political connections, owing favors, collecting the very best in health and retirement benefits and pay raises, attending cocktail parties, and wasting tax payer money on so called foreign affair trips.

You want experience? Vote for Ted Kennedy, Byrd, Biden and yes, McCain.
I am voting for the bottom of the ticket hoping she will become President.

Just for the record, this has nothing to do with her being a woman. Nancy Pelosi is a train wreck.

I thought that Obama's speech on Thursday night was extraordinary. I'm more sure now than ever that he has the ability to lead our country in a different direction away from big money corruption and big lobbyists back to the center and provide more support to the middle and lower classes where it has been sorely lacking. I support Obama/Biden 100%.

McCain/Palin are just more of the last eight years. The Republican machine and their very wealthy supporters who want to keep the status quo with the financial tables tilted incredibly in their favor won't allow anything different no matter who's on the ticket.

And I have to say, as a woman I cannot believe a mother of five, including an infant less than a year old with Downs syndrome, would take on the vice-presidency. To me she's putting her personal political ambitions above the well-being of her young family. Her time with them will be very limited during the coming four years if McCain wins. Is her full-time working husband going to quit his job to become mom and dad? I'm with Flamingo - I hate the thought of this inexperienced "hockey mom" with no international experience who believes in everything I oppose leading our country if something happens to McCain.

And as far as Hillary supporters voting for Palin, forget it. Palin is pro-life, pro-guns, pro everything Hillary is against. Hillary supporters wanted HILLARY to be president, not some unknown woman to be VP who doesn't agree with them on the important political causes they support. They aren't going to vote for Palin just because she's female. I think the McCain inner circle missed the boat big-time on this one if that was their hope.

Considering the pay scale of a vice president and housing allowances then yes the father could afford to give up his job for 4 years.

I'm amazed that people think she should be disqualified because she has 5 children even if one is of special needs. She certainly has a much stronger record on change, fighting corruption, and fiscal responsibility than Obama, McCain or Biden. We can at least say she attended to her elected duties with all due diligence the last 2 years whereas Obama and McCain have squandered the votes of the people of Illinois and Arizona choosing instead of doing the job they were elected to do, to seek out greater political ambitions while on the government payroll.

Not one single working American who missed as many days of work in the last 2 years as either Obama or McCain have would have a job more less a promotion.

Don't know. Is Obama putting his ambitions ahead of his family? Is Michelle Obama going to quit her job to be both mother and father to the children?

Excellent question there Iprn.

Considering the pay scale of a vice president and housing allowances then yes the father could afford to give up his job for 4 years.

I'm amazed that people think she should be disqualified because she has 5 children even if one is of special needs. She certainly has a much stronger record on change, fighting corruption, and fiscal responsibility than Obama, McCain or Biden. We can at least say she attended to her elected duties with all due diligence the last 2 years whereas Obama and McCain have squandered the votes of the people of Illinois and Arizona choosing instead of doing the job they were elected to do, to seek out greater political ambitions while on the government payroll.

Not one single working American who missed as many days of work in the last 2 years as either Obama or McCain have would have a job more less a promotion.

You are amazed that people think this way JR? I am sickened. I gave my sons and daughters the skills to be whatever they wanted despite people that think like Iprn. Gladly, they bought into it.

Sad, here we are making history, a black man and a woman. Yet, there are people who negate BOTH just because of whom they are.

Making a judment that this woman is putting her political ambitions above her children is not only disgusting, but enforces the fact that we need better educated voters.

Vote for whom you please, of course, but please don't base your vote on inane thinking.

Damn, isn't it bad enough that there are still freaks in our nation that won't vote for Obama just because he is black? Now, we have a voter saying that Palin is not a good mother because she won't have time for her kids if she becomes Vice Pres.:(:cry::cry::cry:

OK...I know all of us have our comments about who should win and why. I think both pairs are strong but I question McCain's choice of Palin - while I think it is a strong statement (and risky) to bring in an somewhat inexperienced younger mom image into the mix (extremely controversial but what an impact!), I personally think it was the wrong move for him to make just due to her inexperience, and if something should happen to McCain while in office during the next 4 years, she would become President. I find that a scary situation and one that may turn away voters from the Republican ticket.

