OT-Obama, Clinton, McCain

[Dedicated_76ers_fan]

STChaser, as someone who was supporting Romney in the primaries, you probably realize that he would have had some very similar problems with his church as Obama has had, if he'd become the Republican nominee. I don't see how you can hold Obama's long-time church against him just like I'm assuming you didn't have a problem with Romney's. At least that's how I see it.

Good point, Warfan. I think the difference is that Obama tried to deny his association (in the sense that he tried telling us all that he'd been at that church for 20 years and just happened to never hear a controversial sermon), whereas Romney addressed his affiliation with the Mormon church head on (recall his speech which directly addressed his religious affiliation with the Mormon church), and in a sense, initiated a disclaimer before the media watchdogs dredged it up. But you're right, the Mormon church has it's own issues that probably would have been exposed had Romney gotten further than he did - and I would have had to address those issues as they arose.

I would vote for Obama if he were to change some of his policies. Like I said, I like his views on energy, lobbyists, etc. - not thrilled about some of his overseas policies or his wealth redistribution agenda, etc. but I can't shake the idea that I think he's hiding something in terms of how he really views caucasians. In my view, you just don't attend that kind of radical church when your entire candidacy is based on uniting the races and "change". And unlike some of his other supporters here, I absolutely do not think these were isolated events in terms of Rev. Wright preaching hate. Not when you're closely affiliated with Louis Farrakhan. I just don't buy it.

STChaser

Wealth redistribution is a neccessity in order to revive the economy. I know on paper it looks good: Continuing to give power to the powerful(Bush Tax Cuts). But here's what it does in REALITY:

Compare it to miltary force. You have this one line of army. It's really strong but our opponents are able to break through that one line( the rich folks). The Second/Third/Fourth lines are not as strong and as a result are easily defeated by said opponent. Only by properly balancing our power. Only by a balanced economy will we truly succeed. If the rich after all are as powerful as proclaimed, they can actually handle a few taxes for once, no? It's time we started to utalize taxes as they were meant to be utalized. To strengthen our economy and not the rich people's pockets.

STChaser: I've listened to some of his quotes from Audcity of Hope. And you truly have to listen to those quotes to understand where Obama was coming from. This is a man who didn't understand why "White" people hated "Black" and tried to discover that. And through that discovery, he's developed into the leader that can transcend that hatred. It's certainly alot better then choosing McCain to bleed our pockets to death. And a Hillary Clinton who's deadset on sending us into WW3.

EDIT: Barack Obama has infact confessed to having heard sermons from Barack Obama. Go on youtube and look up the speech: "A More Perfect Union". He adresses Wright and why he felt compelled to be loyal to these people. In spite of their radical views. Those views helped to make the ULTIMATE judgment. And I understand that.

To help others understand, I'll use my own personal story. I was an advocate for helping other people. Having been born with Cerebral Palsy(This is a disorder that takes away psychical strength in a sense). My mother helped me through the tough times to be able to walk, talk and eat. And when I was in Easter Seals. I felt compelled to use my blessings to help others. This effort continued when I was older. When teenagers literally robbed their adult peers for their money. I stood up for their cause. Even though I had gotten beaten.

After all of this and other personal stories. Sometimes I felt under-apperciated. Sometimes I felit a lingering hatred for those who didn't say "thank you". Now, does that mean I'm a hateful person? No. But what it does mean, is that the negative feelings are a part of me. And they balance me out. Those negative experiences turned me into a realist. Not every situation is worth fighting for and not every situation is going to work out the way I want it too. I tend to think that these feelings are the right ones to have.

[STChaser]

Dedicated, I'm still reading the passage you posted but I wanted to respond to this statement separately:

Compare it to miltary force. You have this one line of army. It's really strong but our opponents are able to break through that one line( the rich folks). The Second/Third/Fourth lines are not as strong and as a result are easily defeated by said opponent. Only by properly balancing our power. Only by a balanced economy will we truly succeed. If the rich after all are as powerful as proclaimed, they can actually handle a few taxes for once, no? It's time we started to utalize taxes as they were meant to be utalized. To strengthen our economy and not the rich people's pockets.

I'm all for balancing the economy but what your advocating is wealth redistribution i.e. socialism. Why should someone by penalized because they're willing to work their azzes off to make more money?

Many liberals make the false assumption that everyone who is rich has gotten so by taking advantage of other people. That is absolutely not always the case. In fact, it is the rich, who often employ others in their businesses, etc. If you tax them higher rates, they may be forced to lay people off, hence, raising unemployment. It's a trickle down effect.

