Moron from my post it should be obvious I am an Obama supporter. In addition I definitely want the Christian Right out of power.

9/23/2008 10:26:38 AM

^how many churches were you forced to attend the last 8 years eye?


Anyway, didnt obama study constitutional law? If so, why is he agaisnt so many constitutional rights? Seems he would know better.

9/23/2008 10:36:19 AM

what constitutional rights is he against?

9/23/2008 10:41:38 AM

guns, free speech, lobbying

Which makes me laugh on his ads when he talks about ending lobbying. Its really ironic if you think about it.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 10:45:02 AM

THEY TUK 'UR GUUNNNS

9/23/2008 10:47:10 AM

Kainen

Quote :

"There's a difference in being quick to rise and anger in the case of Clinton with McCain who is just plainly petulant, boxing out and off perceived opponents rashly, and most importantly - for fucks sake - being a leader in the hawkish quarter of Washington for decades."

huh? Could you be more vauge? Petulant means rude or ill-humored. That certainly sounds like Clinton at times (and, again I find the guy inspiring). So I fail to see the difference between the two.

It may help if you have some historical perspective. It's easy to get lost in the news cycle, but a little googling would help you see important trends.

First
George Will is actually a long time opponent of McCain's (like most conservatives actually). Indeed, the first article that pops up for "George Will on McCain" is a piece attacking McCain from FEBRUARY 2008. So it really comes as no surprise to me that George Will has come to the same conclusion that most McCain critics have come to--that he's "unstable" because he gets angry sometimes (but somehow in a way totally unlike Bill Clinton).
http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/02/28/mccains_good_times

Second
There are plenty of examples that reveal that McCain simply does not hate all of his political opponents with the vitrol that his ciritcs imagine. Indeed, if you look throughout his history you would see that is not his character. This is a new meme that *shock* only creeped up during this election. Here is a nice piece from New York Times Magazine in 1999 (BEFORE John McCain announced his bid for President). I think it does a good job of revealing what McCain really believes.

Quote :

"And then, for maybe the third time that morning, McCain spoke of how it affected him when Udall took him in hand[Background: Udall was McCain's Democratic Mentor in the Senate]. It was a simple act of affection and admiration, and for that reason it meant all the more to McCain. It was one man saying to another, We disagree in politics but not in life. It was one man saying to another, party political differences cut only so deep. Having made that step, they found much to agree upon and many useful ways to work together. This is the reason McCain keeps coming to see Udall even after Udall has lost his last shred of political influence [Background as the story discusses, Udall is unable to speak much of the time and is confined to a hospital]. The politics were never all that important."

http://www.slate.com/id/2188545/

Perspective, my friend. Perspective makes all the difference.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 10:55 AM. Reason : ``]

9/23/2008 10:50:25 AM

Quote :

"THEY TUK 'UR GUUNNNS "

An outstanding arguement. Made by an outstanding poster. Say, you wouldnt be a democrat by any chance agent?

9/23/2008 10:52:19 AM

Quote :

"guns, free speech, lobbying Which makes me laugh on his ads when he talks about ending lobbying. Its really ironic if you think about it. "

provide evidence.

9/23/2008 11:00:37 AM

Quote :

"There are plenty of examples that reveal that McCain simply does not hate all of his political opponents with the vitrol that his ciritcs imagine. Indeed, if you look throughout his history you would see that is not his character. This is a new meme that *shock* only creeped up during this election."

McCain is a different person this election compared to past elections. He's changed his positions as well as the temperament of his campaign. It could be a strategy of his, or it could be he is actually changing.

9/23/2008 11:11:33 AM

Quote :

"An outstanding arguement"

that's as much of an argument that is necessary against your statement. There is no evidence based on what Obama has said or in the DNC platform that anybody is in danger of losing their guns. It's just a republican talking point - nobody is going to take your damned gun

9/23/2008 11:15:15 AM

moron,

Says the McCain hating Obama critic. Look, I'll admit that McCain has changed political tactics (for the worst imo). But people simply don't change entire fundamental characteristics about themselves on routine basis. And I find the fact that these character changes "just so happened" to appear in an election cycle very convenient for his political opponents.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ``]

9/23/2008 11:15:18 AM

Quote :

" And I find the fact that these character changes "just so happened" to appear in an election cycle very convenient for his political opponents. "

They have been more convenient for McCain, Conservatives seem to be wholeheartedly embracing him for the most part (or maybe they just can't stand the darkie).