Thoughts?

She actually has more time and experience then Obama. Like HHM said not too many people will decide because of the VP.

My mind is made up already not by party like I used to vote. I am voting for "anyone but Obama" and wouldn't be upset if the dems still maintained control of the house.

After Bush's first 6 years and Clintons first 2 years we need a divided, partisan government to maintain checks and balances.

I thought that Obama's speech on Thursday night was extraordinary. I'm more sure now than ever that he has the ability to lead our country in a different direction away from big money corruption and big lobbyists back to the center and provide more support to the middle and lower classes where it has been sorely lacking. I support Obama/Biden 100%.

McCain/Palin are just more of the last eight years. The Republican machine and their very wealthy supporters who want to keep the status quo with the financial tables tilted incredibly in their favor won't allow anything different no matter who's on the ticket.

And I have to say, as a woman I cannot believe a mother of five, including an infant less than a year old with Downs syndrome, would take on the vice-presidency. To me she's putting her personal political ambitions above the well-being of her young family. Her time with them will be very limited during the coming four years if McCain wins. Is her full-time working husband going to quit his job to become mom and dad? I'm with Flamingo - I hate the thought of this inexperienced "hockey mom" with no international experience who believes in everything I oppose leading our country if something happens to McCain.

And as far as Hillary supporters voting for Palin, forget it. Palin is pro-life, pro-guns, pro everything Hillary is against. Hillary supporters wanted HILLARY to be president, not some unknown woman to be VP who doesn't agree with them on the important political causes they support. They aren't going to vote for Palin just because she's female. I think the McCain inner circle missed the boat big-time on this one if that was their hope.


You can't keep buying the "Repubs are for big money" and "Dems are for the little guy".

Obama has much, much more campaign money and larger doners then McCain. If Obama supposedly gave up a potentialy, successfull career to go into public service just for you and me which is more political BS, then where did he get his own wealth from? Who are his backers that's allowing him not to accept public campaign financing? Something is missing.:blink:

You can't keep buying the "Repubs are for big money" and "Dems are for the little guy". Why not? All I have to do is look at who has been driving Congress for the last seven years when the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses.

Ironic that you are here on a bankruptcy website defending Republicans who allowed credit industry lobbyists to write the 2005 bankruptcy bill and then used the Republican leadership to force it through Congress by using outright lies and extreme exaggerations knowing ahead of time it wasn't going to produce the publicized effects promised for consumers but would tremendously benefit the big credit interests - http://www.consumerlaw.org/initiatives/bankruptcy/hr975.shtml

then where did he get his own wealth from? Who are his backers that's allowing him not to accept public campaign financing? Something is missing.:blink:Obama is getting most of his money from millions of small donors who believe in his message of change. When their money is combined, it equals millions to more than match the traditional big donors. Yes, Obama does have some big donors, but not as many as McCain.

Instead of listening to the "spin doctors" on both sides, find out on your own who is contributing what to each candidate at independent websites like http://www.opensecrets.org/?gclid=CL-Q3ZKqtpUCFRhhnAodfUctQQ and http://www.maplight.org/?gclid=CMHP1rOqtpUCFQEQnQod0jyoRg

I am putting down Obama. I am not defending the republicans. I certainly never defended the change in bk laws. I don't like the republicans because they support bigger government just like the dems support wealthy Americans. Corporate America was always in bed with the repubs. & the hollywood wealthy elites are always in bed with the dems.

I have stated that I no longer want an America controlled by either one party.

Why not? All I have to do is look at who has been driving Congress for the last seven years when the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses.


Umm. The Deomocrats have controlled congress for the past two years. I haven't seen much change.

She actually has more time and experience then Obama. Sorry - wrong. Obama was a Illinois state senator for 7 years before he became their national senator in Congress in 2004. That's a lot more governing experience than two years as the mayor of a small town of 9,000 with a balanced budget due to oil profits then less than two years as governor.

After Bush's first 6 years and Clintons first 2 years we need a divided, partisan government to maintain checks and balances.I agree you about this 100%, BR. This is what our founding fathers envisioned. Nearly every time we've 'rushed off the edge of a cliff' as a country, it's been because of the lack of the checks and balances system inside our government.