I'm all for a flat tax because in my estimation, it's the only tax policy that is fair across the board. Everyone pays the same percentage. Here is another issue I have with your logic; what if you tax the rich more. What incentive do they have to continue to work? Why work harder when you know it will only hurt you? Seriously, why would anyone in their right mind aspire to work harder, longer hours, risk starting their own business, etc. knowing that it would only translate in the government taking more of their profits away?

In theory, you would think that higher taxation on the rich would help you achieve your "balanced economy" theory. Now, I will tell you what actually occurs when the government adopts your policy of heavily taxing the rich. Those same politicians who advocate taxation, i.e. Bill and Hillary Clinton for example, find tax shelters. In the case of the Clinton's they created their own foundations to which they contribute to, hence sheltering their own profits and avoiding taxation. Corporations respond by moving overseas, laying workers off, etc. Again, I really think a flat tax is the way to go.

STChaser

[Dedicated_76ers_fan]

Dedicated, I'm still reading the passage you posted but I wanted to respond to this statement separately:

Compare it to miltary force. You have this one line of army. It's really strong but our opponents are able to break through that one line( the rich folks). The Second/Third/Fourth lines are not as strong and as a result are easily defeated by said opponent. Only by properly balancing our power. Only by a balanced economy will we truly succeed. If the rich after all are as powerful as proclaimed, they can actually handle a few taxes for once, no? It's time we started to utalize taxes as they were meant to be utalized. To strengthen our economy and not the rich people's pockets.

I'm all for balancing the economy but what your advocating is wealth redistribution i.e. socialism. Why should someone by penalized because they're willing to work their azzes off to make more money?

I'm not penalyzing the person. Or at least, those aren't my intentions. I think that the "cup" so to speak is overflowing and I want to return to a natural flow. And to do that, we need to have some of the higher powers give up a little bit. To simplify what stance I have, is something like this:

I want to be able to raise the capabilities of the middle and the lower classes. The Rich can stay Rich. But I think that by enabling the lots of other people to join the ranks of the rich. It makes our economy that much more better.

Many liberals make the false assumption that everyone who is rich has gotten so by taking advantage of other people. That is absolutely not always the case. In fact, it is the rich, who often employ others in their businesses, etc. If you tax them higher rates, they may be forced to lay people off, hence, raising unemployment. It's a trickle down effect.

I don't think we're going to tax them to the point where they have to lay people off. Just to the point where we can get a little fresh breath of revival.

I'm all for a flat tax because in my estimation, it's the only tax policy that is fair across the board. Everyone pays the same percentage. Here is another issue I have with your logic; what if you tax the rich more. What incentive do they have to continue to work? Why work harder when you know it will only hurt you? Seriously, why would anyone in their right mind aspire to work harder, longer hours, risk starting their own business, etc. knowing that it would only translate in the government taking more of their profits away?

I don't want to take their profits. I want to make sure the money isn't overflowing for a vast majority/minority of people. I actually want to make sure the Government works fairly for the people.

In theory, you would think that higher taxation on the rich would help you achieve your "balanced economy" theory. Now, I will tell you what actually occurs when the government adopts your policy of heavily taxing the rich. Those same politicians and hollywood liberal limousine stars who advocate taxation, i.e. Bill and Hillary Clinton for example, find tax shelters. In the case of the Clinton's they created their own foundations to which they contribute to, hence sheltering their own profits and avoiding taxation. Corporations respond by moving overseas, laying workers off, etc. Again, I really think a flat tax is the way to go.

I don't deny the flat tax. I think that's a great idea. But I also think that we need to tip the balance of power somehow to make it more equal. So that for example Teachers/Nurses get paid 10X more. They have the hardest job in the world outside of shooting guns and bombs.

STChaser

[Louis Williams]

but I can't shake the idea that I think he's hiding something in terms of how he really views caucasians. In my view, you just don't attend that kind of radical church when your entire candidacy is based on uniting the races and "change". And unlike some of his other supporters here, I absolutely do not think these were isolated events in terms of Rev. Wright preaching hate. Not when you're closely affiliated with Louis Farrakhan. I just don't buy it.

STChaser

Just curious, did you see any of Jeremiah Wright's sermons? Not clips, entire sermons?

[Louis Williams]

Michael Pflegler speaking about Jeremiah Wright:

check out this clip. I hope this gives a different perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0wvQMqS ... re=related

[noone]

but I can't shake the idea that I think he's hiding something in terms of how he really views caucasians.