9/23/2008 11:18:59 AM

maybe nothing will happen.. but Obama hasn't been very clear on his position in regards to gun ownership. I think that's what is making gun owners worried, there's no telling what exactly he'll do about it.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/16/22186/4153

and then that quote he had a couple of weeks ago isn't exactly the most reassuring thing

Quote :

"“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room. So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said."

what if he somehow did get the votes in Congress?

edit: and while he might not (or might not be able to) take people's guns, it's very possible he could make it a lot harder to get one which I guess is a good thing on some levels, but for law-abiding normal people who just want a gun for self-defense or multiple guns for sport, it'll be a hassle

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 11:27:06 AM

It should be a hassle to get a weapon, I'm not too comfortable with people walking into a store and just picking one up.

9/23/2008 11:33:57 AM

I'm talking about mandatory waiting periods for obtaining a license and waiting periods to purchase, limits on how many you can buy, etc. Nobody is advocating guns you can pick up at a grocery store like any other random item

I'm pretty sure he's against concealed carry altogether too

9/23/2008 11:35:44 AM

^^^Even if I wanted...

that if is an extremely large word in that sentence that you avoide at your own peril.


Again, I need evidence for these claims.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 11:35:59 AM

Quote :

"what if he somehow did get the votes in Congress?"

"even if I want" implies that he doesn't want to.

9/23/2008 11:36:27 AM

Obama said he supported the DC gun ban and talks about ending lobbying in his TV ads.

good enough?

ps agent, I dont own a gun

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 11:37:39 AM

evidence. Quotes. Not your paraphrases and your misstatments of fact.

9/23/2008 11:39:12 AM

Quote :

"They have been more convenient for McCain, Conservatives seem to be wholeheartedly embracing him for the most part (or maybe they just can't stand the darkie)."

-moron

That sentence makes no sense. Conservatives don't embrace McCain because he's a hot-heads, indeed the only people to even mention it are McCain's critics. And really this is the same argument that Bush-fans made against McCain in 2000. The Obama folks talk a lot about wanting to talk about the issues, but they know that character assination gets the job done.

The truth is that the old Democratic party is dead. In it's place, we have one that has taken the lessons of Karl Rove to heart.

1) Appease the Base- Check! (FAIR TRADE! ARUGULA!)

2) Don't discuss policy, when you can attack character - Check! (Do you know how many houses McCain owns!?!??!? He doesn't either! OMG!)

3) Attempt to connect opponent to less popular predecessor (ala Gore to Clinton) - Check! (Bush's Third Term!)

Of course, these tactics don't do much for attracting independents or centrists. That's why the race was so close in 2000 and only slightly less close in 2004. Is it any wonder the race is so close now!?!? I mean, it's a function of the tactics being used. So much for post-partisanship.

9/23/2008 11:39:49 AM

yeah he said "even if I wanted to"

why would he even say that at all? If he's claiming he's definitely for individual gun ownership, why would he even suggest that there's a chance he isn't?

there's evidence in the link I provided about his "straddling" of the issue

9/23/2008 11:40:02 AM

Do you understand what if means?

9/23/2008 11:45:36 AM

do you?

9/23/2008 11:49:25 AM

Yes, which is why I am asking you; because you are taking a completely divergent meaning of the fucking sentence in the first place.

9/23/2008 11:51:33 AM

BUT DEY CLING TU THUR GUNNZ UND RELIGIN

9/23/2008 11:55:21 AM

what is the point you're trying to make? That Obama has never come out and said I am against gun ownership 100%? Of course he hasn't said that, he'd be a fool to. And further more, I don't think that's what his position really is in the first place. He has to choose his words wisely because the gun-owning community is very hardcore about their right to own a gun and he would lose a shit load of votes, in very important places like PA if he got on their bad side. But it's very clear from how he has voted in the past that he supports legislation that could cause trouble for gun owners and potential gun owners. Or is that not clear?

9/23/2008 11:57:54 AM

Quote :

"BUT DEY CLING TU THUR GUNNZ UND RELIGIN"

would it make you feel better if he said "but they turn to religion and guns for comfort", which means the same thing, just more tactfully?

9/23/2008 11:58:40 AM

Here you go nuts.

"There's been a longstanding argument among constitutional scholars about whether the Second Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation....I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws...The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C. I think the notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution."

From his campaign chair "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."
"Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07


As for his lobbyist comments, just search youtube for his ads. Its in nearly every one ive seen from him.

9/23/2008 12:00:25 PM

Quote :

"what is the point you're trying to make? That Obama has never come out and said I am against gun ownership 100%? Of course he hasn't said that, he'd be a fool to. And further more, I don't think that's what his position really is in the first place. He has to choose his words wisely because the gun-owning community is very hardcore about their right to own a gun and he would lose a shit load of votes, in very important places like PA if he got on their bad side. But it's very clear from how he has voted in the past that he supports legislation that could cause trouble for gun owners and potential gun owners. Or is that not clear? "

Because he is not for taking away guns as you fucking claim. Jesus Christ. Also, don't bother lecturing me about the importance of guns in PA, since I am after all from the fuckign Republican T. Learn the goddamned english language and the meaning of words so you don't end up looking so fucking stupid.