The only thing Obama has going for is that he is a charismatic speaker when he talks about "change". Like most democrats- he wants bigger govt and more govt programs that our country can't afford.

Umm. The Deomocrats have controlled congress for the past two years. I haven't seen much change.

Yes, you're right, JGG - thanks for the correction.

I should have said the six years when Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses, then lost the Congress in the off-year elections in 2006 because of their incredibly partisan decisions over six years that hurt so many middle and lower class voters. Over the last two years, the Republican president kept vetoing everying the now bi-partisan Congress passed that he didn't like so we remain at the status quo :)

The only thing Obama has going for is that he is a charismatic speaker when he talks about "change". Like most democrats- he wants bigger govt and more govt programs that our country can't afford.

How do they want bigger government? The only significant thing I can see is we don't have a national healthcare? However, our public tax dollars pays for police, hospitals, fire departments, transportation and much more. Why not an all inclusive healthcare to make us a true socialist state?

Yes, you're right, JGG - thanks for the correction.

I should have said the six years when Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses, then lost the Congress in the off-year elections in 2006 because of their incredibly partisan decisions over six years that hurt so many middle and lower class voters. Over the last two years, the Republican president kept vetoing everying the now bi-partisan Congress passed that he didn't like so we remain at the status quo :)

And that democrat congress has the lowest approval rating congress has ever had.
I find it an oversimplification and generally small minded to blame all the troubles of the world on one party or the other. Even when one party or another runs congress it is usually by a very small percentage. Both parties and partisan politics are how things got screwed up. It accomplishes nothing to blame the other party for anything. The dems stood right next to the republicans and did whatever it took to get reelected and advance their own party agenda regardless of what the people of their home state stood to gain or loose from it. Neither party seems able to recognize a good idea unless it come from someone with the same initial after their name (D or R) as their party affiliation. I'm sorry, but if something is a good idea, well then it is a good idea and if it sucks as idea, it sucks. Everyone wines that the reason the Dems haven't made any more meaningfull change than the republicans have due to president Bush's veto power. I'm sorry that is bull. If a bill isn't good enough for 2/3 of people to see it as a good idea mabey you need to take a second look at the bill and trim some of the special interests stuff(deleted inapropriate word) out of it. If 2/3 of people can't get behind something mabey it shouldn't be law.
Blaming the Rebulicans or blaming the democrats is bull (deleted inappropriate word) and a cop out. And honestly one I didn't expect to come from someone as intelligent as you.

I think the media has too much influence in this country. I think back to 9-11-2001 and how many people thought our economy would be devastated by what happened. And it was for a while, but it came back remarkably fast. The President had a very high approval rating after that happened and Congress, for a small moment in time, seemed to be on the same team. I remember thinking that the media was not going to like that and I was right. Little by little the attacks began to appear and I watched as our country's credibility was destroyed. I personally believe OUR OWN MEDIA, their 90% liberal bias and lack of journalistic integrity have effected what the WORLD thinks of us, our President and our politics, etc, MORE than what any government leader has done.

I meant to say also, we can't blame one person (the President) for everything we are going through. We can't even really just blame Congress - although they certainly have more to do with it all than just the Pres. Just like we can't simply blame the credit card companies for our bankruptcies -- we all have to take some responsibility for our state of affairs.

Both parties and partisan politics are how things got screwed up. It accomplishes nothing to blame the other party for anything. So where does accountability start if neither party can be held responsible for decisions made?

The dems stood right next to the republicans and did whatever it took to get reelected and advance their own party agenda regardless of what the people of their home state stood to gain or loose from it. All too often, yes, I agree.

If a bill isn't good enough for 2/3 of people to see it as a good idea mabey you need to take a second look at the bill and trim some of the special interests crap out of it. If 2/3 of people can't get behind something mabey it shouldn't be law. I believe that you are making this too simple.