So what? What are you afraid of? It's not like becoming president for him is part of some huge conspiracy to screw over white people.

[Flash4thewin]

"It's a general philosophical disagreement.

Obama seems to view the government as a positive entity that can force people to achieve what he believes to be good

[Johnny Broad-Street]

One thing for all of us to remember is that the effect the candidate has is rarely as extreme as the speach they give. It's like couture fashion....nobody really wears the stuff you see on the runway. It just serves as a blueprint for a trend in design.

[STChaser]

I don't deny the flat tax. I think that's a great idea. But I also think that we need to tip the balance of power somehow to make it more equal. So that for example Teachers/Nurses get paid 10X more. They have the hardest job in the world outside of shooting guns and bombs.

Fine by me, I'm actually transitioning into the teaching field. No, in all seriousness, even if you gave some breaks to the middle and lower class at the expense of the rich, I think ultimately, it would have little affect. When I think about the costs of living that really screw me (and I'm considering myself middle class here), they are the following:

-Mortgage payments which consume 1/2 my salary
-Auto Insurance
-Health Insurance
-Utilities i.e. Electric, which is through the roof!
-Gasoline
-Income Tax, which takes out a huge chunk of my salary

Now add the smaller expenses that none of us want to go without:
-Internet
-DirectTV w/ NBA LeaguePass (Just so I can watch my Sixers in MD)
-Cell Phone bills
-Trash service

At the end of the month, I'm pretty much running on fumes. When you add the cost of groceries, doctor visist co-pays for my two kids, etc., I'm basically in the red.

Now my wife and I don't really live an extravagant lifestyle. Yes, we have two cars, a decent home, etc., but we're not traveling much and we don't have nannies, daycare costs (my wife stays at home w/ our 10 month old son and our 3 year old daughter), a cleaning service, etc. And yet we're barely getting by.

The major costs to our generation that our forefathers did not have to deal with are the high cost of homes today and the various insurance policies that we're forced to have - that cost much more than they did some 20 or 30 years ago. I'm not sure reducing my taxes much (at the expense of the wealthier) would really help me out much.

Here's a few things that WOULD help:

1) No more auto insurance via private corps. There should be an additional tax at the gasoline pumps that each person pays when the fill up their car and this additional tax should go towards a nationalized auto insurance program. A pump tax is ideal because it means that those who drive more i.e. fill up their tanks more and are more likely to be on the road and get into accidents, are the ones contributing more to the system. IF a person desires coverage above and beyond that which is provided by the government, then they withhold the right to seek additional insurance via a private insurer.

2) Taxation should be administered in one flat tax based on a percentage of one's income. Simple, easy to monitor, less paperwork, less cost to the IRS in terms of paperwork, monitoring, etc.

3) Less spending overseas and more spending on our own domestic programs, issues. Why are we rebuilding Iraq's schools and hospitals when our own are in disarray? Talk about taxation without representation, eh? I know we all want to save Tsunami victims, famine victims in Africa, etc. but the truth is that OUR tax dollars should first and foremost be re-invested for OUR children.

4) Reduced college costs. I think 50-60% of PA never attended college according to the most recent estimate. This is 2008 and that is just wrong on so many levels. The cost of college has gotten out of control, and as we progress as a society, we're called on to be even more skilled than our predecessors. Something has to give. If you really want to lessen the burden on the lower and middle classes, the government needs to subsidize the cost of education. But this doesn't have to come via higher taxes on the rich. I personally think that the government has enough money as is. It's a matter of where it allocates it. Less earmarks and pork barrel spending, less expenditures for foreign aid, nation building, etc. and more funding of our own infrastructure. The answer isn't more taxation. The answer is better allocation.

STChaser

[Dedicated_76ers_fan]

I don't deny the flat tax. I think that's a great idea. But I also think that we need to tip the balance of power somehow to make it more equal. So that for example Teachers/Nurses get paid 10X more. They have the hardest job in the world outside of shooting guns and bombs.

Fine by me, I'm actually transitioning into the teaching field. No, in all seriousness, even if you gave some breaks to the middle and lower class at the expense of the rich, I think ultimately, it would have little affect. When I think about the costs of living that really screw me (and I'm considering myself middle class here), they are the following:

-Mortgage payments which consume 1/2 my salary
-Auto Insurance
-Health Insurance
-Utilities i.e. Electric, which is through the roof!
-Gasoline
-Income Tax, which takes out a huge chunk of my salary

Now add the smaller expenses that none of us want to go without:
-Internet
-DirectTV w/ NBA LeaguePass (Just so I can watch my Sixers in MD)
-Cell Phone bills
-Trash service

At the end of the month, I'm pretty much running on fumes. When you add the cost of groceries, doctor visist co-pays for my two kids, etc., I'm basically in the red.