Quote :

""There's been a longstanding argument among constitutional scholars about whether the Second Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation....I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws...The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C. I think the notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution." From his campaign chair "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07"

How is that anti-gun ownership? Also, for the lobbyist claim, I need to see a quote where he talks about making lobbying illegal. Saying he is for diminishing the power of lobbyist is not the same thing. I want proof, which you obviously cannot provide.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 12:03:13 PM

Quote :

"what is the point you're trying to make? That Obama has never come out and said I am against gun ownership 100%? Of course he hasn't said that, he'd be a fool to. And further more, I don't think that's what his position really is in the first place."

why don't you learn how to fucking read, I never said he was going to take away people's guns. Other people are worried about that but I just said I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT HIS POSITION IS

as for the "if" and the learning the English language.... why would he even say "if I wanted to" when right before he clearly said he didn't want to and wasn't going to? It was a stupid thing to say to people that have a belief that he wants to. He should make more of an effort to reassure the gun owners, in my opinion, instead of even putting the idea that there was a chance his stance would change on the issue later... because he's already shown that he's changed positions on it before

9/23/2008 12:09:39 PM

haha, yes... "cracking down on lobbyist" . Now If I said I wanted to crack down on free speech.. would you try to defend me? The problems are lobbiest, its politicians who have no character and can be bought.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM7148cTyc

so much wrong with this. good "heartfelt" message, but so much wrong with it.

9/23/2008 12:09:43 PM

THis is rich.

From the Obama Plan

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/economyplan


In one header he wants to help small businesses.

A couple lines later is this gem. "Obama and Biden will ensure that labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama and Biden will also increase the minimum wage and make sure it remains a real wage year over year."

Another goodie

Encourage Responsible Lending Institutions to Make Small Consumer Loans: Obama and Biden will encourage banks, credit unions and Community Development Financial Institutions to provide affordable short-term and small-dollar loans and to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business.


Kinda like mortgage lenders were encouraged to give low income families loans? Are you serious?

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 12:13:21 PM

Rofl...can you imagine a situation where a small business would be faced with the unionizing of their handful of employees? You're a sharp one eye doctor b.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 12:18 PM. Reason : a few bricks short of a house indeed]

9/23/2008 12:18:10 PM

Sure eyedrb, helping small businesses and helping their workers are mutually exclusive

9/23/2008 12:18:26 PM

BUT THUR RILIGINS AND HARD WURK WONT MEAT ARE EXPEKTATUNZ OF LAZY CITIZUNZ WE COUNT ON

9/23/2008 12:19:06 PM

No, the union thing was a bonus.. its the min wage that will affect small businesses you two.

But while on the union.. so someone walks off the job and the business cant replace them? And you all seem ok with this? (is that only bc obama says it?)

9/23/2008 12:22:38 PM

YOU FELLERS NEED TWO STOP WURKEN SO HERD. WE NEED SUMBUDY TO GIVE ALL THIS HUR WELFURE TO

9/23/2008 12:24:25 PM

The only two options are either helping small business and shitting all over workers or helping workers and shitting all over small businesses. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS.

9/23/2008 12:25:05 PM

Quote :

"as for the "if" and the learning the English language.... why would he even say "if I wanted to" when right before he clearly said he didn't want to and wasn't going to? It was a stupid thing to say to people that have a belief that he wants to. He should make more of an effort to reassure the gun owners, in my opinion, instead of even putting the idea that there was a chance his stance would change on the issue later... because he's already shown that he's changed positions on it before "

To assuage the fears of people like you, who do not understand the English language. No matter what Obama says, idiots like you will continue to think he is for taking away your guns. It is a way of saying look even if you don't believe me, I still can't do it, so don't even worry about it and worry about other things.

Quote :

"haha, yes... "cracking down on lobbyist" . Now If I said I wanted to crack down on free speech.. would you try to defend me? The problems are lobbiest, its politicians who have no character and can be bought."

As someone who aspires to be a lobbyist, I will say you are full of shit. Cracking down on the lobbying game will do nothing to hurt the first amendment. It merely means loopholes, like the toothpick rule get thrown out of the window. Lobbyist don't get to write public policy, etc. Only a completely intellectual retarded individual would see it as destroying the first amendment. Oh no, lobbyist will have to actually wait in line if they want to go into a committee meeting, the first amendment is in danger.