Bush's veto of the bill authorizing spending on water projects was overturned in 2007 because in an election year it was safe politically for both parties to get behind a good idea. Bush's SCHIF veto should have been overturned too, but the Republicans saw it as too opposite their rigid message of never raising taxes so now thousands of children are left without healthcare coverage they had for years without any extra taxes needed. If that isn't partisan voting down the party line, I don't know what is. I'm sure there are good examples of Democrats doing the exact same thing during the Clinton years. All I have to say is shame on both parties when they put their re-election ahead of good ideas that are supported by the majority of Americans.

Blaming the Rebulicans or blaming the democrats is bullshit (excuse the language) and a cop out. And honestly one I didn't expect to come from someone as intelligent as you.Just because I don't personally agree with your views on this topic doesn't make me a cop out, JGG. Just makes me someone who disagrees with you, that's all :)

Last I heard, we're still in a country (and members of a forum) where we can publicly differ with each other. Personally I think that's what truly makes our country unique and the guiding force to our power internationally - that ability to openly disagree as citizens and still find a way to make mostly sound decisions through the chaos. But sometimes we make big mistakes - passing the 2005 bankruptcy bill for one - and I believe in holding the people who drove that decision and others through Congress by lies and coercion responsible.

I will only add one last thing about people tendency to blame one party or the other.

I am a republican. I am still very much undecided about who I will vote for as president. I have been leaning towards Obama. But whenever I try to learn more about him or try and figure out what he believe I have to wade through all the people blaming me and all members of my party for all the evils of the world. As a republican it makes it awfully hard to look through it to the man. His supporters are not doing him any favors by bashing everyone who is not a democrat and who does not believe exactly how he does.

Like it or not, a candidates strongest supporters say a lot about him and his character. If you really like the guy enough to want to vote for him and want to see him a president you would be better served talking about issues. I respect opinions and give some credit if you pointed out that McCain hasn't said much about how he's going to fix healthcare or if you pointed out that Obama has specific ideas on workers rights (ie. guarantee’s time off and better maternity leave). Same as I give McCain supporters credit when than talk about the fact that McCain has the credentials and experience to actually get us out of Iraq. Or that they didn't like that Obama voting record doesn't support a lot of the things he now claims to support.

I can't have much respect for any person who has blind faith in one political party or another. I am a member of one political party because overall I believe in the BASIC beliefs of that party. But you know what, I acknowledge that each party has serious issues. And that pretty much all politics are about getting elected. To such a degree that the beliefs of the party get twisted and corrupted. But when people claim that one party or another is going to single handedly save this country or that one party or another is responsible for the mess we are in let me remind you that the republicans had the majority and the president and they didn't change much. So our people gave congress to the democrats. They haven't done any better of a job and have the lowest approval rating of a congress ever. So, my party isn't going to solve all the problems of the world and neither is yours. The only way problems will ever get solved is if we stop bashing each other, name calling, and acting life 5 year old children. Only when we can all meet at the same table and have an intelligent, adult discussion will the problems of our country get solved.

I believe there is good and bad in each party's platform and good and bad in each candidate.

I believe in holding each and every PERSON responsible for the choices they make as my elected official. Their personal integrity is my concern not their party affiliation.

I am undecided. I am leaning towards Obama right now and have never voted democrat in my life. I listened to Obama and I will listen to McCain before making a decision. My decision may happen in the voting booth.

I don't believe, however, that Palin's run for the veep will change her lifestyle much as far as her personal life goes. She's already a Governor and fully entrenched in her career. I'm sure she will just continue to do whatever it is she does now to make it work for her family. I heard her husband is home with the kids much of the time now.

I also find it curious that Biden was implemental in passing the 2005 bankruptcy laws and that at that time, his son made a substantial sum as a consultant for MBNA, one of the biggest lobbiests for the new laws.

ep

Ultimately, people do not vote based on the VP. They pick the President. Plus in this case, the experience argument is quite thin. Let's face it, Obama has only spent 4 years in the Senate, half which he spent running for President. I would rather have someone with executive experience as president than someone only with legislative experience. I agree with JR, McCain's pick was far better than Obama's.

This pick accomplished what it was supposed to, it extinguished the post convention fire of Obama. Instead of talking about his speech etc, we are talking about McCain's VP pick. Very Shrewed.

Shrewd indeed.