Now my wife and I don't really live an extravagant lifestyle. Yes, we have two cars, a decent home, etc., but we're not traveling much and we don't have nannies, daycare costs (my wife stays at home w/ our 10 month old son and our 3 year old daughter), a cleaning service, etc. And yet we're barely getting by.

The major costs to our generation that our forefathers did not have to deal with are the high cost of homes today and the various insurance policies that we're forced to have - that cost much more than they did some 20 or 30 years ago. I'm not sure reducing my taxes much (at the expense of the wealthier) would really help me out much.

Here's a few things that WOULD help:

1) No more auto insurance via private corps. There should be an additional tax at the gasoline pumps that each person pays when the fill up their car and this additional tax should go towards a nationalized auto insurance program. A pump tax is ideal because it means that those who drive more i.e. fill up their tanks more and are more likely to be on the road and get into accidents, are the ones contributing more to the system. IF a person desires coverage above and beyond that which is provided by the government, then they withhold the right to seek additional insurance via a private insurer.

2) Taxation should be administered in one flat tax based on a percentage of one's income. Simple, easy to monitor, less paperwork, less cost to the IRS in terms of paperwork, monitoring, etc.

3) Less spending overseas and more spending on our own domestic programs, issues. Why are we rebuilding Iraq's schools and hospitals when our own are in disarray? Talk about taxation without representation, eh? I know we all want to save Tsunami victims, famine victims in Africa, etc. but the truth is that OUR tax dollars should first and foremost be re-invested for OUR children.

50/50 on this one. Yes, our tax dollars should be reinvested for our children. Yet at the same time, I think it's important that we restore our credibility in the world. The way to do that is to stop the terrorists in Darfur.

4) Reduced college costs. I think 50-60% of PA never attended college according to the most recent estimate. This is 2008 and that is just wrong on so many levels. The cost of college has gotten out of control, and as we progress as a society, we're called on to be even more skilled than our predecessors. Something has to give. If you really want to lessen the burden on the lower and middle classes, the government needs to subsidize the cost of education. But this doesn't have to come via higher taxes on the rich. I personally think that the government has enough money as is. It's a matter of where it allocates it. Less earmarks and pork barrel spending, less expenditures for foreign aid, nation building, etc. and more funding of our own infrastructure. The answer isn't more taxation. The answer is better allocation.

I agree. I think we need to invest here at home but in particular we need to drastically change the college system. This **** is just plain stupid. Expecting 17/18 year olds to get 20, 30 thousand dollars for college and/or expect their parents to have the money. And college loans aren't a solution either. Once your done college, with your likely beginning job of 200 dollars or so. You have to pay that big ass fine. It's time to stop charging alltogether for education. If we could do without money for 17 years, we can do without it for 4 more.

In addition to STChaser: I would like to apologize for my inconsistant knowledge on the issue. I am a Young Democrat(16) and I'm looking to get better everyday. Hopefully I can do so quickly as to serve this beautiful state of Pennsylvania which I love.

STChaser

[Dedicated_76ers_fan]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/05/armeni ... pstoryview

This story is saddening indeed. One young man will be forced out of his ability to go to college, live out his potential and his dreams because of our failed immigration policy.

The topic of "Illegal Immigration" is one that we've forgotten and one that I will revive. The point of the USA'S Creation was to break free from prejudice. If you came here, you could pray to your god of choice. Go to your church of choice. School, ETC.

Has 9/11 truly made the difference in our philosophy? I believe it has and sadly, in the wrong sense of direction. Rather then try and kick every immigrant family out of the country. How about:

-Investigations of Immigrant families. And if the Government tries to sleeze it's way out of this by saying that would be difficult. It sure isn't difficult for you to find them and ship em out.

-Take away that damned "U.S" test. No more paying 300 or so dollars just to be a "citizen". For the love of god, that has to be an utmost waste of money and a waste that many people cannot afford, especially in THIS economy.

-Return to Old America. By making proper security checks and making sure that the immigrants abide by our rules. There's no reason for them NOT to be a part of an evergrowing society.

Anything's better then taking away the hard work of that 17 year old boy.

[Rickdiculous]

Obama is my choice.