Quote :

"Encourage Responsible Lending Institutions to Make Small Consumer Loans: Obama and Biden will encourage banks, credit unions and Community Development Financial Institutions to provide affordable short-term and small-dollar loans and to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business. Kinda like mortgage lenders were encouraged to give low income families loans? Are you serious?"

I was waiting for the CRA talking point to come forth from the mouth of the republicans. Here is a hint, the CRA had nothing to do with the financial meltdown.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 12:27:00 PM

man i'm sure glad i wasn't an ass in school and didn't take it for granted.

it sure is paying itself the hell off these days.

9/23/2008 12:27:34 PM

Quote :

"its the min wage that will affect small businesses you two."

And they are getting a tax credit to offset the minimum wage. I don't necessarily agree with a minimum wage, but I think both policies are pro worker and employer. It shifts a cost (the artificial support of a wage level) from the small business onto the entire society via the tax credit. I'd rather it happen at this level than at the level currently being proposed by the politicians you most likely voted for.

Quote :

"But while on the union.. so someone walks off the job and the business cant replace them? And you all seem ok with this? (is that only bc obama says it?)"

Unions are near death. It's kinda a don't care for me. Having said that, if the corporation is sufficiently large that a union manages to establish itself, I think they should be afforded protection from striking. That is, you can look at Toyota plants where Unions aren't succeeding because the pay is good enough. If it is a US maker plant that doesn't have competitive pay and they fuck up and let a union in because of it, they need to face the repercussions. It's a weird way for the market to work, but it seems to be working, it just took a long time for it to happen.

9/23/2008 12:27:47 PM

spooky.. Honestly. How do you defend the fact that if a worker WALKS OFF THE JOB, obama wont allow the business to replace him? Answer that question please.

nuts, bullshit. It was lowered standards for getting loans, some required NO downpayments or even proof of income.. Keep telling yourself that.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 12:28:48 PM

Quote :

"spooky.. Honestly. How do you defend the fact that if a worker WALKS OFF THE JOB, obama wont allow the business to replace him? Answer that question please."

Going on strike and walking off the job aren't the same thing. Pull your head out of your ass.

Quote :

"nuts, bullshit. It was lowered standards for getting loans, some required NO downpayments or even proof of income.. Keep telling yourself that."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis

only a quarter of subprime loans came from institutions to which CRA was fully applicable; half came from institutions that are exempt from CRA requirements.
non-CRA institutions were making these loans at twice the rate of institutions covered by the CRA.

your talking point is gone.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 12:30:16 PM

When was the last time this happened on any sort of a scale?

The fact of the matter is, a company loses less by letting an employee strike than by firing them and having to absorbing the training and bring on costs of someone to take their place.

You're back to finding stuff to get worked up about without thinking about it's practicality and application to reality.

9/23/2008 12:30:34 PM

Quote :

"Perspective, my friend. Perspective makes all the difference."

Give me a break internet yoda....

I can discredit your partisan republican economist and you get on me for targeting and discrediting the source as bias a day or so back. And you say....

Quote :

"Jeez. I guess if you can't talk intelligbley about a subject...ATTACK THE SOURCE!! "

Now today when I post something from a republican commentator you do just that - target and discredit the source.

Perspective indeed does make all the difference doesn't it.

9/23/2008 12:42:57 PM

Quote :

"To assuage the fears of people like you, who do not understand the English language. No matter what Obama says, idiots like you will continue to think he is for taking away your guns."

and no matter what I say, idiots like you will still think I'm afraid Obama will take away people's guns

I'm not sure why you're attacking me -- I don't own a gun, I never said I thought Obama was going to take away people's guns. I was simply offering up a reason why gun owners were concerned about his stance on the subject.. but if calling me a fucking idiot makes you feel better, go for it

9/23/2008 12:54:19 PM

Quote :

"and no matter what I say, idiots like you will still think I'm afraid Obama will take away people's guns I'm not sure why you're attacking me -- I don't own a gun, I never said I thought Obama was going to take away people's guns. I was simply offering up a reason why gun owners were concerned about his stance on the subject.. but if calling me a fucking idiot makes you feel better, go for it"

because your statements make no sense and have no factual bearing on what was stated.

9/23/2008 1:00:31 PM

I provided a link of his history voting on gun issues and his opinions on gun issues... and how they're not always exactly the same thing

and how that might make some gun owners wary of what he would do while in office


what didn't make sense?

9/23/2008 1:08:40 PM

and

The foreign conflicts around the world are the cause of the economic collapse. Not the shaddy lenders and silly buyers.

9/23/2008 1:11:49 PM

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/in_new_obama_ad_gun_rights_guy.php

9/23/2008 1:16:20 PM