Normally I would agree with you that people do not vote based on the VP. However, given McCain's age and past health problems, I believe a lot of people will be taking this into account.

ep

Change. Can't hurt.

Obama/Biden.

I think the media has too much influence in this country. I think back to 9-11-2001 and how many people thought our economy would be devastated by what happened. And it was for a while, but it came back remarkably fast. The President had a very high approval rating after that happened and Congress, for a small moment in time, seemed to be on the same team. I remember thinking that the media was not going to like that and I was right. Little by little the attacks began to appear and I watched as our country's credibility was destroyed. I personally believe OUR OWN MEDIA, their 90% liberal bias and lack of journalistic integrity have effected what the WORLD thinks of us, our President and our politics, etc, MORE than what any government leader has done.

I used to agree with this but I no longer do. The American people are really not stupid. We are the best at everything!:yes2:

We are not drinking the koolaid and buying what they tell us anymore. More and more Americans feel Congress is to blame for some of the problems we are facing. This seems like a new concept since most people always used to blame the president.

We are all smarter then the stupid media thinks and it's showing up in their financial statements since so many news papers and network tv stations are hurting in the ratings. I couldn't be more pleased.

I am very happy when these bums are unemployed and broke and I hope the pain keeps coming their way.:clapping: I also hope life gets better for the rest of us that love our country unlike them.

So where does accountability start if neither party can be held responsible for decisions made? .
Simple, the individual

I also find it curious that Biden was implemental in passing the 2005 bankruptcy laws and that at that time, his son made a substantial sum as a consultant for MBNA, one of the biggest lobbiests for the new laws.Yes, nothing for Biden to be proud of there.

For those who are curious, Senator McCain and Senator Biden voted for the 2005 bankruptcy law, Senator Obama was one of the small minority that did not. Senator Hillary Clinton voted "Present" - neither yes or no.

Yes, nothing for Biden to be proud of there.

For those who are curious, Senator McCain and Senator Biden voted for the 2005 bankruptcy law, Senator Obama was one of the small minority that did not. Senator Hillary Clinton voted "Present" - neither yes or no.



I never agreed with the stupid bk reforms of 05 but it's a small issue in a nation of 300 million to vote for a president for.

I wouldn't vote for a president just because he or she voted down the bk laws but also wants to have a cup of tea with enemys of America. Barack Osama wants to negotiate with the leader of Iran when their starting point is to kill Americans and wipe Israel from the face of the earth.

I will fill out a means test form and have a leader that won't bargain with our enemy's thank you.

I used to agree with this but I no longer do. The American people are really not stupid. We are the best at everything!:yes2:

We are not drinking the koolaid and buying what they tell us anymore. More and more Americans feel Congress is to blame for some of the problems we are facing. This seems like a new concept since most people always used to blame the president.

We are all smarter then the stupid media thinks and it's showing up in their financial statements since so many news papers and network tv stations are hurting in the ratings. I couldn't be more pleased.

I am very happy when these bums are unemployed and broke and I hope the pain keeps coming their way.:clapping: I also hope life gets better for the rest of us that love our country unlike them.

I agree with you in that Americans ARE smart and are finally starting to "wise up" to the unscrupulous tactics of the media. They were constantly pushing Gore and then even more so with Kerry, but Americans did not blindly follow their lead as they had expected.

But they haven't given up and are still at it, trying harder than ever - both subliminally and blatantly.

Candidates are dressed up, made over and presented like Hollywood movie stars and Hollywood actors and others in the industry LOVE to talk politics and espouse their opinions, as if they are somehow better informed than the rest of us! I fail to see WHY their opinions should matter to any of us, but the "news" media is sure to let us know about it, as if their opinions are "news". Candidates almost have to appear on all the talk shows and are talked about incessantly even when they aren't there. Movies and TV shows have mostly liberal political agendas continually running through them. Its just everywhere. And respect for those who do serve is a thing of the past - most of that due to the media as well.

Sorry - wrong. Obama was a Illinois state senator for 7 years before he became their national senator in Congress in 2004. That's a lot more governing experience than two years as the mayor of a small town of 9,000 with a balanced budget due to oil profits then less than two years as governor.