He has shown to be a candidate whose ability to inspire is comparable to the likes of JFK. His judgement (not voting for the iraq war) and his policies regarding corrupt governemnt (he banned lobbyist funding towards his campaign and the DNC) make him easily stand out from the rest. He also understands and is for net neutrality; probably the one issue that may affect me and you guys most being that we are conversing on this internet based forum. I also believe he will be very beneficial to our foreign relations and image.

[83SixersRocked]

i'm a 20 year old white male and all 3 (now 2) of them suck, in my opinion.

dennis kucinich was my first choice. gravel my second. edwards my third. obama my fourth.

i will vote for obama in november but i won't be too happy about it.

what people fail to realize is that both the major party candidates are your typical politicians, no matter what they might say to convince you otherwise, they are what they are.

Late to thegame as usual, but here goes...

I was a Kucinich supporter as well; I wondered who the other one was.
The only one with the nads to say he'd end our participation in NAFTA.
Edwards my 2nd choice too, until he messed up by investing with the real estate company that also did subprime loans.

I dont like Obama, he speaks in sophisms. I'm not a Hilary fan either but her health care plan is the only one that would cap patient costs. Over the past few weeks she's said some things that made my hair stand on end (though her exit speech was very good). McCain is like 4 more years, and I cant ascribe to a philosophy that transfers gov't power to corporations and squeeze the middle class that hard. I'll vote for Obama if the race is close, but I may not vote at all...I'm not going to help give him a landslide.

[underpressure]

Living in Florida, you won't have another alternative than voting for your candidate.

I am not an American, but Obama would be also my choice. I do not necessarily agree with all points he has made but I do think that he is capable of fixing America's mess. He does not only transcend racial lines, but he has already proven that he won't refrain from working bipartisan. I also like that he has one of the most liberal accounts in the Senate.

As nofx has already noted, McCain is not the Maverick as he used to be. Obviously he has to garner support from the more conservative wing but it is hard to argue against his recent approval of tax cuts for affluent people and his denial of outlawing waterboarding. In the event of being nominated as President, I would be really scared if he shifts toward the right more and more.

[Nofx8881]

-= original quote snipped =-



Late to thegame as usual, but here goes...

I was a Kucinich supporter as well; I wondered who the other one was.
The only one with the nads to say he'd end our participation in NAFTA.
Edwards my 2nd choice too, until he messed up by investing with the real estate company that also did subprime loans.

I dont like Obama, he speaks in sophisms. I'm not a Hilary fan either but her health care plan is the only one that would cap patient costs. Over the past few weeks she's said some things that made my hair stand on end (though her exit speech was very good). McCain is like 4 more years, and I cant ascribe to a philosophy that transfers gov't power to corporations and squeeze the middle class that hard. I'll vote for Obama if the race is close, but I may not vote at all...I'm not going to help give him a landslide.

yeah there are a few kucinich supporters out there. i think if he had made a greater effort to reach out to the young people who probably share more of his views than obama's, he would be a lot more successful. obviously he wasn't going to win the nomination, but you look at ron paul (who despite having some similar beliefs to kucinich, i absolutely cannot stand) and here's a guy that also had no chance to win the nomination but he went out there and he talked to young people and got them excited and involved (much like obama has) and he raised a ton of money and got a decent amount of support and pushed some of his issues (not all of them) to the point where they actually had to be talked about in a REPUBLICAN debate. kucinich never got that kind of grassroots support and that's why he was pretty much doomed from the beginning. he did try to talk about some important issues in the debates but everyone just ignored him. sad, really.

but anyway, i think you should vote no matter how close or not close the election is going to be. i'm one of those people who is going to vote no matter what my choices are. i may have to hold my nose and close my eyes, but i'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils. i feel like if you don't vote (assuming you're old enough to do so) you really have no room to complain. if you live in florida like your location says, you absolutely need to vote because florida is going to be extremely close. of course you don't have to listen to me, but i'm just saying...

also, if anyone was going to mention that as long as people vote for the lesser of two evils, we're always going to have to make that choice...don't bother. i've heard it before. while on the one hand it is true that if people continue to vote and participate in elections where they don't even like the candidates that they can choose from then nothing will change, it is also true that if people simply don't vote things still won't change. it seems like every election cycle america is around 48-50% voter participation. that's awful. countries where you get shot for voting have better participation than america does. but that still hasn't made anyone think about changing their ways. i'd love to have a system where we have more than 2 realistic choices, but i really don't know how we get there without completely overriding the current system...and i don't think that would be too simple.