I agree you about this 100%, BR. This is what our founding fathers envisioned. Nearly every time we've 'rushed off the edge of a cliff' as a country, it's been because of the lack of the checks and balances system inside our government.

A senator is not in a governing position as you stated.

I will fill out a means test form and have a leader that won't bargain with our enemy's thank you.

If you'd have asked me right after 9/11, I would have agreed with you. I had a kill or be killed mentality. However, I have seen where that has NOT gotten us.

I am willing to give diplomacy a try. I think Osama's approach is to "reason", not "bargain". He said in his speech the other night, that he will be tough if needed. Yes, I have my doubts that this approach will work and I know that the enemy probably cannot be reasoned with but the current system is failing miserably and I resent trillions of dollars being spent on another country when people are starving here.

Now, before anyone replies that the fact that we have not been attacked on our own soil since 9/11 is proof that the current system does work, I would remind you that the current administration refuses to secure our own borders and we are just as vunerable as we were back then.

ep

Candidates are dressed up, made over and presented like Hollywood movie stars and Hollywood actors and others in the industry LOVE to talk politics and espouse their opinions, as if they are somehow better informed than the rest of us!

You know what I find particularily amusing? Not about the candidates but about the politicians in general? There are so many obvious toupes riding the heads in the congress and senate and they look absolutely ridiculous. I have a tough time taking any man with a toupe seriously.

Sorry, off topic. :tongue:

ep

LOLOLOL omg, you are so politically incorrect.

If you'd have asked me right after 9/11, I would have agreed with you. I had a kill or be killed mentality. However, I have seen where that has NOT gotten us.

I am willing to give diplomacy a try. I think Osama's approach is to "reason", not "bargain". He said in his speech the other night, that he will be tough if needed. Yes, I have my doubts that this approach will work and I know that the enemy probably cannot be reasoned with but the current system is failing miserably and I resent trillions of dollars being spent on another country when people are starving here.

Now, before anyone replies that the fact that we have not been attacked on our own soil since 9/11 is proof that the current system does work, I would remind you that the current administration refuses to secure our own borders and we are just as vunerable as we were back then.

ep


True about our own borders and Bush. Not only did MBNA, BOA, Chase and the rest of these slobs buy Bush and the rest of congress for bk reform but they don't want the borders secure. They need the cheap labor the Mexicans offer and more customers for their destructive products.

The borders alone won't solve national security though. The border is too wide to keep the thugs out. We have to go after the terrorists where they are to keep ourselves safe.

Diplomacy may work with a civilized, sovereign nation but it shouldn't be a thought for terrorist’s organizations.

I think what separates me from a lot of you that don’t agree with me is as far as I am concerned everyday since 9/11/01 is 9/12/01. I’m one of the people that feel it should never happen again even if we have to invade another country. Some of you felt the shock that day and moved on. I don’t think like you. That can never be forgotten or forgiven. When it comes to this subject everyday for the rest of my life is 9/12/01. You don’t have to agree with me but that’s just me.

A senator is not in a governing position as you stated.Sigh....a semantics argument. Ok, let's see...

Definition of "govern" - "To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; to exercise sovereign authority in;To control the actions or behavior of; to keep under control; to restrain; To exercise a deciding or determining influence on; To control the speed, flow etc. ..." From en.wiktionary.org/wiki/govern

Or this definition from www.dictionary.com:
gov·ern
–verb (used with object)
1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper.
4. to serve as or constitute a law for: the principles governing a case.
5. Grammar. to be regularly accompanied by or require the use of (a particular form). In They helped us, the verb helped governs the objective case of the pronoun we.
6. to regulate the speed of (an engine) with a governor.
–verb (used without object)
7. to exercise the function of government.
8. to have predominating influence.

So according to these definitions, a state senator, a national senator, and a state governor all 'govern'.

Some of you felt the shock that day and moved on. I don’t think like you. That can never be forgotten or forgiven. When it comes to this subject everyday for the rest of my life is 9/12/01. You don’t have to agree with me but that’s just me.

Who's forgetting? Who's forgving? While I agree that there are people who have become complacent, I don't consider myself one of them.

You are right though, I do not live forever on 9/12/01 and I don't think it would be healthy to do so.

I just want someone, anyone to do the right thing, and I'm not even sure what that is. Until there is a proven formula, there will unfortunately be much trial and error.

I believe in the Patriot Act by the way..(ooooooooo, I'm gonna get tarred and feathered for that one)...I think it has warded off some serious threats.

The thing is, I don't know what the answer is. All I know is we haven't found it yet so we have to keep looking.

The problem with this country, while it can be argued that the American people are not stupid all day long, is that not enough people pay attention to what's going on. Many people go into the voting booth and use an eeny meeny miny mo method to cast their ballot when they are unfamiliar with an issue.

Too many people will either not bother to vote, or not bother to even familarize themselves with the candidates. Have you ever seen one of those guy on the street interviews where at least half of the public cannot name the current vice president?

I didn't mean to twist the discussion into something else. Just want you to know that I do not take the current election or 9/11 and its aftermath lightly. And in no way do I believe that's is over. But it certainly is not 9/12/01. If it was, you and I would still be on the same page.

ep

The problem is the Republicans and Democrats who have jointly controlled this nation for 150 years. It is not one party or the other. The largest blame has to fall upon Congress itself because it is the one that passes the laws, however the President shares blame when he does not veto bad legislation, even if Congress can override his veto.

You will not get national health care regardless of whether McCain or Obama is elected. The bottom truth is the government can't afford it and that is why no one in the last 2 years of the Democratic Lead Congress has introduced it. It is also why it failed during the Clinton Administration. Even if you completely dismantled our entire military, it still would not give enough money to run a national health care system. Americans are starting to wake up but in truth our government is bankrupt and has been for about two to three decades. Yes I know on paper Clinton had budget surpluses but even in those years the national debt still rose it was all a lie. They play shell games with the paperwork to make it look better than it is.

FDR's policies and programs did not end the Great Depression, they prolonged the Great Depression. Excessive government spending has led our nation to having a tax burden that is actually greater than the burden we rebelled against in 1776. Big government means larger taxes.

Americans need to become self sufficient again, stop relying on the government to do everything for you. The government can only provide everything for you if they take everything from you. It is the only way.

The financial situation of the government will only worsen in the next decade. Your taxes will go up unless there is reform in government spending and a reduction in government programs. This is irregardless of who is President and who is in Congress.

We have gotten to this situation because of Congress neglect in its constitutional duties. They in the 1930s disposed of their constitutional duty to oversee the currency of the United States by forming the Federal Reserve Bank. Since the late 70s they have ignored their constitutional duties to write the actual laws they pass by passing such work to professional bureaucrats. Starting in the mid 80s they stopped even reading the bills they pass. If you don't write the bill and you don't read it, how can you know what you are passing? Since the 30s they have increasingly taken control of areas that were not enumerated unto them in the Constitution but were rather enumerated to the States and this has caused a balloon effect on the spending of the Federal Government.

The Presidents of the last 70 years are not blameless either. They should have been using their veto power more often to curb spending and unconstitutional programs.

These are the effects of our nation ignoring the warning George Washington gave in his farewell address:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html

These are dangerous waters and times for our nation. It is a time we need to realize that the R and D have done more harm in the last 100 years than good. They have sought to enslave the people to them. For is a man truly free even if he has food and clothing and shelter yet the government takes half of all he has. That is where we are headed, half and even more if we allow Federal Programs to continue as they are or introduce new ones. It is time for us to become self sufficient again to become as America of a younger day. Then reliance on oneself, one's family, one's community and one's church was more important that reliance or hand outs from the Federal Government. Government regulations leads to increased cost of goods and services as do government taxes. It is time to awake our minds and realize the simple basic truths. To be free we must be self reliant.

If we do not change course in the next decade it is likely the 22nd century will start with a United States bereft of hope, security, liberty, and strength.

Sorry Iprnr

The senate is not a governing body. You can't just get the definition from a dictionary and apply it out of context.

In the context that you used it, you implied that a senator has governing experience due to his being a part of the senate.

Now, if you want to state that he has governing experience due to some other things he has done, I would agree, it is a matter of semantics.
--------------
JR, just read your post, excellent, and I am in total agreement.